ISSUE: 20170818 - Re Double Dissolution-Parliament-Burqa, etc & the constitution

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

By now most people will be aware of https://www.dailyexaminer.com.au/news/pauline-hanson-wears-burqa-
parliament/3213534/?utm_campaign=alert&utm_source=Grafton+Daily+Examiner&utm_medium=email
Pauline Hanson wears burqa in Parliament and how Senator George Brandis Attorney-
General rebuked her for this. The Parliament is however a sovereign entity in its own rights.
Contary to the media report of Senator Cori Benardi that the Prime Minister should prorogue the
Parliament, the Prime Minister has no such constitutional powers. He can merely advise the
Governor-General to do so. As such, if Malcolm Turnbull were to put any Bill before the
Parliament that was failing to pass previously, he would have a DOUBLE DISSOLUTION
trigger. If therefore the Commonwealth v Barnaby Joyce and Ors before the High Court of
Australia were to be an adverse decision he could advise the Governor-General to call for a
DOUBLE DISSOLUTION, if that is what he desired to do so. In the meantime any current
Member of Parliament who were to be held disqualified from sitting in the parliament because
of a second nationality (wrongly referred to as citizenship then they could renounce it and
stand again for re-election. It should however be understood that the Prime Minister can
continue regardless of not having a majority in the House of Representatives as long as the
Governor-General doesnt revoke his commission to Malcolm Turnbull to remain Prime
Minister. In my view not even a vote of no confidence in the House of Representatives can
prevent Malcolm Turnbull to continue as Prime Minister. What the Parliament could do is to
effectively shut down the powers of the Government by abolishing all legislation that might be
used by the Government. Such drastic step would likely leave the Commonwealth in a bizarre
situation that would not be justified unless one has to cut off a Prime Minister acting as a
tyrant/dictator. Our first Prime Minister was commissioned without any Parliament existing and
as such underlines one doesnt need to have the majority of Members in the House to have their
support, albeit it is handy. Malcolm Turnbull might possibly consider that with any adverse
High Court of Australia decision (which I do not seek to imply might eventuate) he has a choice
to resign and let Bill Shorten take over as Prime Minister or rather face the electors and see if
they return him and others of the coalition. I have absolutely no doubt that were I be the leader of
any major political party merely using the true meaning and application of the constitution I
likely would get a landslide majority. However I am not and so the political parties and others
can try to salvage it between them.
Getting back to Pauline Hanson, contrary to what Senator George Brandis may have claimed I
view that as a Member of Parliament she was entitled to be dressed as she desired. After all if
people in the public gallery can do so then surely Member of Parliament can do so, who
represents an electorate. It might rather be more offensive to certain religions to have
homosexuals in the Parliament, or for that having a woman breast feeding and not being covered
by a burqa. As such when it comes to offending certain religions then it appears to me Senator
George Brandis notably Attorney-General is quite out of touch. If Senator George Brandis knew
anything about the history of Persia he would have known women dressed in see through
clothing. Perhaps we next may see through burqa in the Parliament? Pauline Hanson forget about
using such a burqa, will you?

p1 17-8-2017 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
As the Framers of the Constitution made clear, the Parliament is a sovereignty in its own right,
albeit it is not a sovereign parliament. For example law enforcement authorities cannot follow
and enter to arrest someone without the authority of the Speaker/President. However, the
Parliament cannot legislate against the Judiciary to remove the powers of the High Court of
Australia as there is a separation of powers and it would require a successful referendum to
amend the constitution to facilitate this. Neither can the High Court of Australia dictate to a
Member of Parliament what she can or cannot wear in the parliament as this is within the powers
of each of the Houses of Parliament. The Prime Minister has no say as he is no more but another
Member of Parliament unless the Rules of the House permits him otherwise. It is the Speaker of
the House who is the authority in the House of Representatives and the President in the Senate.
Together they are in charge of the Parliament, with the oldest serving ranked person to be
superior when it comes to the entire Parliament.
Hansard 17-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
Australasian Convention)
QUOTE
Sir JOSEPH ABBOTT: I am not particular about that, but I think at all events the Federal
Parliament ought to have power to make its own standing orders for the purpose of preventing
disorder. When I say this I do not suppose the Commonwealth Parliament would attempt to exercise
control with regard to people out of its own doors. But within our own dominion we ought to be
absolute. If we summon a witness in any of our local Parliaments to the bar of the House, he can
decline to give evidence, laugh at us, and walk away. The case I have just mentioned shows the
necessity of Parliament having control over any disorder.
Mr. TRENWITH: Anything to stop them throwing stones at labor members.
Sir JOSEPH ABBOTT: In Victoria they took the matter in a wholesale manner, and passed an Act of
Parliament declaring that the Victorian Legislature had all the powers, privileges, and immunities of
the House of Commons. There was no mincing of matters there, and it was in consequence of the
Parliament of Victoria having arrested a man, and it having been decided that they had no power to do
so, that they immediately declared they had all of the powers of the House of Commons. The man, I
think, was connected with Goldsbrough's Company, and named Glass. He did something, and the
Parliament arrested him, brought him to the bar of the House, and it was declared that they had no
power to do so. In all the decisions of the Privy Council in reference to the powers of Parliament, the
Privy Council has invariably declared that Parliament has no power outside the very words of the
Constitution Act. In the own of Hampton and Fenton, I think, in Tasmania they had the audacity to tell
a great colony like Tasmania that so far as it was concerned it had no greater powers than a
municipality.
Mr. BARTON: The Speaker only had the power of a chairman of a public meeting.
Mr. DOUGLAS: Regarding the case alluded to by the hon. member, I happened to be present when
the decision was given. The Privy Council did not declare that the colony had no power, but that any
colonial Government, being under a Statute, would have no power beyond that Statute. The result was
that the Tasmanian Parliament passed a law giving the powers to which the hon. member has made
reference.
Sir EDWARD BRADDON: I think that the amendment which the hon. member has proposed must
be considered in connection with clause 8, page 4 of the Bill, which provides:
The privileges, immunities, and powers of the Senate and of the House of Representatives
respectively, and of the Committees and the members thereof respectively, shall be such as are from
time to time declared by the Parliament, and until declared shall be those of the Commons House of
Parliament of the United Kingdom, and of the Committees and the members thereof respectively, at
the establishment of the Commonwealth.
If the hon. member's amendment is to include the power of punishment it will scarcely be necessary.
The effect of the decision of the Privy Council to which my hon. friend has alluded must be read in
connection with the Constitutions of the several colonies, which were affected at the time of the
pronouncement of these decisions. In New South Wales, and I think in Tasmania, what exists at the
present time is a Legislature as distinct from a Parliament. A Sovereign Parliament has punishing
power. A Legislature which is created by Act of Parliament, and with the equivalent powers conferred
upon it, as they are conferred by section 8, has, in the case of New South Wales and Tasmania, no
power except such as can be gathered from the necessary implication of the words of the Constitution.
In the present instance we have passed a clause which states that the [start page 758] privileges,
immunities, and powers of the Federal Parliament shall be those declared by the Parliament, and until
a declaratory Act is passed the privileges, immunities, and powers of the House of Commons will be
accepted. The power of punishment exists in the House of Commons, and the same power would exist
p2 17-8-2017 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
 in the Parliament of the Commonwealth under clause 8. An outrage committed within the walls of the
Federal Parliament could be punished in the same way as in the House of Commons. If a man ventured
to throw a stone into the Imperial Parliament, though unfortunately the thrower is not always caught,
it would be contempt of Parliament, and that would be a matter to be dealt with by the Commons
according to the powers, privileges, and immunities it possesses.
Sir GEORGE TURNER: Has not the House of Commons power to make Standing Orders?
Mr. BARTON: Yes.
Sir GEORGE TURNER: Then where is the necessity for this clause?
Mr. BARTON: The necessity for it does not arise out of the powers of the Standing Orders, which are
merely regulations for the conduct of the business within the House, but out of the power of
punishment in cases where contempt is exercised by persons within the walls of Parliament. If, for
instance, a person throws a stone and the Sergeant-at-Arms can catch him he can be brought before
the Parliament and can be imprisoned or dealt with otherwise for contempt. Under the operation of the
clause similar action can be taken by the Federal Parliament, and that goes far enough. It does not
require Standing Orders to deal with the powers, privileges, and immunities of Parliament. They exist,
and if you made Standing Orders you would really only limit them. Under the Bill we have taken the
powers, privileges, and immunities possessed by the House of Commons.
Sir JOSEPH ABBOT: Then why do you want clause 49?
Mr. BARTON: I have already explained that, but I will return to it if my hon. friend wishes. I say in
the meantime you have already taken the powers, privileges, and immunities of the House of
Commons, and there is no necessity to pass Standing Orders with reference to them. They do not need
definition in the Standing Orders; they are not the subject of definition in the Standing Orders; they
are totally different in their whole circuit to the Standing Orders which relate to the conduct of the
business of each House and its transactions with the other House. That is not a question of the powers,
privileges, and immunities of the House of Commons, which exist independently of the Standing
Orders. They have a historical application in the House of Commons, and they can be applied to the
Federal Parliament.
Mr. TRENWITH: Could they not make Standing Orders?
Mr. BARTON: The Federal Parliament, of course, will have power to make Standing Orders for the
regulation of its internal business.
Mr. TRENWITH: If we adopt clause 49 do we not restrict the power of the Federal Parliament with
regard to any Standing Orders they may make?
Mr. BARTON: No. You do not restrict them because you have the clause in the most general terms.
My hon. friend wishes the clause to read:
The Senate and the House of Representatives may each of them from time to time adopt Standing
Orders as they or each may deem to be necessary, and such Standing Orders shall have he force of
law.
That is altogether too wide, as the Standing Orders would then have the effect of law outside the
House.
Mr. PEACOCK: Hear, hear. That is the point.
Mr. BARTON: It is the point to which I think the hon. member was anxious to come. What we have
done is to adopt a clause giving the Federal Parliament power to pass Standing Orders for the con-
[start page 759] duct of their business, and so that there should be no doubt the power has been taken
in the widest possible words. The House of Commons does not make its Standing Orders by reason of
its powers, privileges, and immunities, but by virtue of its inherent powers as a sovereign Parliament.
The Standing Orders are for the internal regulation of the House of Commons, but my friend would
like to say that the Federal Houses may make Standing Orders for any matter it may deem necessary.
This would have the effect of passing laws without the royal assent. I ask my friend if the clause as it
stands is not sufficient.
END QUOTE

No State/Federal Parliament in the Commonwealth of Australia has any sovereign status,

they are constitutional Parliaments!
HANSARD 10-03-1891 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Dr. COCKBURN: All our experience hitherto has been under the condition of parliamentary
sovereignty. Parliament has been the supreme body. But when we embark on federation we throw
parliamentary sovereignty overboard. Parliament is no longer supreme. Our parliaments at present are
not only legislative, but constituent bodies. They have not only the power of legislation, but the power
of amending their constitutions. That must disappear at once on the abolition of parliamentary
sovereignty. No parliament under a federation can be a constituent body; it will cease to have the
p3 17-8-2017 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
 power of changing its constitution at its own will. Again, instead of parliament being supreme, the
parliaments of a federation are coordinate bodies-the main power is split up, instead of being vested in
one body. More than all that, there is this difference: When parliamentary sovereignty is dispensed
with, instead of there being a high court of parliament, you bring into existence a powerful judiciary
which towers above all powers, legislative and executive, and which is the sole arbiter and interpreter
of the constitution.
END QUOTE

If the House were to deny Pauline Hanson to wear a burqa then what of some women desires to
do so because of her religion and is an elected Member of Parliament. It is totally irrelevant if a
person wears a burqa for religious purposes or not, as Pauline Hanson may not have been able to
go to a hairdresser and so may desire instead to use a burqa. It is not for Senator George Brandis
to determine what a Member in the House of Representatives does. He is a Senator and should
stick with issues in the Senate. The government has no say over the Parliament, as set out above.
Had Pauline Hanson turned up in a see through burqa with nothing else underneath of it then
some members of the House of Representatives may have had problems to follow proceedings
whereas other may not. But in the end one has to be careful not to put in restrictions/prohibitions
which may be insulting to others. And there are ample of reports on the internet how men have
been using the burqa to avoid scrutiny and then commit mash murder by explosives, etc. Is
Senator George Brandis merely waiting for this to eventuate in the Parliament and will he then
accept responsibility for possible many of his fellow Members of Parliament having been killed?
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 17-8-2017 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