ISSUE: 20171122- Re: The true application of s44, etc & the constitution

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST my concern is the true meaning and application of the constitution.

Unless and until if ever at all there is a successful referendum to amend s44 of the constitution
the real meaning and application remains to be that we are and remain to be British subjects and
therefore there can be no violation as to if Pauline Hanson and/or others has entitlements under
British law.
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/citizenship-saga-leaves-hanson-hanging/ar-
BBFpNtN?li=AAavLaF&ocid=spartanntp
Citizenship saga leaves Hanson hanging
The first question is did the electors in any way or shape approve any referendum to amend s44
of the constitution? If it wasnt or no such referendum was ever held then the true meaning and
application remains as was at the time of federation.
Prisoners were sentenced and some serving life sentences. Is that meaning that those who were
sentenced under British rule no longer have to serve their life sentences?
Take a person born prior to 1948 as a British Subject within the Commonwealth of Australia is
that meaning that such a person somehow no longer is entitled to b ne a member of parliament,
not because the constitution changed nor the person at any time left Australia but merely because
the High Court of Australia twisted/perverted the meaning of the constitution? Or can this person
being a British subject nevertheless serve as a Member of (federal) Parliament while others
cannot?
Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
Sir JOHN DOWNER.-Nothing should be too easy. We have the power to alter the Constitution, but it
is a power that can only be exercised with great difficulty.
END QUOTE

If it was intended to have unelected judges to twist and pervert the true meaning and application
of the constitution then no need for s128 at all.
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. WISE.-If the Federal Parliament chose to legislate upon, say, the education question-and the
Constitution gives it no power to legislate in regard to that question-the Ministers for the time being in each
state might say-"We are favorable to this law, because we shall get 100,000 a year, or so much a year, from
the Federal Government as a subsidy for our schools," and thus they might wink at a violation of the
Constitution, while no one could complain. If this is to be allowed, why should we have these elaborate
provisions for the amendment of the Constitution? Why should we not say that the Constitution may be
amended in any way that the Ministries of the several colonies may unanimously agree? Why have this
provision for a referendum? Why consult the people at all? Why not leave this matter to the Ministers
of the day? But the proposal has a more serious aspect, and for that reason only I will ask permission to
occupy a few minutes in discussing it.
END QUOTE

Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE

p1 22-11-2017 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.

INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
 Mr. GORDON.-Well, I think not. I am sure that if the honorable member applies his mind to the
subject he will see it is not abstruse. If a statute of either the Federal or the states Parliament be taken
into court the court is bound to give an interpretation according to the strict hyper-refinements of the
law. It may be a good law passed by "the sovereign will of the people," although that latter phrase is a
common one which I do not care much about. The court may say-"It is a good law, but as it technically
infringes on the Constitution we will have to wipe it out." As I have said, the proposal I support retains
some remnant of parliamentary sovereignty, leaving it to the will of Parliament on either side to attack
each other's laws.
END QUOTE

Hansard 22-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Mr. SYMON (South Australia).-
That this is not like an Act of Parliament which we are passing. It is not in the position which Mr. Barton
has described, of choosing or setting up a code of laws to interpret the common law of England. This
Constitution we are framing is not yet passed. It has to be handed over not to a Convention similar to
this, not to a small select body of legislators, but to the whole body of the people for their acceptance or
rejection. It is the whole body of the people whose understanding you have to bring to bear upon it, and
it is the whole body of the people, the more or less instructed body of the people, who have to understand
clearly everything in the Constitution, which affects them for weal or woe during the whole time of the
existence of this Commonwealth. We cannot have on the platform, when this Constitution is commended
to the people, lawyers on both sides, drawing subtle distinctions, which may or may not be appreciated
by the people.
END QUOTE

Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
Mr. CARRUTHERS (New South Wales).-It is worth while considering the stages that a proposed law
has to go through, and the opportunity afforded to a member of either House or a member of the
Executive to call attention to any infraction or infringement of the Constitution. It does not require a
majority of the members of the House of Representatives to insist that the Constitution shall be obeyed
in the matter of procedure; it only requires one solitary member to rise to a point of order, and the
Speaker has to give a legal interpretation of the rules of procedure. It only requires one member of the
Senate to call the attention of the President to the fact that a Bill is introduced contrary to the
Constitution for that proposed law to be ruled out of order. It does not require a majority of the states
to insist that the Constitution shall be obeyed, because a majority of the states cannot by resolution
infringe the Constitution. Neither House could pass the standing order which would give the majority
power to dissent from the Speaker's or President's ruling. The standing orders only confer certain
explicit power. They give no power to either House to pass an order which would enable its members to
amend the Constitution.
END QUOTE
HANSARD 31-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. SOLOMON.- We shall not only look to the Federal Judiciary for the protection of our interests,
but also for the just interpretation of the Constitution:
END QUOTE

Hansard 11-3-1898 Constitution convention Debates

QUOTE Sir JOSEPH ABBOTT.-
Can it be suggested, however high the Federal High Court may be in regard to attainments, that under any
circumstances the Judges of that court would have the experience, the training, and the knowledge of the men
composing the Court of the Privy Council? Would it be possible to separate the members of the Federal
High Court from local influences? Unintentionally, men are influenced by their surrounding
conditions. It does not follow because a man is to-day in public life as Attorney-General, and to-
morrow is sitting on the bench wearing the ermine, that he can dissociate himself or separate himself
from local surroundings and be unbiased or uninfluenced by those considerations. Take a case of
importance arising here. I admit that our Judges have great learning and extensive knowledge, and I admit the
great power and the great strength of our Supreme Courts throughout the various colonies, but I say that they
can have no experience equal to the men who occupy positions on the bench of the Privy Council. We are
told, however, that the members of the Privy Council do not understand our law, that they do not know our
conditions, and that they are unacquainted with local influences. Well, I have always considered that a very
trifling matter in fact, I have thought it was a very desirable thing that they did not understand our local
conditions, because our laws are not to be interpreted in regard to local conditions, but according to the intent
contained within every word in them, apart from local conditions. I have heard men express their
p2 22-11-2017 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
 astonishment that the Judges of our own Supreme Court have not taken into consideration the Hansard
debates when they were giving judgment. I feel quite sure that when an appeal goes to the Privy Council all
these considerations are completely wiped out. The members [start page 2290] of the Board of the Privy
Council do not consider our local conditions, but interpret our Acts in the words in which they are printed.
END QUOTE

HANSARD 19-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
Mr. BARTON: I will look into these matters. Notwithstanding the able draughtsmanship of the 1891
Bill, there are several clauses not quite in their right place in it, and it would be well to alter their
order. The Drafting Committee will look into that matter, and at the end of the proceedings will ask
hon. members to give their attention to such alterations as they may suggest. It will be better to
transpose some of the clauses. With reference to Sir Edward Braddon's amendment, which is put in a
better form than that suggested by Mr. Symon, I do not think there is any actual necessity for it. I find
in Maxwell on "Interpretation of Statutes," 1st edition, page 192, this passage:
It is where the enactment would prejudicially affect vested rights, or the legal character of past Acts,
that the presumption against a retrospective operation is strongest. Every Statute which takes away or
impairs vested rights acquired under existing laws, or create a new obligation, or imposes a new duty,
or attaches a new disability in respect of transactions or considerations already past, must be
presumed, out of respect to the Legislature, to be intended not to have a retrospective operation. Thus
the provision of the Statute of Frauds, that no action should be brought to charge any person on any
agreement made in consideration of marriage, unless the agreement were in writing, was held not to
apply to an agreement which had been made before the Act was passed. The Mortmain Act, in the
same way, was held not to apply to a devise made before it was enacted. So it was held that the Act of 8
& 9 Vict., c. 106, which made all wagers void, and enacted that no action should be brought or
maintained for a wager, applied only to wagers made after the Act was passed.
Sir GEORGE TURNER: There is no doubt about those cases, I should say.
Mr. BARTON: In subsequent editions these examples are multiplied. The principle underlying the
matter is this: that a court in construing an Act assumes that Parliament never intended to do a thing
which is unjust. I am quite sure that Mr. Symon will agree that the provision is not necessary.
Mr. SYMON: Hear, hear.
END QUOTE

Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-
When we consider how vast the importance is that every word of the Constitution should be correct,
that every clause should fit into every other clause; when we consider the great amount of time,
trouble, and expense it would take to make any alteration, and that, if we have not made our intentions
clear, we shall undoubtedly have laid the foundation of lawsuits of a most extensive nature, which will
harass the people of United Australia and create dissatisfaction with our work, it must be evident that
too much care has not been exercised.
END QUOTE

Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-The honorable and learned member (Mr. Isaacs) is I think
correct in the history of this clause that he has given, and this is [start page 672] one of those instances
which should make us very careful of following too slavishly the provisions of the United States
Constitution, or any other Constitution. No doubt in putting together the draft of this Bill, those who
were responsible for doing so used the material they found in every Constitution before it, and
probably they felt that they would be incurring a great deal of responsibility in leaving out provisions
which might be in the least degree applicable. But it is for us to consider, looking at the history and
reasons for these provisions in the Constitution of the United States, whether they are in any way
applicable; and I quite agree with my honorable and learned friend (Mr. Carruthers) that we should
be very careful of every word that we put in this Constitution, and that we should have no word in it
which we do not see some reason for. Because there can be no question that in time to come, when this
Constitution has to be interpreted, every word will be weighed and an interpretation given to it; and by
the use now of what I may describe as idle words which we have no use for, we may be giving a
direction to the Constitution which none of us now contemplate. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to
see that there is some reason for every clause and every word that goes into this Constitution. Now, I
agree with Mr. Isaacs, that the 14th amendment of the United States Constitution was directed entirely
to the question of the citizenship of negroes who were freed men, and it was necessary to implant
something of that kind in the American Constitution, because of the fever heat which had been excited,
p3 22-11-2017 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati
 and which was then subsiding, over the war which had convulsed the country. But how can that
condition of things, or that necessity which arose then, have any hearing on our position? I take it that
the best way to look on this matter is to try and forget all about the 14th amendment of the United
States Constitution, and regard it as though we were framing this Constitution without any knowledge
of any such provision. It seems to me that the first portion of the amendment of the United States
Constitution, which deals with citizenship, is not in any way necessary. Surely every person who has
the suffrage-the right to vote within the Commonwealth-and who lives within the Commonwealth, is a
citizen of the Commonwealth, and entitled to all its privileges, including the right to take part as the
Commonwealth provides in the framing of the laws.
END QUOTE

Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. BARTON.-
Providing, as this Constitution does, for a free people to elect a free Parliament-giving that people
through their Parliament the power of the purse-laying at their mercy from day to day the existence
of any Ministry which dares by corruption, or drifts through ignorance into, the commission of any
act which is unfavorable to the people having this security, it must in its very essence be a free
Constitution. Whatever any one may say to the contrary that is secured in the very way in which the
freedom of the British Constitution is secured. It is secured by vesting in the people, through their
representatives, the power of the purse, and I venture [start page 2477] to say there is no other way of
securing absolute freedom to a people than that, unless you make a different kind of Executive than
that which we contemplate, and then overload your Constitution with legislative provisions to protect
the citizen from interference. Under this Constitution he is saved from every kind of interference.
Under this Constitution he has his voice not only in the, daily government of the country, but in the
daily determination of the question of whom is the Government to consist. There is the guarantee of
freedom in this Constitution. There is the guarantee which none of us have sought to remove, but
every one has sought to strengthen. How we or our work can be accused of not providing for the
popular liberty is something which I hope the critics will now venture to explain, and I think I have
made their work difficult for them. Having provided in that way for a free Constitution, we have
provided for an Executive which is charged with the duty of maintaining the provisions of that
Constitution; and, therefore, it can only act as the agents of the people. We have provided for a
Judiciary, which will determine questions arising under this Constitution, and with all other
questions which should be dealt with by a Federal Judiciary and it will also be a High Court of
Appeal for all courts in the states that choose to resort to it. In doing these things, have we not provided,
first, that our Constitution shall be free: next, that its government shall be by the will of the people, which is
the just result of their freedom: thirdly, that the Constitution shall not, nor shall any of its provisions, be
twisted or perverted, inasmuch as a court appointed by their own Executive, but acting
independently, is to decide what is a perversion of its provisions? We can have every faith in the
constitution of that tribunal. It is appointed as the arbiter of the Constitution. It is appointed not to be
above the Constitution, for no citizen is above it, but under it; but it is appointed for the purpose of
saying that those who are the instruments of the Constitution-the Government and the Parliament of
the day-shall not become the masters of those whom, as to the Constitution, they are bound to serve.
What I mean is this: That if you, after making a Constitution of this kind, enable any Government or
any Parliament to twist or infringe its provisions, then by slow degrees you may have that
Constitution-if not altered in terms-so whittled away in operation that the guarantees of freedom
which it gives your people will not be maintained; and so, in the highest sense, the court you are
creating here, which is to be the final interpreter of that Constitution, will be such a tribunal as will
preserve the popular liberty in all these regards, and will prevent, under any pretext of constitutional
action, the Commonwealth from dominating the states, or the states from usurping the sphere of the
Commonwealth. Having provided for all these things, I think this Convention has done well.
END QUOTE
Again our constitution must be interpreted to be under the British Crown as British subjects!
HANSARD 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-I did not say that. I say that our real status is as subjects, and that we are all alike
subjects of the British Crown.
END QUOTE
This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to state all issues/details.
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. (Gerrit)
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL (Our name is our motto!)
p4 22-11-2017 G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B.
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
Email: admin@inspector-rikati.com. For further details see also my blog at Http://www.scrib.com/InspectorRikati