1

p1 8-7-2014 Re return of boats-etc

INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1
st
edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax
0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati

WI THOUT PREJ UDI CE
Mr Tony Abbott PM 8-7-2014
Tony.Abbott.MP@aph.gov.au
5
Cc: Mr Clive Palmer Palmer United Party Admin@PalmerUnited.com
Eamonn Duff eduff@fairfaxmedia.com.au
Matthew Johnston matthew.johnston@news.com.au
David Hurley david.hurley@news.com.au
George Williams george.williams@unsw.edu.au 10

Ref; 20140708-G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O.W.B. to Mr Tont Abbott PM-Re return of boats-etc
Sir,
the first issue I would ask if the lawyers have any legal standing. In the Colosimo case I had
both the solicitor and counsel ejected, because I held they had no legal standing. 15
Where people are outside Australian jurisdiction and have not engaged those lawyers then I view
they have no legal standing and neither could be paid from Commonwealth of Australia
taxpayers monies.

Hansard 24-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National 20
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-The High Court cannot act unless complaint is made, but the Parliament can act
whenever it likes.
Sir EDWARD BRADDON.-Only on motion. 25
END QUOTE

Obviously the question then is if the complainant has any legal position to institute litigation. If
the lawyer(s) concerned instituting the proceedings had no lawful authority to do so, merely
assumed to act for those on board of the boat without having been given specific instructions to 30
act for all or any of them, then I view the proceedings are without legal justification and the
undertaking has no legal value.
.
Harris v Caladine[1991] HCA 9; (1991) 172 CLR 84 (17 April 1991)
QUOTE CCH 92-217 page 78485 (1991) 35
The Court could not make an order which otherwise fell outside its jurisdiction merely because the parties
consent to it..
END QUOTE

Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally; Re Wakim; Ex parte Darvall; Re Brown; Ex parte Amann; Spi [1999] HCA 27 40
(17 June 1999)
QUOTE
For constitutional purposes, they are a nullity. No doctrine of res judicata or issue estoppel can prevail
against the Constitution. Mr Gould is entitled to disregard the orders made in Gould v Brown. No doubt, as
Latham CJ said of invalid legislation, "he will feel safer if he has a decision of a court in his favour". 45
That is because those relying on the earlier decision may seek to enforce it against Mr Gould.
END QUOTE
.
DPP v Field [2001] VSC 472 (29 November 2001)



2
p2 8-7-2014 Re return of boats-etc
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1
st
edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax
0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
QUOTE
24. Section 35 of the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 provides that in the interpretation of the provision of
an Act consideration may be given to any matter or document that is relevant, including reports of
proceedings in any House of the Parliament. The section further provides that a construction that would
promote the purpose or object underlying an Act is to be preferred to a construction that would not promote that 5
purpose or object. Those provisions are well known.
QUOTE

. ":.. The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for
the intention of its makers" Gaudron J (Wakim, HCA27\99) 10

"... But in the interpretation of the Constitution the connotation or connotations of its
words should remain constant. We are not to give words a meaning different from any
meaning which they could have borne in 1900. Law is to be accommodated to changing
facts. It is not to be changed as language changes. " 15
Windeyer J (Ex parte Professional Engineers' Association)
In my view the Commonwealth of Australia is well entitled to refuse aliens to enter Australian
waters. With the titanic inquiries it was held that one has to come to the rescue of those who are
at risk of the perils of the sea, but this doesnt mean that when this is not applicable a country 20
still has to do as if they are.

Neither is it within the powers of the judiciary to interfere with political decisions. It is not
relevant if one may or may not agree with government policy as there will always be people who
will oppose some kind of political decision, however where there is a breach of law then and 25
only then can the judiciary invoke jurisdiction.

For your information, regarding government policy:
Hansard 3-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE 30
Sir JOHN FORREST.-What is a citizen? A British subject?
Mr. WISE.-I presume so.
Sir JOHN FORREST.-They could not take away the rights of British subjects.
Mr. WISE.-I do not think so. I beg to move- That the words "each state" be omitted, with the view of
inserting the words "the Commonwealth." 35
I apprehend the Commonwealth must have complete power to grant or refuse citizenship to any citizen
within its borders. I think my answer to Sir John Forrest was given a little too hastily when I said that every
citizen of the British Empire must be a citizen of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth will have power
to determine who is a citizen. I do not think Dr. Quick's amendment is necessary. If we do not put in a
definition of citizenship every state will have inherent power to decide who is a citizen. That was the 40
decision of the Privy Council in Ah Toy's case.
Sir JOHN FORREST.-He was an alien.
Mr. WISE.-The Privy Council decided that the Executive of any colony had an inherent right to
determine who should have the rights of citizenship within its borders.
Mr. KINGSTON.-That it had the right of keeping him out. 45
END QUOTE

Hansard 11-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE 50
Mr. SYMON.-I doubt whether that would be sufficient. It might not be. I quite agree with honorable
members that it is not likely that there would be, or that we could contemplate, appeals in ordinary matters
from the decision of experts to the High Court. I should be sorry to see anything of that kind. It would
introduce political questions and matters of policy that would tend to derogate from the position which the
High Court should occupy under this Constitution. 55
END QUOTE



3
p3 8-7-2014 Re return of boats-etc
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
A 1
st
edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax
0011-61-3-94577209 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com
Free download of documents at blog Http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. OCONNOR (New South Wales).-
But let us take first his position in regard to the Commonwealth. Under the power which you have
given to the Federal Parliament to make laws regulating immigration and aliens, you embrace every 5
possible set of circumstances under which any person may enter the bounds of the Commonwealth. As
you have power to prevent any person from entering any part of the Commonwealth, you have also the
power to prevent any person from becoming a member of the Commonwealth community.
END QUOTE
10
If we allow the High court of Australia to re-write government policy because the court doesnt
like the Government policy then it is violating its constitutional judicial powers and transgress
upon the executive powers.

Hansard 1-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National 15
Australasian Convention),
QUOTE Mr. OCONNER (New South Wales).-
Because, as has been said before, it is [start page 357] necessary not only that the administration of
justice should be pure and above suspicion, but that it should be beyond the possibility of suspicion;
END QUOTE 20

Hansard 31-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE Mr. SOLOMON.-
We shall not only look to the Federal Judiciary for the protection of our interests, but also for the just 25
interpretation of the Constitution:
END QUOTE

In my view the court is so to say a dangerous game to issue some in junction (as it reportedly did
on 7-7-2014) if this is merely as to enable the applicant (lawyer) to get instructions of someone 30
on the boat that was intercepted, as this I view would be a blatant abuse of judicial powers.
In my view the Government would be entitled to keep the boat outside Australian waters.
In my view if the Migration act leaves it up to the Minister to decide the right of an alien to
enter/stay in the Commonwealth of Australia, as such a political decision, then the courts would
have no jurisdiction to interfere/intervene. 35
In my view the court is not to make moral judgment as to if the government acts morally right or
not as this is beyond its judicial powers.

This correspondence is not intended and neither must be perceived to contain legal advice
nor to refer to all issues/details. 40

MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL
(Our name is our motto!)
Awaiting your response, G. H. Schorel-Hlavka O. W. B. (Friends call me Gerrit)