All right I am not a lawyer, but a realist, in that I rely upon what the Constitution stand for and not the garbage lawyers are giving.

The Commonwealth of Australia is not a country at all, it is merely a limited POLITICAL UNION, like the European Union. The Constitution was based upon every Colony (now State) to retain its own criminal system, etc.

On 6-7-2006 I published another book;

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® & What is the -Australian way of life- really?
A book on CD on Australians political, religious & other rights
ISBN 978-0-9751760-2-3 was ISBN 0-9751760-2-1

Subsequently on 19 July 2006 I used this as evidence in my appeals and succeeded in both appeals and more over not a single constitutional issue I raised was UNCHALLENGED by the Federal Government lawyers, including that the Commonwealth of Australia has no constitutional powers to interfere with the manner State Courts operate, and hence the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 providing for “averment” was unconstitutional!

Also that Australian citizenship has nothing to do with nationality but is in regard of political rights such as franchise, was UNCHALLENGED.

See also www.schorel-hlavka.com

My 30-9-2003 published book;

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on CITIZENSHIP
A book on CD about Australians unduly harmed.
ISBN 978-0-9580569-6-0 was ISBN 0-9580569-6-X

Also, that the Framers of the Constitution made clear that a State could NULLIFY Commonwealth law, as to refuse to enforce it against a citizen of the State where it did not approve of the particular commonwealth law.

The states are basically independent countries (under the British Crown), with their own sovereign rights, which have simply, as like in Europe, combined certain powers for the good of all but desire otherwise to keep their own independence.

If just lawyers could understand this rather then perhaps try to make it easier for themselves.

DUE PROCESS OF LAW to enforce Commonwealth law in fact means a JUDICIAL DECISION by a State Court. If lawyers practiced this appropriately we never would have had cases like Vivian Alvarez Solon and Cornelia Rau.
Therefore, let lawyers first learn what is applicable before seeking to change things.
See also http://www.schorel-hlavka.co

Yes, Yes, Yes...

Unify the law, education, traffic, health, water, everything....

It's so obvious. Federation might have made sense a hundred years ago but today it is simply a political anachronism, a quirk of history, a debilitating legacy.

State governments should go.... local governments should be larger and more efficient... we should waste less of our money running elections and supporting massively bloated redundant bureaucracies. IT IS TIME to get rid of state government.

Politicians wont support it.... (wonder why!)
Lawyers wont support it... (well.. some might)

Only we ordinary Aussie battlers seem to have sufficient intellectual horsepower (at least two neurones and one synapse required) to see the bleeding obvious.

Hansard 8-2-1898 Constitution Convention Debates

Mr. OCONNOR.-With reference to the meaning of the term due process of law, there is in Baker's Annotated Notes on the Constitution of the United States, page 215, this statement-
Due process of law does not imply that all trials in the state courts affecting the property of persons must be by jury. The requirement is met if the trial be in accordance with the settled course of judicial proceedings, and this is regulated by the law of the state.
If the state law provides that there shall be a due hearing given to the rights of the parties-
Mr. BARTON.-And a judicial determination.
Mr. OCONNOR.-Yes, and a judicial determination-that is all that is necessary.
Hansard 31-1-1898
Mr. WISE (New South Wales).-
It might be that a law passed by the Federal Parliament was so counter to the popular feeling of a particular state, and so calculated to injure the interests of that state, that it would become the duty of every citizen to exercise his practical power of nullification of that law by refusing to convict persons of offences against it. That is a means by which the public obtains a very striking opportunity of manifesting its condemnation of a law, and a method which has never been known to fail, if the law itself was originally unjust. I think it is a measure of protection to the states and to the citizens of the states which should be preserved, and that the Federal Government should not have the power to interfere and prevent the citizens of a state adjudicating on the guilt or innocence of one of their fellow citizens conferred upon it by this Constitution