Part 1

Re Posted by Ian, Tuesday, May 24, 2005 2:40:13 AM
Ian Alexander
Federal Commonwealth Society

Don’t criticise a person because you don’t know what you are on about!

Hansard 2-3-1898 (Constitutional 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.

Dr. QUICK.-If we are to have a citizenship of the Commonwealth higher, more comprehensive, and nobler than that of the states, I would ask why is it not implanted in the Constitution? Mr. Barton was not present when I made my remarks in proposing the clause. I then-anticipated the point he has raised as to the position we occupy as subjects of the British Empire. I took occasion to indicate that in creating a federal citizenship, and in defining the qualifications of that federal citizenship, we were not in any way interfering with our position as subjects of the British Empire. It would be beyond the scope of the Constitution to do that. We might be citizens of a city, citizens of a colony, or citizens of a Commonwealth, but we would still be, subjects of the Queen.

And

Mr. SYMON.-
It is not a lawyers' question; it is a question of whether any one of British blood who is entitled to become a citizen of the Commonwealth is to run the risk-it may be a small risk-of having that taken away or diminished by the Federal Parliament! When we declare-"Trust the Parliament," I am willing to do it in everything which concerns the working out of this Constitution, but I am not prepared to trust the Federal Parliament or anybody to take away that which is a leading inducement for joining the Union.

END QUOTE

See also my book, published on 30 September 2003:
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on CITIZENSHIP
A book on CD about Australians unduly harmed.

ISBN0-9580569-6-X
This book sets out extensively what “citizenship” is, and this include any person who, regardless of being an alien, resides in a State legal jurisdiction.

Part 2

The argument that some federal authority can take over and denies a person his liberty and property is just utter and sheer nonsense!

Hansard 2-3-1898

Mr. BARTON.-Yes; and here we have a totally different position, because the actual right which a person has as a British subject-the right of personal liberty and protection under the laws-is secured by being a citizen of the States. It must be recollected that the ordinary rights of liberty and protection by the laws are not among the subjects confided to the Commonwealth.
And
Mr. BARTON.-

I took occasion to indicate that in creating a federal citizenship, and in defining the qualifications of that federal citizenship, we were not in any way interfering with our position as subjects of the British Empire. It would be beyond the scope of the Constitution to do that. We might be citizens of a city, citizens of a colony, or citizens of a Commonwealth, but we would still be, subjects of the Queen.
And;
If we are going to give the Federal Parliament power to legislate as it pleases with regard to Commonwealth citizenship, not having defined it, we may be enabling the Parliament to pass legislation that would really defeat all the principles inserted elsewhere in the Constitution, and, in fact, to play ducks and drakes with it. That is not what is meant by the term "Trust the Federal Parliament."

Dang, Ex parte - Re MIMA M118/2001 (18 April 2002) High Court of Australia I noticed some of the following comments;

KIRBY J: There is no mention of citizenship in the powers of the Federal Parliament.

Federal citizenship was rejected to be determined by the Commonwealth of Australia, as the Framers held it was too dangerous to allow the Commonwealth of Australia to have such powers!

There is no “QUEEN of Australia” as we are and remain under the British Monarch the Queen of the UK and Northern Ireland!

Again, check my website http://www.schorel-hlavka.com to get a more informed understanding what our Constitution is really about!