Skyring v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation; Skyring v Australian and New Zealand Banking Group Limited

[1988] HCATrans 142

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry

Brisbane No B66 of 1987

B e t w e e n -

ALAN GEORGE SKYRING

Applicant

and

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION

Respondent

Office of the Registry

Brisbane No B67 of 1987

B e t w e e n -

ALAN GEORGE SKYRING

Applicant

and

Skyring (7)

AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING

GROUP LIMITED

Respondent

Applications for removal
pursuant to section 40(1) of the

Judiciary Act 1903

MASON CJ

WILSON J

GAUDRON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT BRISBANE ON FRIDAY, 1 JULY 1988, AT 3.35 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

BIT14/l/JM 1 1/7/88

MASON CJ:  Yes, Mr Skyring?

MR A.G. SKYRING:  I appear in person, Your Honour.

MASON CJ: Are you going to announce your appearance? I

thought we had called both matters?

MR D. J. McGILL:  :M.ay it please the Court, I appear. for the Deputy Comnissioner

of Taxation. (instructed by tl1e Australian·Goverrnnent Solicitor)

MASON CJ: In the first matter?

MR McGILL:	.For the respondent in the first matter.
MASON CJ:	Now, would you announce your appearance in the

second matter?

MR D. O'DONNELL:  Yes, Your Honour. I appear for the

defendant, the ANZ Bank. (instructed by Breens)

MASON CJ: Yes, Mr O'Donnell. Yes, Mr Skyring?

MR SKYRING:  Your Honour, this action I have brought as

a continuation of the matters that were raised

when I appeared before you last time. As I read

your judgment on that occasion, I got the

feeling that you were saying,in effect that I had
an issue, but that I had not really got my act
together in such a way that this Court could

effectively deal with the points that I was on

about.

Now, in the interim I have taken further action now, which I hope will raise matters in

the form that you can deal with. Now, as I

understand the situation, the end effect that

I am looking for is in fact an upholding of the

two declarations that I had asked for in the

documentation as it was filed with you. Now, as

I understand the situation today, though, all

board with the intention of either upholding or	Court can, may and ought to take this matter on the concern is here with is in fact that the
not those declarations. Is that a correct
assessment of the situation - these to be dealt with later?

MASON CJ: You have asked us to remove this proceeding

into this Court.

MR SKYRING:  Yes, right. But you do not actually give

a determination on the declarations that I am

seeking today, only that I put argument that

you should take it on board, so to speak?

MASON CJ:  No. We do not make any declaration. We do

not deal with the substance of that matter, but,

you need to be aware that it is necessary to dem:mstrate to'

the Court that you have an arguable point.

BIT14/2/JM	2	1/7/88
Skyring(7)

MR SKYRING:  Yes, that is the point I was trying to make.

In respect of that, Your Honour, I did forward

an outline of the argument as I see it. I take

it you did eet that and you have seen same?

WILSON J: Yes, we did receive your outline of argument.

MR SKYRING: It was a seven-page effort, and the authorities and

the references that you normally ask for.

WILSON J: Yes. It sums up what you want to say, so that

now all you need do is to go to the point.

MR SKYRING: Just to speak to and say why I have asked

that - yes. There are a few rather contentious

items that I could see in that and I think I

ought to explain myself.

In respect of that outline, if I just go

through - - -

WILSON J: Just before you go on, this matter at the moment

that you are seeking to remove, it must be a

pending matter. At what stage is it pending?

Is it pending at the stage of an appeal to the

Full Court from Mr Justice Macrossan?

MR SKYRING:  Yes, Your Honour. In respect of the two

actions, Your Honour, the tax case from

Justice Macrossan's judgment is on appeal and

is currently in abeyance.

WILSON J: Has not yet been dealt with?

MR SKYRING:	No, it was - - -
MASON CJ:	But you filed a notice of appeal?

MR SKYRING: Yes, Your Honour.

MASON CJ: Page 131.

MR SKYRING: Right.

WILSON J: And that is what you want removed, the whole

cause but it is at the stage of; appeal from

Mr Justice Macrossan's judgment.

MR SKYRING: Basically, Your Honour, yes. And in respect

of the ANZ matter, that was sort of tied in
with the tax one because that involves a matter of

payment. Although my statrement of claim in that action had been struck out, the matter

is, if you like, still alive.

WILSON J: It was struck out, was it? The last note I

can find on the file was the summons to strike

out and my question to you was going to be,

was that summons ever dealt with?

BIT14/3/JM	3	1/7/88
Skyring(7)

MR SKYRING: Yes. In fact, there - - -

WILSON J: Because I have not see the order in the

MR SKYRING:	I thought I had all that in the -
WILSON J:	You may have included the order in the papers

and I have just overlooked it.

MASON CJ:  I think it is there. Then you made an application

for leave to amend your statement of claim, did you not?

MR SKYRING: Yes, I did. That was also knocked back.

MASON CJ: That application was refused.

MR SKYRING:  Yes, right. Now at the time, how this matter is

still alive though, following on from that there

was two orders for costs which were given against

me in respect of that. I did seek to have those

costs stayed, and I still have not paid them,

notwithstanding that I have orders against me to

this effect because my argument essentially is,

well, firstly, I do not believe those costs were

rightly awarded. I was locked out from appealing

on that one, incidentally, because I sort of

fouled the system up a bit. But, nevertheless

the fact remains that I have not paid them. As I

see it, I cannot pay them strictly legally and

I will not pay them. So, we have got this whole

vital matter of the financing of the Court's operations.

So, it is all still very nroch alive and there is an

enormous problem here which really needs to be resolved.~

Now, I have tackled this matter of the Court

costs because it seems to me that if this

establish.ment gets its house in order, so to

speak, as I see it anyway, then you can show the

way to solving a hell of a lot of problems for

the rest of society and it is basically that tack

that I have come in on.	Why I have taken that
order in respect of costs in the State Supreme

Court, given that document which is currently over

the river at the moment, namely, one of the four

original copies of the MAGNA CHARTA.

In respect of my authorities, I did list

in there Act No. 70 of 1984 of the ftate legislature
which, in effect, reinstated the great charter at

the top of the pile of statutes still current,

in particular, chapter 29 there of, which contains

a very interesting provision that:

No man shall sell, defer or deny

right or justice.

Now, my argument has been from day one on this tax

case, which was the second leg of it which I raised

BIT14/4/JM	4	1/7/88
Skyring(7)

right at the start, was that, as I see it, if

one has to put cash on the counter before or after

the event to have a case heard in court, in the

ordinary meaning of words, that is selling of

justice. It nay not be perceived as that way

in the legal circles at the moment, but seen

from a user's point of view, that is how it

shakes out and it is an updated version of that

particular provision - or rather, an updated

interpretation of that particular provision that

it seems to me is now needed, because in the days

when that lot was framed, having sort of got the

sense of history, I hope, straight, society, being

very nruch nearer to nature than it is now is,

knew what the order ought to be and did not have
the technology to do it. In the intervening

six or seven hundred years we have developed the

technology and we have rather forgotten what we

ought to be doing. It seems to me if we got
the situation together, then we can make an

enormous advance to the general conduct of our

social affairs.

So, in the broad sense, that is what I am

about and I would submit that both cases are still

very nruch live and as such there is a very awkward

situation, which, it seems to me, only this Court really can move to clarify. Now, while, as I see

it, you cannot do it all on your own, you can go an awfully long way to point the way to others -

those in the legislature - who nrust complete the

job. So, it is to that end basically, Your Honour,

that I have brought this action.

MASON CJ: But, Mr Skyring, one of the great difficulties is

at the moment is that,in effect,you have a writ

but you have no statement of claim at all. It

has been struck out and if we were to remove this

matter, we would remove a proceeding in which there

are no pleadings at all at the present time.	I
cannot imagine a proceeding which is a more
unsuitable vehicle for this Court to determine

constitutional or other questions.

MR SKYRING: Well, my point - okay, I see what you are on

about, Your Honour. My view on this matter is

that I, personally, rather strongly feel that that

was struck out wrongly.	Now, okay, one can drive
the system so hard.	As you know, I am not a

qualified lawyer, I am an engineer and I look

at things in a slightly different manner from what

the lawyers do.

MASON CJ:	Yes.
MR SKYRING:	Now, the difficulty is that, as I see it, what

in fact happened was that I had small order effects

BIT14/5/JM	5	1/7/88
Skyring(7)

levelled against me, which are framed on the basis

that your legislation in respect to the financing

side of the conduct of the nation's affairs is

in fact legal. It is that which I am really

seeking to query, as a corollary, though, to the

tax case. Now, I have tried to outline that in

my outline of argument, which really covers the

both cases.

What, in effect I am seeking to say, Your Honour,

is that in respect of the taxation case, which is

very much live and is in the system - now, what I

am saying is, in effect, when all is said and done,

that taxation is a levy against propertv and by

virtue of this chapter XXIX of the great charter

which is certainly in force in this t->tate, such '

levies are in fact, in effect, illegal. Now,

my say-so for that was based on a remark of

Sir Ivor Jennings, in his most magnificent little

volume which I got onto in about 1980 when I first

started this lot and very much conditioned my whole

approach to this entire problem. I have been having

my own difficulties in other directions in relation

to finance of same, but it was this which provided

the crunch point, so to speak. Now, what Sir Ivor

said, in his little volume:

two of the ancient forms of taxation, scutages

and aids were dealt with in King John's Charter

of 1215, there was nothing about it in the

Magna Charter of 1225. On the other hand,

the freedom of property rights, protected by

Cap. 29 was of- li.ttle value if the king

could impose every taxation at his discretion.

Though it was and still is the law that a

tax on property is not a diminution of

property rights, this is a very legalistic

interpretation because, in fact, taxation must

be met out of property. For the same reason

Cap. 14 of Magna Carta .. ·	.... forbids
excessive fines.

Now, what I read the good Sir Ivor to be saying

from that was that in effect taxation is a means of

funding the Crown's purposes by imposition of

property is illegal. Well, the in:nnediate corollary

which follows from that: well, all right, if that

is illegal, how the devil do you fund the Crown's

purposes? Now, because of other work that I happened

to be doing at the time, the conclusion which

in:nnediately flashed to mind was: we will run the

banks properly.

Now, it is in this area then where we come to the crux of the matter because it has all got to do

with the method of payment, which is the previous

effort that I have raised, which - - -

BIT14/6/JM	6	1/7/88
Skyring(7)

MASON CJ: Yes, I know, but I want to direct your attention

to page 61 of the application book which contains

the copy of the judgment which the Full Court

delivered on the last occasion. Now, you

suggested, I think, to use your own words, that

the Court told you then to get your own act

together, but when you read the judgment, it does

not bear that interpretation at all. The judgment

plainly rejected your contention that section 36(1)

of the RESERVE BANK ACT was invalid and it

confirmed the judgment of Mr Justice Deane at first

instance.

MR SKYRING:  Now, are you talking of the 1985 judgment?

MASON CJ: Yes, I am talking about the November 1986 judgment.

MR SKYRING: Yes, all right. Well, now, as a rejoinder to

that, Your Honour, might I make the point that if

that is in fact so, then I would submit that we have

a reductio ad absurdum type proof that what you have

said cannot in fact be so, because - - -

MASON CJ: Well, I am afraid it is so. It is there in black

and white at page 61 and 62.

MR SKYRING: Well, all right. Well, what I am saying is,

if when one comes back to this CURRENCY ACT, now,

taxation is a Crown charge to be paid in the

Queen's money, which, in terms of the CURRENCY ACT,

section 16 with the schedules thereto, is gold and

silver coin. We do not have any in open

circulation at face value, so, if I am to do

things strictly legally, I cannot pay that tax and

that is my point.	Now, what I am saying is that
we have an absurd situation.	We have a set of

inconsistent statutes which are in need of

resolution. Now, what has in fact happened is

that what we are calling money is in fact

banker's funny money, if I may use a somewhat rather

harsh term, which is paper money which is specifically	outlawed under the CURRENCY ACT as being legal	tender. Yet, it is called legal tender as per
item on the face of the notes.

Now, what has happened in respect of the

practice in regard to bank. notes is clearly_

at odds with the CURRENCY ACT, and what

Mr Justice McPherson said, in his judgment back in 1983, which fired the whole thing:

What is legal tender is as defined in the

CURRENCY ACT, section 16 of which binds me.

Now, it says nothing there about paper money.

Section 16 refers only to coins and the schedules

at the end of the Act spell it out in great detail.

Now, if I may point - while there are coins around,

these are in fact being sold, as I understand it,

BIT14/7/JM	7	1/7/88
Skyring(7)

anything up to six times face value, so-called

gold bullion legal tender. Now, here we have

a contradiction in terms, because gold bullion,

by definition, is gold in the lump. If it is

legal tender, it is not gold bullion, in which

case it ought to be sold at the face value on

the coins. If this is not so, then we have

the Queen's money in effect as being of some

lesser order to the so-called banker's money.

And it is that point which is at the - you know,

it is just absurd.

Now, what has happend over the years, it seems

to me, is that the legislature have not fully

grasped what is involved with the vital function

of the creation of money. That is the prime

difficulty.	Now, this is not something knew; it
has been going on for centuries.	The thing first

went wrong back in 1694 when the Bank of England was

floated. They made a magnificent breakthrough

in respect of the concepts that they dropped to,

but they did not get their act together pro~erly. We are still living with the effects of that; and

that is the difficulty.

Now, the whole point of the exercise is that

it seems to me that there is a great need for this

matter to be gone into. Now, in respect of same

it is perhaps worth mentioning there was a fairly

celebrated case that came before this Court back

in 1932. We have seen a bit on the TV in the

course of the last week about what happened to

the bank nationalization in 1947, I think it was.

That, in fact, was a continuation of what had

happened back in 1932. From the law reports of the day in that particular case, 46 CLR (1931) -

the entire report, which covered three cases,

went from 155 to 278. But at page 255 of same

there was a very interesting observation made

by Mr Ham, KC, who argued the case for the

Crown on that particular occasion. What he said

was: 

the relationship between the banks and the

State is that of debtor and creditor, or

banker and customer: the property in the

money that is deposited in the banks

passes to the banks and thereafter the,

obligation of each bank, apart from the

cashing of cheques, is that of a debtor at

connnon law.

Now, they did not in fact go beyond that

to see what is involved in this actual operation

of creation of money in this form of credit as

we now know it and it is there that the

difficulty primarily arises. This is. where the

BIT14/8/JM	8	1/7/88
Skyring(7)

MAGNA CHARTA comes in. What in fact happens,

from what I can see of studying this matter, is

that in fact banks create money by taking a

lien on property. Now, this is done in the form

of a mortgage, for which they will gtve you a credit.

That credit then becomes money in circulation.

Now, it is the legality of that particular

operation which I query, because, I would submit

that that contravenes chapter VIII of the great

charter. That, I believe, is still relevant.

My say-so for that is indeed based on what

Ivor Jennings cormnented earlier on in this little volume.

Part 3 will contain .....

relating to the administration of justice.

Three of these chapters, 8, 14 and 29 are

still in force.

Now, that was in 1965. I believe this was part

of what we inherited when the judicial system was
set up in this country. The situation, as I see

it, was frozen at that as of 1939 and there has been no change since. Now. notwithstanding that

our No 70 of 1984 here reinstates only chapte~ XX.IX,

the others, I believe, are still in force, because
one gets niceties of the authority of this

establishment further down George Street to have

done what it did. I believe they made a mistake,

but, okay, that can be picked up now. Again,

this, I believe, can also be got at on this

reductio ad absurdum type set-up because if you do

not do it, then, you know, you get chaos, so you

have really got to reinstate it. That is the type

of approach which is used to prove certain

propositions in geometry.

Now, what chapter VIII says in respect

of this - this has got to do with payment of debts -
and, in fact the current set-up is that

I am seen to be in debt to the Cormnonwealth for

the amount of the moneys owing.

(Continued on page 10)

BIT14/9/JM	9	1/7/88
Skyring(7)

MR SKYRING (continuing):  Now, what it says on the matter

of debts, which is very interesting: "Neither
we nor our officials will seize any land or

rent in payment of a debt so long as the debtor

has movable goods sufficient to discharge the

debt. The debtor's sureties will not be .....

upon so long as the debtor himself can discharge

his debt. If for lack of means the debtor is unable
to discharge his deb~ a surety shall b~ answerable

for it. If they so desire they may have the debtor's

lands and rents until they have received satisfaction

for the debt that they paid for him, unless the

debtor can show that he has settled his obligations

to them."

Now, this becomes of great relevance in respect

to the practice currently engaged in by the banks
of selling people up if they cannot pay.

MASON CJ:  But we are not going to review all that. There

is no way we can do that, Mr Skyring.

MR SKYRING:  Well, my point to you very simply is, Your Honour,

as I see the situation: in terms of the statutes

the CURRENCY ACT, which defines - and

Justice McPherson has said so - what is, in fact,

legal tender. It is gold and silver coin, we do

not have any, I cannot pay that debt legally and

if I cannot do it legally I will not do it at all.

Now, if that creates problems, all right, let those

for whom the problem is created deal with them.

As I see it, ultimately, it is the legislature.

Why I have sought to bring this matter here is that it seems to me the legislature do not see

this because if they did they would have responded.

It, therefore, needs somebody else to point it out

to them to say, "Look, this is wrong."

MASON CJ:  Mr Skyring, if I could interrupt you for a moment.

MR SKYRING:	Yes, Your Honour.
MASON CJ:	You can pay the debt in legal tender by notes.
MR SKYRING:	I submit that is not legal tender, Your Honour.
MASON CJ:	But this Court has held that section 36(1) of the RESERVE BANK ACT is valid.
MR SKYRING:	Well, I would submit, Your Honour, that you are

wrong, very simply and in terms of the constraint

which applies under section 115, which operates

in the manner that I gave in the documentation

filed previously.

BlTlS/1/MB	10	1/7/88
Skyring

I know that, Mr Skyring, and I know that you are but that is the Court's decision .and the Court is

"MASON CJ:	obviously not convinced by the Court's decision,
going to adhere to it.
MR SKYRING:	Well, my point is, Your Honour, that as I see

it - well, I cannot respond in a coherent manner

to your judgment. It is not that I am being

awkward or nasty, there is a matter of personal

integrity -

"MASON CJ:	I realize that.
MR SKYRING:	- - - there is a matter of personal integrity

comes into this, Your Honour, and I say that there

is a conflict in the statutes. The CURRENCY ACT

only defines what is legal tender not the -

WILSON J:  You keep coming back to the CURRENCY ACT.

Is it section 16?

MR SKYRING: Section 16 and the schedules.

WILSON J:	Have you read section 16?
MR SKYRING:	Yes, I have, unless there has been some change

since I filed the documentation which,

I did.query the matter before I launched

into this final ronnd t-o make sure that the

legislature had not, in fact, changed the legislation;

my word was that they had not.

WILSON J:  Certainly section 16 does not help you at all,

that merely fixes the maximum tender that you can

make of coins of 5 cents, 10 cents, 20 cent and

50 cent coins. You cannot compel anyone to accept

more than a certain value in those coins as legal

tender. So section 16 does not help you.

MR SKYRING:  Okay. That was as the Act was originally

framed in 1965. It was in 1979/80 when I read
that myself.	I wrote my opening letter to the
Attorney-General's Department.	I went up to see

them here to say, "Look, you have got something

inconsistent here." Some months later there was,

in fact, a change made to the CURRENCY ACT.

WILSON J:	And that is what I have just said to you.
MR SKYRING:	That was the 1981 amendment to same, 1981 amendment

to same which changed the whole ball game.

What it says here, No 11 of 1981:

Section 16 of the Principal Act is amended -

(a) by omitting from paragraph (l)(b) "and"; and

(b) by omitting paragraph (l)(c) and substituting

the following paragraphs:

BlT15/2/MB	11	1/7/88
Skyring

"(c) in the case of coins of a denomination

greater that Fifty cents but less than

Ten dollars - for payment of an amount not

exceeding 10 times the face value of a coin

of the denomination concerned but for no

greater amount;

"(d) in the case of coins - - -

WILSON J: Well, just pause a moment. That is limiting

the extent to which coins of a higher value than

50 cents will be legal tender.

MR SKYRING:  Okay, but I have not finished yet. Section (d):

in the case of coins of the denomination of

Ten dollars - for payment of an amount not exceeding $100 but for no greater amount; and

(e) in the case of coins of another

denomination - for payment of any amount."

Now, the schedules that were then added to the

Act at that time gave us $200: eleven-twelfths gold and one twelfth other metal; $100, $50, $25, similar

set up. Now, at the time, as I recollect, the

word was that they minted the $200 coin and it

was spread around as being a - the word was put

around it was to be a collector's item. There

was a great hoo-ha from the banks, they flatly

refused to handle them. Okay, that was in 1981.

That order then prevailed until about, what, two years ago. Before I appeared before you last time,

at the end of 1986, I had made much fuss about these new nugget .series that were about to hit

the market then. The $200 was to be taken out

of circulation as a collector's item and they

brought in this new set.

Now, they are $100, SO, 25 and 15. Now, the

15 is not even mentioned in the Act. They refer

to them as gold bullion legal tender.	Now, that,
I say, is a monumental fraud.	Now, there is

nothing mentioned about paper in this Act.

WILSON J: That may be, Mr Skyring, but your complaint is,

as I recall it, that the ANZ Bank refused to cash

your cheque in gold coin, a cheque for about $32,000,

right?

MR SKYRING:  Which I was entitled to under that Act, as

amended.

WILSON J:  Just a moment. Section 36(1) of the RESERVE

BANK ACT authorizes the bank to cash that cheque

in notes and we have said that section 36 is a valid

law of the Commonwealth.

BlTlS/3/MB	12	1/7/88
Skyring

MR SKYRING:  Well, with all due respect, Your Honours, I

believe you have been conned. There is monumental

efforts that has been ~oing on here for about

three centuries which is just of this order. Now,

when these notes originally came in - and, indeed,
the wording on the Bank of England notes, which

were the original ones that came in in 1694: "I

promise to pay on demand X bucks" which would have

been in the Queen's money "and for and on behalf

of the governor and company of the Bank of England."

That was the wording on our bank notes prior to

the nationalization case in the 40s and it was

only changed when the Reserve Bank was brought in

in 1959.

Now, that change had to be made because of the ruling by this Court, ultimately backed up by

the Privy Council, that, in fact - well, which
would not sprag the rights of private outfits, ie

the private banks, to create money. So there had

to be a split made to make the Commonwealth Trading

Bank look like the other private trading banks.

But this money creation function still resided

with the Reserve Bank. Now, that is supposed to

be a Crown instrumentality but, interestingly, in

the phone book, its phone number is listed in the

private section. So, I would submit, again, there

is a monumental fraud going on and this is something

which it seems - which it behoves the authorities

at least,perhaps, those in a position - the only

ones in a position to do anything about it being

yourselves - to pronounce that there is bare minimum,

that there is an inconsistency here. Now, the

ramifications of this are not inconsiderable and

I can appreciate a certain reluctance on your part

to engage in this.

Now, taking this matter further as to why it

might be that we have the provision in this Act - which you have pointed out to me as being a valid

one - from the standpoint of treaty obligations,

believe this is where the real damage is being	I would go along with you on that one because I
done, that that was put in there pursuant to
this Bretton Woods Treaty, whi.ch-:--.ser-:--.up~~the international
monetary scheme after World War II. Now, on the basis
of that then this RESERVE BANK ACT provision is, indeed, quite coherent. But then you need to relate
that back to what happened on the American scene
on the wording of the US notes., the wording on the
because the wording on our notes now virtually takes for all debts public and private". No-w, the problem
we have got if we do that then is that not only have
we got it but the Americans have also got it too because what happens is then that we have a statute
imposed on us by treaty obligation which puts us at

BlTlS/4/MB	13	1/7/88
Skyring

odds with our own CONSTITUTION and herein is the

real nroblem. Now, what is this nation going to

do? Are we going to knuckle under and, in essence,

be virtually destroyed by outside forces which, as

I see it, is what is progressively happening or are

we going to stand on our digs and stick by our own

CONSTITUTION which clearly outlaws such practice

and the corollary of this, necessarily, must be

that we have got to opt out of the international

financial set-up as it is presently configured: that

is the real problem.

Now, the fundamental issue that this really boils

to then on a much deeper level, and this has to do

with the earlier quo..... that I followed up

by the certiorari in 1986 which was the first part

of the action.	Now, let me state clearly what my
position is.	I am very much for parliamentary

government under a constitutional monarchy which

is what the CONSTITUTION, in effect, says; what we

think we have and is the de jure situation. The

reality, of course, is quite otherwise, - because

of this misplacement of this sovereign right of the

Crown in the creation of money bit is that we are fast heading towards a feudal dictatorship under a

republican oligarchy.

Now, I would submit to you in tnis CONSTITUTION

there is is no body mentioned called "cabinet" yet

the practice on the ground is that they are the

government. How come? What is their basis for

existence? Now, this is how, in fact, our whole

national government has, in fact, been corrupted by
these treaty obligations. It has been incipient
for decades but it really came to a head, in fact,

with that bank nationalization Act which really

started things rolling. The follow-up then with

the RESERVE BANK ACT and then when we went metric

then having got one leg in, in effect, with the

currency in the RESERVE BANK ACT - because that

particular clause has been there since it was framed

in 1959. Incidentally, I would draw your attention

re same to section 43 of that same Act which would

seem to indicate another momumental inconsistency.

(Continued on page 15)

BlTlS/5/MB	14	1/7/88
Skyring

MR SKYRING (continuin~):  RESERVE BANK ACT, section 43

of the Act - I do not think this has been

changed:

A bank shall not issue bills or notes

other than Australian notes intended

for circulation as money.

Okay, on second thought, as I read that now, while

that is consistent perhaps with the first one,

I would still submit that that provision itself is at odds with our own CONSTITUTION taken on its own,

but if you take treaty obligations, then, all right,

you have got a case. But it is my submission that

if this nation is to be a sovereign nation, we

have got to restore our currency, which means that

in essence it seems to me that there has got to be

a change of stance which this Court has seen fit

to take previously on this vital matter.

If the argument is put opposing me that this

ought not be done and indeed you uphold that, as

you have already in fact told me to my face, then

as a rejoinder I must submit to you that I have

no choice as I see it but to opt out of this

charade of financing of the national set-up as

it presently is. I flatly refuse - I just flatly

refuse henceforth to pay tax, any of it, because

you do not make means available to me to do that

legally as I see this, our national CONSTITUTION.

MASON CJ:	I think you have made your point of view.
MR SKYRING:	Okay, Your Honour. That is the essential point

I make.

MASON CJ:  That is all you wish to say in support of the

application?

MR SKYRING: Well, basically yes. I guess the cardinal

point to have come out of all of that is

really: what is to be the status of treaties

versus our own CONSTITUTION when we are put

at odds by treaties against our CONSTITUTION?

This is the vital function of this money

function and I would submit that the changes

that I am seeking would be for the real national

benefit of this nation if we are to survive
generally, but it is particularly acute for me
personally at this moment, which is my own personal

motivation for bringing this action. Thank you,

Your Honour.

MASON CJ: Yes, thank you, Mr Skyring. The Court need not

trouble you, Mr McGill or Mr O'Donnell.

Having regard to the judgment of this Court

delivered on 28 November 1986 affirming the

BIT16/l/JM	15	1/7/88
Skyring(7)

judgment of Justice Deane at first instance

rejecting Mr Skyring's challenge to the validity

of section 36(1) of the RESERVE BANK ACT, we

do not consider that there is sufficent substance

in the points which Mr Skyring seeks to agitate

in each of these proceedings to warrant the making

of orders removing them into this Court. The

applications are therefore refused.

MR O'DONNELL:	Your Honour, I ask for costs of the application.
MR McGILL:	I also ask for costs of the application,

Your Honour.

MASON CJ: You cannot oppose an order for costs, can you,

Mr Skyring?

MR SKYRING: Well, okay, you can give your order but my

point is, I still cannot pay it.

MASON CJ: Yes, well - - -

MR SKYRING: That is the present situation which prevails

in the State Supreme Court and it is the same -

the de facto situation is, I cannot pay and I

will not acquiesce to this corrupt system. End

of story.

MASON CJ: The Court will make orders for costs in each

of the proceedings. The Court will now

adjourn.

AT 4.14 PM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED SINE DIE

BIT16/2/JM	16	1/7/88
Skyring(7)