ISSUE: 20160721 - Re Sensus, etc & the constitution

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

constitution.
I found Privacy and the 2016 Census (ABS Census 2016 and Privacy v8.pdf) of writings of
Bill McLennan, Canberra, ACT, 0427 512 987, bill.mclennan@mac.com impressive, albeit I
have refused to participate in the Census because of concerns it violates constitutional
limitations. (ABS =Australian Bureau of Statistics)
In my view the Sensus powers is limited to what the constitution provides for, that is it cannot
exceed by backdoor manner the legislative powers of sections 51 and 52 of the constitution.
It cannot require any information as to religion. (s116)
ADDRESS TO THE COURT County Court of Victoria, Case numbers T01567737 & Q10897630
QUOTE
WELSH v. UNITED STATES, 398 U.S. 333 (1970), 398 U.S. 333, WELSH v. UNITED STATES, CERTIORARI TO THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, No. 76., Argued January 20, 1970, Decided
June 15, 1970
1. The language of 6 (j) cannot be construed (as it was in United States v. Seeger, supra, and as it is in the prevailing
opinion) to exempt from military service all individuals who in good faith oppose all war, it being clear from both the
legislative history and textual analysis of that provision that Congress used the words "by reason of religious training
and belief" to limit religion to its theistic sense and to confine it to formal, organized worship or shared beliefs by a
recognizable and cohesive group. Pp. 348-354.
2. The question of the constitutionality of 6 (j) cannot be avoided by a construction of that provision that is contrary to
its intended meaning. Pp. 354-356.
3. Section 6 (j) contravenes the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by exempting those whose conscientious
objection claims are founded on a theistic belief while not exempting those whose claims are based on a secular belief.
To comport with that clause an exemption must be "neutral" and include those whose belief emanates from a purely
moral, ethical, or philosophical source. Pp. 356-361.
4. In view of the broad discretion conferred by the Act's severability clause and the longstanding policy of exempting
religious conscientious objectors, the Court, rather than nullifying the exemption entirely, should extend its coverage to
those like petitioner who have been unconstitutionally excluded from its coverage. Pp. 361-367.

And;
http://www.vaccineinfo.net/exemptions/relexemptlet.shtml
Hints for Religious Exemptions to Immunization
Please read the text below before you download, print, or use the sample religious exemption letter and support materials
provided in the following link:
Sample Religious Exemption Letter and Supporting Documentation
Refer to the statutes. The laws require that immunization must conflict with the tenets and practices of a recognized or
organized religion of which you are an adherent or member. However, the law does not require you to name a religion
at all. In fact, disclosing your religion could cause your religious exemption to be challenged.

And
Some schools and daycares attempt to require you to give far more information than required by law. You are not
required by law to fill out any form letters from a school or daycare. The law allows you to submit your own letter and
the letter only needs to meet the bare requirements of the law. Keep it simple; do not feel you need to describe your
religious beliefs here as that also is not required by law.

And
Many times, when a school or day care questions your exemption, they are merely unfamiliar with the law or trying
to coerce you to go against your beliefs by deliberately misrepresenting the law. They are betting on the fact that
you don't know your rights.

p1
21-7-2016
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

What appears to be clear is that a religious objection is not qualified to a specific religion and neither can be as
this would in fact offend Section 116 of the Constitution. Neither can it be associated with any particular religion as
this would also interfere with Section 116 of the Constitution. Likewise, any person objecting under the religious
objection Subsection 245(14) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 neither can be required to be a religious
person as this would also offend Section 116 of the Constitution, as the equivalent in WELSH v. UNITED
STATES, 398 U.S. 333 (1970), 398 U.S. 333 made clear that it (the religious objection applies as much to non
religious persons as religious persons. Therefore, anyone objection for his/her personal reasons to vote clearly is
entitled to do so regardless of having any specific religion mentioned.
END QUOTE

Neither this written submission or for that any other written submission based upon
constitutional matters was challenged by any of the Attorney-Generals!
The ABS cannot require any information about political matters as to do so would undermine a
persons political liberty!
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National Australasian
Convention)
QUOTE Mr. DEAKIN.What a charter of liberty is embraced within this Bill-of political liberty and religious liberty-the liberty and the means to
achieve all to which men in these days can reasonably aspire. A charter of liberty is enshrined in this Constitution, which
is also a charter of peace-of peace, order, and good government for the whole of the peoples whom it will embrace and
unite.
END QUOTE
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. SYMON (South Australia).- We who are assembled in this Convention are about to commit to the people of
Australia a new charter of union and liberty; we are about to commit this new Magna Charta for their acceptance and
confirmation, and I can conceive of nothing of greater magnitude in the whole history of the peoples of the world than
this question upon which we are about to invite the peoples of Australia to vote. The Great Charter was wrung by the
barons of England from a reluctant king. This new charter is to be given by the people of Australia to themselves.
END QUOTE
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- 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.
END QUOTE
Hansard 25-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. WISE:
They forget that this commonwealth can only deal with those matters that are expressly remitted to its jurisdiction; and
excluded from its jurisdiction are all matters that affect civil rights, all matters that affect property, all matters, in a word,
affecting the two great objects which stir the passions and affect the interests of mankind. I fail entirely and I shall be glad
if some alarmist will enlarge my views on this matter-to perceive in this bill any question on which there is any possibility
of a conflict between the states and the people, except, in one respect, and I will define that in the largest possible way. In
legislation affecting commercial interests, or financial interests, it is possible to imagine that the states will be brought
into conflict as states with the concentrated majority of the populations of the two large states over a question of trade. It
is possible to imagine the same thing arising over a question of commerce, or over a question of finance.
END QUOTE

The following will also make clear that the Framers of the Constitution intended to have CIVIL
RIGHTS and LIBERTIES principles embedded in the Constitution;
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. CLARK.the protection of certain fundamental rights and liberties which every individual citizen is entitled to
claim that the federal government shall take under its protection and secure to him.

p2
21-7-2016
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

END QUOTE
Hansard 1-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. HIGGINS.-Suppose the sentry is asleep, or is in the swim with the other power?
Mr. GORDON.-There will be more than one sentry. In the case of a federal law, every member of a state
Parliament will be a sentry, and, every constituent of a state Parliament will be a sentry.
As regards a law passed by a state, every man in the Federal Parliament will be a sentry, and the whole
constituency behind the Federal Parliament will be a sentry.
END QUOTE

The Parliamentarian Counsel is not one who can override the true meaning and application of the
constitution and therefore it is merely some alleged advice that so to say holds no water as to
justify intrusive details.
In my view, and also considering the risk of hackers, any usage of the Census details, even if
merely permitted for data matching with different Departments/organisations would be a
violation of the purpose of a Sensus.
Historically s127 excluded Aboriginals to be included in the population Sensus (until 1967) this
because of the circumstances then prevailing.
Hansard 20-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Clause 120-In reckoning the numbers of the people of a State or other part of the Commonwealth aboriginal natives
shall not be counted.
Dr. COCKBURN: As a general principle I think this is quite right. But in this colony, and I suppose in some of
the other colonies, there are a number of natives who are on the rolls, and they ought not to be debarred from
voting.
Mr. DEAKIN: This only determines the number of your representatives, and the aboriginal population is too
small to affect that in the least degree.
Mr. BARTON: It is only for the purpose of determining the quota.
Dr. COCKBURN: Is that perfectly clear? Even then, as a matter of principle, they ought not to be deducted.
Mr. O'CONNOR: The amendment you have carried already preserves their votes.
Dr. COCKBURN: I think these natives ought to be preserved as component parts in reckoning up the people. I
can point out one place where 100 or 200 of these aboriginals vote.
Mr. DEAKIN: Well, it will take 26,000 to affect one vote.
Mr. WALKER: I would point out to Dr. Cockburn that one point in connection with this matter is, that when we come
to divide the expenses of the Federal Government per capita, if he leaves out these aboriginals South Australia will
have so much the less to pay, whilst if they are counted South Australia will have so much the more to pay.
Clause, as read, agreed to.
END QUOTE

Clearly s127 was to avoid a State having to pay in regard of Aboriginals and not itself intended
to prevent Aboriginals to vote, this shown by the fact that Aboriginals who had Colonial/State
franchise voted in the first federal election. What this makes very clear is that the
population Sensus was never intended to be a one and for all Sensus about whatever. The
fact that the Commonwealth of Australia is so to say spreading its wings to include more and
more issues doesn't make it in my view constitutionally permissible. After all, if it was intended
that a Sensus was for other issues then population for electoral purposes the Framers of the
Constitution could have made a specific reference that Aboriginals were not to be counted for
electoral purposes but otherwise are.
In the matter of the Child Support Registrar versus John Murray Abbott, even the high court of
Australia upheld the Child Support Registrar claims upon basis of its access to tax files. OK the
CSR merely "assumed" some debt, and after the High Court of Australia case the Child Support
Registrar refunded all monies because it then concluded there actually never was any debt,
based upon the subsequent information provided by Mr John Murray Abbott.
As such the secrecy of taxation information no longer proved to exist.
Secrecy of taxation information is essentially, at least always was, so that a person could
declare illegal/unlawful obtained income without the risk of prosecution, this as for the ATO the
issue was that appropriate taxation was being paid regardless if the source of the income was
p3
21-7-2016
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

derived from legal sources or otherwise. Data matching clearly denies the very secrecy that a
person may desire.
In political matters this is even more serious as for example as I understand it there are people
who applied for and obtained intervention orders and other orders which specifically provides the
right of secrecy to the details of a particular person or persons. In particular regarding under
aged children. Yet, one could find that despite a person may have had the details kept from the
printed electoral roles then the Government may nevertheless add to it those who are
attending universities or other education facilities, holding a driving license as to place them
automatically on the electoral rolls and by this clearly violate the very secrecy a person might be
entitled upon by court orders! After all if a court order prevents the disclosure of the details of a
particular person but the State goes about ways to expose the details of a child residing with this
person then obviously it is a backdoor manner exposing the address of the parent.
As I personally proved in 2 successful appeals on 19 July 2006 in the County Court of Victoria
exercising federal jurisdiction compulsory voting is unconstitutional and as such I view the
collection of data by any Government of say minors to be placed on an electoral roll for the
purpose of forcing them to be enrolled automatically and to use this for possible prosecution of
FAILING TO VOTE cannot be deemed constitutionally permissible.
The constitutional right to vote never can be converted into a being compelled to vote.
HANSARD18-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. ISAACS.The right of a citizen of this great country, protected by the implied guarantees of its Constitution,
END QUOTE
.

HANSARD 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-Our civil rights are not in the hands of any Government, but the rights of the Crown in
prosecuting criminals are.
END QUOTE

Currently all one need is some dictator to get to power and could use the ABS Sensus
information to know which person has what religious association etc, and systematically deal
with them. It is not just about religion as it could be any other issue the ABS collects
information about.
We could get a government to use the ABS Sensus information to cause a person to be marked
on their Medicare card or otherwise for termination or of this kind of conduct, by having a
hospital performing some service to purportedly relief this person of his/her miserable suffering
in life, regardless that the person may have no such issues. Hospitals being paid extra to perform
this kind of service (as I understand already has been happening for years) hardly would have an
issue to do so where they attract extra funding for this kind of assisting a persons.
Because of the ability of hackers to access any stored information on any computer data base and
perhaps alter any of it also, as well as at times Departments (including the AEC Australian
Electoral Commission) in error sending out confidential details to the wrong persons any ABS
Sensus collection should be safeguarded for purpose of collecting statistics only and not be
permitted to be shared with any other organisation/entity. The moment specific data is shared
with others that can in any way or manner enable identification of a person by backdoor manner
or otherwise then it must be held that the ABS Sensus data collection is for
unconstitutional/unlawful purposes. The onus is upon the Parliament to ensure appropriate
legislation is in place that no data matching or other sharing of any personal or other details can
eventuate other than that the ABS may within constitutional confinements collect certain datas
without revealing any associated person details of the persons having provided them that could
somehow identify the person(s) who provided the details.
And we certainly wouldnt want organisations like ASIO to misinterpret details (remember the
alleged Weapons of Mass Destruction intelligence detail) that innocent people could be subjected
p4
21-7-2016
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

to SECRETASIO information held against them where it all might be too misconceived/
misinterpreted information/details. We should never ignore that ASIO was a political terrorist
organisation created by former Prime Minister Menzies, to be used to prevent people even to be
allowed to have a job, merely because of their political affiliation. What could eventuate, if not
already done so, is that Sensus information not deemed to be SECRET never the less in the
hands of ASIO then purportedly becomes SECRET.
We could have someone showing to be following a religion and ASIO then holds that in view of
past Sensus details provided this person has changed religion and may be radicalised and well a
family member who happen to go on a long ago planned overseas trip now suddenly might be
prevented from leaving the country because suddenly the new ABS Sensus details provided may
be interpreted this person might by family association a risk.
With the changes of government, it means that a Minister who belong to a particular political
party could take with him, if not already done so, details of ABS for his/her political party
database and then the next Minister of a different political party can do the same. By this in the
end everyones private and very personal details can be known to about the whole world other
than that the person who allegedly provided them may be excluded from it unless making an
application under the FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT at cost, etc, if not having any
material partly or wholly blackened out because of secrecy not permitting the person to be aware
of alleged details purportedly provided by that person but may in fact be put on file by others.
It is not about that I fancy the impossible but that we had an unconstitutional invasion into a
friendly nation Iraq with mass murder, crimes against humanity, war crimes, treason, etc, and
well no one really has so far been held accountable. As far as I am aware of the alleged culprits
who participated in all this, the intelligence services, were rewarded with huge boost of funding!
How absurd this is! Show sheer incompetence and you get well rewarded with job security by the
government. Well, in this kind of atmosphere I wouldnt trust anyone and certainly not that the
very people involved in this unconstitutional, murderous, invasion into Iraq are now in
government.
Radicalisation of people can and do eventuate when they are so disillusioned with society that to
them death is better than to live on. Some then may prefer to do it to what they consider in grand
style by killing as many others as they can. Regretfully they usually target the soft targets
innocent people then the real culprits hiding as cowards behind a fortress of security. The real
culprits who may have instigated the very problems the person decided about to end his/her life.
By this they do not resolve anything rather aid the real culprits to use such a death as an excuse
to try to justify their treasonous and other conduct. I since 1982 have conducted a special lifeline
service under the motto MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL and was able to get people
contemplating suicide/murder (even mass murder) to understand that death doesnt resolve
issues rather to take on those who are the culprits should never be given the satisfaction having
succeeded.
I for one hold that the Australian Bureau of statistics must be required to keep any
information/details linked to any persons identity separated without any ability to cross file it
with data bases held by any government/entity. We have seen plenty with the unconstitutional
Infringement Court operated by TENIX SOLITIONS IMES that illegally access a data base and
by this issued reportedly some 2,000 private details of NSW motor vehicle owners and issued
them with Infringement Notices where in fact it had accessed the wrong data base and so caused
harm against innocent people. The danger of so to say contamination from interchanging details
is not some illusion that will never eventuate but proven to have happened already. The harm to
innocent people is too great. Nothing has been proven that the so called Intelligence Services
have improved anything at all and in fact the extra funding may only put them further asleep and
not bother to conduct themselves appropriately in the circumstances, because failing to do so is
by far more financial rewarding. Andrew Wilkies as an Intelligence officer warned John Howard
and others but it seems he didnt fit the mould to what was required to justify an unconstitutional,
murderous, armed invasion he was ignored. This underlines that any government may selectively
p5
21-7-2016
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

seek to use information, no matter how absurd, to its own advantage and this brings the real
danger to provide any information to any Government organisation. As the ABS ordinary knows
from the electoral roll about people enrolled and then may invite people to provide limited
details as to be able to ascertain quotas regarding electoral matters such as how many electors
per seat in average, then all the rest of requested data should be indicated to be voluntarily.
It is none of the Federal government business if a person has or has not achieved certain
standards of education. Neither can it claim to do so for the sake of private corporations, as after
all it can only collect date within the sphere of what is needed for Government purposes. It
constitutionally cannot use public monies to gather details for private purposes.
And as the Federal government usually merely dump immigrants/refugees in to the States and
leave it for the States to sort out the ness the Federal government creates by this, then again there
appears to me no justification to pursue data collection by the ABS that is not being usefully put
in practice in any planning of services by the Federal government.
Collecting data for the sake of collecting information is not justifiable. It must serve a legitimate
purpose and not for the sake of private corporations to be able to obtain this. With the federal
government creating independent organisations such as Australian Post then too this must be
considered to be exclusive of the government, as you cannot have that on the one hand the
Federal Government claims that Australian Post is an independent corporation and makes its own
decisions, such as postal charges, etc, (albeit in violation of the legal principles embedded in the
constitution- but too extensive to set out in this writing) while on the other hand it is part of the
government. I should make clear that racial profiling may very well be based upon ABS
statistics and so likewise a lot of other matters and for this every person better be careful. And,
one may have to wonder if the ABS can at all required details of foreigners who are merely
visiting the Commonwealth of Australia, and what usefulness this can have for long term policies
of the Federal Government! So much more to state but for now should be enough to be of
concern that data sharing is and can be very dangerous in the hands of the wrong people parading
as good meaning Government organisations/entities!
A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy
at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst
those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through...all the alleys, heard in the very halls of
government itself.
For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and
their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation,
he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so
that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague. - Marcus Tullius Cicero
HANSARD 26-3-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. ISAACS:
There is a line up to which concession may become at any moment a sacred duty, but to pass that line
would be treason; and therefore, when we are asked solemnly and gravely to abandon the principle of
responsible government, when we are invited to surrender the latest-born, but, as I think, the noblest child
of our constitutional system-a system which has not only nurtured and preserved, but has strengthened the
liberties of our people-then,
END QUOTE
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.- 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.
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!)

p6
21-7-2016
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