Skyring v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation; Skyring v Commissioner of Taxation

[1991] HCATrans 169

...

• 'I

,, .. ~·~

-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry

Brisbane No B43 of 1990

B e t w e e n -

ALAN GEORGE SKYRING

Applicant

and

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION

Respondent

Office of the Registry

Brisbane No B11 of 1991

B e t w e e n -

ALAN GEORGE SKYRING

Applicant

and

Skyring(ll) 1 27/6/91

COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION

Respondent

Applications for removal
pursuant to section 40 of

the Judiciary Act 1903

MASON CJ

(In Chambers)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT BRISBANE ON THURSDAY, 27 JUNE 1991, AT 9.56 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

HIS HONOUR:  Mr Skyring, you appear in the first two

applications, in person.

MR A.G. SKYRING:  Yes, Your Honour.

MR P.E. HACK: If the Court pleases, I appear for the

respondent Deputy Commissioner of Taxation, and the
respondent Commissioner of Taxation in these

matters. (instructed by the Australian Government

Solicitor)

HIS HONOUR:  Yes. I think we will proceed first with the

two Skyring matters, and after the two Skyring

matters have been dealt with, we will proceed with

Mr Cusack's application. And, I gather,

Mr Solicitor, you wish to make an application to

intervene?

MR G.L. DAVIES, OC, Solicitor-General for Queensland: No,

Your Honour. In fact, the Attorney-General is a respondent in the second notice of motion.

(instructed by the Crown Solicitor for Queensland)

HIS HONOUR:  I see, yes. You are a respondent in the second

notice of motion in the first Skyring matter, and

in the second notice of motion in Mr Cusack's

matter.

MR DAVIES: Yes, and our attitude, Your Honour - Your Honour

will have noticed that the second notice of motion

similar terms - asks that Mr Skyring be accorded	in the Skyring matter - and the Cusack one is in
standing to participate in the argument of the
fundamental points of constitutional law involved
in the case to be put on behalf of the State of
Queensland. Now, the State of Queensland has no
intention of putting any arguments on any such
fundamental constitutional principle.

HIS HONOUR:  I think that is why Mr Skyring has made the

application.

MR DAVIES:  I think that is right, Your Honour, and I think

that, in consequence, the submission we really want

to make is that we oppose Mr Skyring either

Skyring(ll) 2 27/6/91

purporting to appear on behalf of the Attorney-

General or putting the arguments on behalf of the

State of Queensland.

HIS HONOUR:  But one thing you might do is clarify in my

mind in which application Mr Skyring is seeking an

order of that kind.

MR DAVIES:  As I understand, it is B43, Your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:  B43. So it is a motion that is taken out in

association with B43?

MR DAVIES: Yes. It is. It does not appear in the

application book, Your Honour. It seems to be a

separate notice of motion.

HIS HONOUR:  No, I have it as a separate document supported

by a separate affidavit.

MR DAVIES: Yes. So do we.

HIS HONOUR:  Now, Mr Skyring, what do you have to say in

support of your application number B43?

MR SKYRING: Well, Your Honour, before I get on to that, if

I may just make the point in respect of

observations that you have made previously when I

have appeared before you, Your Honour. Because of

the complexity of the natures of the matters I am
trying to come to grips with, the broad issues

which I am seeking to address which may be

classified as the legality of the Income Tax Act in

particular, but taxation in general, getting in to

the form of payment, and the nature of matters

which Mr Cusack wishes to take which really carry

on from there, namely forms of payment, money,

legal tender, credit and bank mortgages, these are

very heavily interwoven.

Now, as a mode of approach, if one takes the

parallel of writing technical reports, of which I

have done a few over the years, although not that

many, there are two ways you can do it. After

stating your terms of reference you can either give

the body of your argument, ending up with your

conclusions, or you can present the conclusions

first and then the body of the argument follows, in

essence, by way of a justification of those
conclusions.

In short, from my reading of the literature fairly early on, I got the impression from

Sir Ivor Jennings that the whole present practice

of taxation as a means of funding the Crown's

purposes was, to put it mildly, highly illegal,

which immediately drew the corollary: well, if

Skyring(ll) 3 27/6/91

that is so, how do you fund the Crown's purposes,

because they have got to be funded; which got me

into the banking area.

Now, it is that area which really is the

subject of Mr Cusack's application. I was

wondering, just as an approach in order to get over

the ground fairly quickly, and that all might

understand what we are about - again, there is the

parallel of site investigation in civil

engineering: you have got to know what you are

looking for before you start. Now, I will just put

the proposition - whether it might be more

convenient and in the interests of the expedition

of the hearing anyway - if, for a start, a brief

submission could be made by Mr Cusack because the

argument which he puts, in essence, provides the

underpinning for what I am about. And then if

those points are taken then the sort of matters

which I am about follow as a matter of consequence

and would appear to be the right way to go.

HIS HONOUR:  No, I am not happy to deal with it on that

footing, Mr Skyring.

MR SKYRING: Fair enough. I just thought I would raise the

point, Your Honour. All right. Well, the

essential points, as matters of law, which I am

about, are covered in the two appeal books.

HIS HONOUR:  I have read the papers and I am familiar with the argument that you wish to present.

MR SKYRING: Right.

HIS HONOUR:  The difficulty as I see it, from your point of

view, is that the submissions that you wish to make

and have considered by the Full Court on a removal

application are submissions which have already been

rejected by this Court.

MR SKYRING: Well, okay, I take that
HIS HONOUR:	And I do not propose to remove the case merely

to bring before the Court questions of law which

have already been considered by the Full Court and

decided.

MR SKYRING: Yes, but my point is, Your Honour, that

although those decisions have been made, I would

make the point that in fact, in view of actions

which have followed in the broader community, if

you like, as a result of those decisions, it seems

to me that they must be regarded as interim

decisions only which have helped focus attention on

what the crucial items are.

Skyring(ll) 4 27/6/91

Now, as I concluded my application in 1988, I

raised the point: what does a nation do when

statutes are passed pursuant to treaty obligations

which put it at odds with its own Constitution?

Now, it is that point, really, which needs to be

picked up and carried on, which is what I seek to

do. Now, my point is that if all that has been

said on previous occasions is in fact so, then how

come we can have the Queen's money traded at

between five and six times face value in terms of
this bankers' paper money in clear contravention of

the Constitution?

Now, my point is that on that - this is a real

life situation, in fact, on the ground at this time

that this is happening, and as a case in point to

drive it home, I took the action I did which formed

the basis of my application for the matter which I

raised before the Court of Disputed Returns in

respect of the last election.

Now, there was a preliminary point in that

petition which really needs to be dealt with before
that petition can be dealt with properly, and that

swings on precisely the point which I am seeking to

raise here. Indeed, this whole action comes about

in an endeavour to try to address the underlying

point which gave rise to that.

Now, there is a very fundamental conflict in

our values in the society which really needs to be

addressed. It seems to me the courts are the forum

where that ought to be done, and it comes about

because, as I have cited in some of the documents,

this legal principle. of some considerable standing,

generalia specialibus non derogant. It seems to me

that the difficulty lies in there because what is

happening is that the place is running, basically,

on detailed statutes which are held to be valid

when they are in clear contravention of the general

constitutional provisions.

HIS HONOUR: 

Yes, but Mr Skyring, as I have already pointed

out to you, the submissions you are making are the
submissions you have made in the earlier cases.

MR SKYRING: Well, my contention is, Your Honour, that if in

fact one takes the narrow interpretation of what

has been said previously, I believe someone has got

it wrong and it needs to be looked at again.	And
that is why the action is brought.

HIS HONOUR:  But the Court is not in the habit of reviewing

its decisions whenever a litigant wants them

reviewed.

Skyring(ll) 5 27/6/91

MR SKYRING: It is not that I particularly want it reviewed;

not me personally. There is an awful lot of people

hurting out in the community through effects which

come about because the nature of decisions that

have been given in these actions of mine, I

believe, are wrong, and they need to be reviewed.

And that they are wrong, again, I repeat, it comes

about in this matter of the fall of the currency.

What are the values in this nation?

HIS HONOUR: Well, I understand the submissions that you

wish to make. They are the submissions that you

have made before, and it seems to me there is

little point in your reiterating the arguments that

are set out in the papers that I have read and the

arguments that you have presented to the Court

before.

MR SKYRING: Well, if that is so, Your Honour, how the hell

am I going to pay my income tax?

HIS HONOUR:  Now, do not speak to me like that, Mr Skyring.

MR SKYRING: Well, people can be driven to desperation,

Your Honour, and might I say I am on the limit of desperation because this matter will not be addressed by the authorities who should address it.

HIS HONOUR:	Yes, I follow what you are saying.
MR SKYRING:	Okay, well, my point is, Your Honour, that it

seems to me - and I reiterate - this crucial matter

of what constitutes the·legal tender of this nation

needs to be determined, formally and properly, by

this Court, as I believe is its duty.

Now, when this matter first came up in 1985, and as a result of discussions which I had had with

members of the legal fraternity in the years prior

to that, there has never been a formal

interpretation given of what section 115 of the

Constitution means, particularly - - -

HIS HONOUR:  But section 115 is addressed to the States, not

the Commonwealth.

MR SKYRING: Yes, but the point of the matter is that

statutes must be read as a whole. This is one of

the fundamental tenets that I picked up in my

reading earlier on in this lot. That provision of

the Constitution has to be read in conjunction with

section 51: 5l(xii), (xiii) and (xvi) in

particular. Now, section 5l(xii) treats currency,

coinage, and legal tender; section 5l(xiii) treats

banking, with the exception of State banking, and

paper money~ and section Sl(xvi) treats promissory

notes, which covers all other forms of paper money.

Skyring(ll) 6 27/6/91

Now, my argument is that if one takes those heads of power assigned to the Federal authorities

on their own then, as Justice Deane stated very

early in 1985, he saw no bar to the feds making

paper money legal tender. Now, that is if you take

section 115 alone. But there is a nice interaction

effect here which brings in section 115, in fact,

that the feds are not free to do as they will.

There is a secondary constraint which operates

under section 115 that if, in fact, the feds do as

they have done, and we now have paper money as

legal tender, the question arises as to whether the

States are duty bound to jump on the feds for

having done the wrong thing. Because what has

happened is that they force on the States, to be

used within their boundaries, instruments which are

in clear contravention of the requirement on the

States to ensure that there is nothing other than

gold and silver coin made to be legal tender.

Now, it is because the States will not move on

this - and we have just had confirmed here this

morning - that I have taken the action that I have

on that subsidiary notice of motion. This matter

needs to be raised. It has never been raised

because it is an extremely subtle point and unless

one has a full grasp of the history of the whole

evolution of the financial system over centuries,

one cannot see how this bloody great fraud came to

be. Pardon the French, but that is what it is, and

it is high time it was exposed for what it is.

Now, under those two constraints, an answer

can be very simply provided to the nation's

problems, and that is the crux of the matter.	It
is the highly dubious practice which has arisen

because these statutes are not enforced properly

that has given rise to the difficulties which I

have got into and, indeed, which Mr Cusack has got

into in a much more fundamental matter.

Now, there is an interaction effect between

our cases and, because he bought in much heavier in

the area which becomes crucial to this, it seems to

me that that area needs to be looked at very

closely. This involves contract law, fundamental

principles of common law; everything is involved

in this. That is why I suggested at the outset

that if one had a look at the arguments he is

putting, or seeks to put, then one can see what the

problems are. Because of the nature of this

problem, it first of all has to be perceived, it

then has to be verbalized, it then has to be

reduced to writing in a real-life situation where,

in fact, the courts can deal with it. This latter

part has been mentioned on quite a few occasions:

Skyring(ll) 7 27/6/91

that we had not brought matters in a way that the

courts could deal with, although we thought we had.

Now, when one gets into that sort of thing you

begin to see the sort of problems I am broaching.

I am specifically concerned with taxation and forms

of payment to do with money, because you pay your

tax in dollars, okay, what is a dollar? Now, there

are values, there is form of payment, and there are

a whole lot of interacting things here which really

need to be looked at closely.

If I can take another analogy, Your Honour.

When one has complicated high speed actions often

these can be resolved with the use of high speed

photography which is then played slow motion so you can see what is happening. Now, it is that area of

the problem to do with this legal tender, money,

credit creation, mortgages, which has got to do

with banking, which is the central issue, which is

what I have been trying to get at for years. I

could only come at it through the currency question but, by coupling currency with forms of payment for

taxation, which is the Crown's method of financing

its purposes, I had hoped to be able to get the

drop, so to speak, on the problem in such a way

that everybody can see what is going on and we can

take some constructive action to solve some very

longstanding and deepseated problems, Your Honour.

That is what the action is about.

Just because things have been done for a long time does not mean to say they are right, and this

has a history of centuries. There is fraud of a

monumental proportion involved in it and I get the

impression that no-one is prepared to grapple with

the problem because if they do it will wreck

everything. Well, to a point it will, but often

when one is seeking to build a decent construction,

often you have got to clear the site of debris

first, and it seems to me that is the sort of

problem we have here.

Certainly, when one looks at the community at

large, there are enormous problems out there, and I

have the feeling no-one knows how to come to grips

with them. Between the pair of us, we are caught

up in that and we are trying to, using the

established system, which is the courts, in

particular this Court, because we are talking

Federal statutes, and we get detailed statutes tied

up relative to the Constitution. And this matter,

it seems to me, must be addressed and it is only in

this Court that it can be done; no other court has

the jurisdiction. If this Court will not do it

then it seems to me, then, basically, you are

setting the stage for civil war. And I mean that.

Skyring(ll) 27/6/91

So it is far better that we talk. It might be

a little bit embarrassing in some quarters, but

talk is far far better than the alternative, which

is why these actions are brought. So I would

submit, again, I believe that rather than say any

more on mine, I believe you ought to hear what

Mr Cusack has to say because he has made a few very

interesting - - -

HIS HONOUR:  I will deal with your applications first,

Mr Skyring.

MR SKYRING: Well, my point is, Your Honour, that I am stuck

with a very real problem in respect of payment of

tax, and indeed that was the one which brought on

the bankruptcy action. At the time this started

back in 1988 I did have sufficient credit in the

peter.	I then got embroiled in a system which the
banks made that little lot disappear.	My argument

is, they better be bloody-well smart enough and

bring it back again. Now, that is the first point.

The second is, so as I can make my payment in

terms of legal tender, as Justice McPherson defined

in this Court back in 1983, under section 16 of the

Currency Act - it was he who drew my attention to

it.	Now, I am not able to make the payment in that
form which I sought to do in 1987.	Now, because I

could not get that done I then sought then to bring

the matter on in a proper manner. I was

railroaded, and that has not impressed me one

little bit. The process then went on, as a sequel

to the refusal of this Court to grant my

application, then on the basis that there was, if I

can quote your words correctly, "insufficient

substance to the point seeking to be litigated".

Okay, on one level I fouled up on process; did not realize I had to appeal Master Lee's	I
decision. That was a simple procedure error on my
part.	On the next level though we are only talking

a mere $30,000 which, in terms of the sort of

numbers these days that are talked, is mere

chicken-feed and it was an isolated case in respect

of myself.

So, what has happened in the interim? As a

result of that determination of this Court, having

been taken as a final determination, bankruptcy

proceedings were then instituted against me.

HIS HONOUR:	I am familiar with the history of the matter.
MR SKYRING:	Okay.  My point is that it all come about

because this crucial point of form of payment has

not been addressed. We are talking tax. That is a

Crown charge to be paid in the Queen's money, as

Skyring(ll) 9 27/6/91

Justice McPherson pointed out and, indeed, was

confirmed on appeal in the Federal Court in 1984.

I raised a specific point:  how do I pay that tax?

I drew a rejoinder quick as a flash: legal tender.

Right, legal tender in terms of the Currency Act is

gold and silver coin. As I said then, we do not

have any so how the hell can I pay that tax

legally? And I am not going to use this other

funny stuff, and you lot are not going to get your hands on my property. As it happens now, there is none to get anyway.

So you are still left with the very nasty

problem which means that, in essence, we have got

the classic situation of two wrongs not making a

right. Taxation is a violation of the citizen's

property rights, for a start, and secondly, there
is the matter of form of payment. That was the

first part then which brought the bankruptcy.

Okay. Proceedings were instituted against me. I had indicated, you can give your orders but you As

will not get anything. The fact of the matter is

there was nothing to get, because I have always

played a straight game and I have been got at by

con men. Of that I am quite certain.

Okay, so that more or less - that was the

background of the conditions then which was to lead

to the first application. The second one then was

my not having put in a return for the last couple

of years. Well, this comes about as a direct

follow-on from the actions of the returning officer

in the 1990 election in accepting my $250 at face

value, as gold coin, when it cost me damn near

$1500 to get.

What the hell are the values of this nation?

If one fills in forms knowingly, then outfits like

this can jump on me heavily for fraud, so I froze

and I did nothing, hoping to force the issue that,

high time somebody in authority did their job	look, there is a hell of a conflict here and it is
properly and addressed the problem instead of going
on with the legal humbug which is all I have had
for damn-near a decade now. And I have had a
gutful of it, and I am just not going to accept
that this Court will not deal with the matter.

HIS HONOUR:  You will accept whatever orders this Court

makes, Mr Skyring.

MR SKYRING: Well, might I come back as a rejoinder to that:

if you give orders which, in fact, cannot be

followed through properly, others seek to follow

them through - - -

Skyring(ll) 10 27/6/91

HIS HONOUR:  Look, Mr Skyring, you are asking this Court to

remove proceedings in the Federal Court of
Queensland at the present time, and in the District

Court of Queensland.

MR SKYRING: Correct.

HIS HONOUR:  The question is whether those proceedings are

going to be removed.

MR SKYRING: Quite. Now, my idea is, Your Honour, that the

nature of the matters are such that the lower

courts cannot properly deal with them.

HIS HONOUR:	I realize that.
MR SKYRING:	Okay.  Now, it. seems to me that the simple

answer is, okay, remove them, and let us get the

thing talked about properly in the forum where it

should be talked about properly. That is all I am

asking.	Not all the matters are for this Court to
deal with.	What I am asking is, take the lot over,

sift out what you reckon ought to be dealt with,

then send the rest back. Fair enough. But it is

easier for you to have the whole picture, pick out

the bits which you can deal with, which is your
jurisdiction to deal with, which is the validity of

the Federal statutes. Then we can sort the problem

out. But until such time as this is done, no-one

else can do this. That is surely self-evident.

That is all I am asking, just formal process.

People can do it properly.

Now, this is a matter which the A-G should do.

I have tried for years to get them to intervene and

they will not. Yet it is - - -

HIS HONOUR: Well, that is a matter for the Attorney-General

to decide.

MR SKYRING:  Okay, but if he is not going to - if he either

does not have the wherewithal or the understanding

to be able to deal with the matter, the question is

whether he is competent to be able to do it anyway.

HIS HONOUR: Well, there is nothing I can do in relation to

the competence of the Attorney-General.

MR SKYRING: Well, there is a moot point, Your Honour,

whether that is indeed so. Firstly, if we take it

on the Federal level, I have raised - if we come

back to this matter of this action of mine before

the Court of Disputed Returns in respect to John

Laws' election on the - - -

HIS HONOUR:  But we are not concerned with that proceeding

at the present time.

Skyring(ll) 11 27/6/91

MR SKYRING:  No, but it kicks over in to the A-G, because if

in fact John Laws is not properly elected because

he was not properly nominated, nobody else in the

1990 election is properly - - -

HIS HONOUR:  Mr Skyring, I am concerned only with your

removal applications.

MR SKYRING:  Okay, well, my point is that I am bringing the

action in my own personal case and these things
tend to be viewed this way - and I can see that is

not unreasonable. It seems to me that this is

representative of a much larger class of cases. If

everybody was to play the game straight, everybody

should dig their heels in on the point that I have.

The problem is that very few people, by dint of the

circumstances of their life and indeed their own

personal aptitudes and talents, have the
inclination to do the historical research that I

have got into to find out what the hell the problem

is. I am therefore in a quite unique situation.

Having done all this study it is very clear to me

what the problem is.

I am seeking to work legal process properly,

as I understood it should be done, in the inherited

tradition. The fact of the matter is that our

whole judicial process has been subverted because

this fundamental matter is not being addressed.

People do not understand it. It is extremely

complex, it is subtle, and it is not a simple

matter to be dealt with, Your Honour. But to me,

the matters that were raised in our statement of

triable issues which were brought up in the supreme

court in 1988 subsequent to the failure of my

action for removal here basically laid it on the

line. Those were then just railroaded. Yet they

are crucial at Federal level and they are not being

addressed.

one gets like that, one tends to be treated like a	am continually ignored. Well, after a while, when I put out 78B notices, again I am ignored. I
bloody idiot so you start acting like one after a
while, and if I am carrying on like one now it is
out of sheer desperation, because the authorities will not do their job properly, it seems to me, for
want of understanding of what the job is, because
they get there on the wrong basis in the first
instance.

The question is whether it is partisan

ideology that rules, or the fundamental inherited

whole legal process, which is absolutely

magnificent when you see it in its full glory, as I
sense from reading Ivor Jennings. But it has been

subverted massively because of this generalia

Skyring(ll) 12 27/6/91

specialibus crap.	And that is what needs to be
addressed.

Okay, you have done it that way for centuries.

The place has operated after a fashion, but there

comes a time - as was found in the scientific area

earlier this century when we changed over from the

old mechanistic approach on to quantum mechanics.

Having got on to quantum mechanics, the atom was

split and there was a whole range of new stuff was

started and came to be. Now, it is the equivalent

of that that needs to happen in the financial

arena. The background was there at the time, but

no-one ever got the act together, and so we are
still lumbering on with this antiquated set-up

which bears no relevance whatever to the present

situation. It never has. But in the light of prior

knowledge, it was passable and people were not too

discriminating and it could be glossed over and the

place was made to work. But not any more. People

are a lot more critical now and the level of
understanding in the community at large is such

that the populace will not accept it.

And I repeat, it is far better that this

Court, awkward though it might be and difficult though it might be, it seems to me that it needs to

be taken on board - again, I say, not for this

Court to act in isolation but to act in concert

with the legislature. My view of the total system

operation is that overall it is the legislature

which must eventually change the statutes but,

because of this partisan ideology which has

completely wrecked their thinking, no-one in that

forum seems to know that they are even doing wrong.

As I would see it the role of this Court, in

terms of the ideas that were laid down in that

volume by Mr Griffith, I think it was, on how to

understand an Act of Parliament and in respect of

manifest absurdity, the courts need to give

interpretation to statutes with the literal meaning

of their words. If that gives an absurd situation, then that is up to the legislature to interpret and to change, but the requirement is very clear. All

I have ever asked a court to do was to point out,

"Look, there is an absurdity in present practice

between the section 36(1) of the Reserve Bank Act

and the Currency Act".

As was quite rightly stated by Justice Deane

in 1985, one does not overrule the other. They are

both subservient to the Constitution. It just so

happens that the content of the Currency Act lines

up with the Constitution, whereas the Reserve Bank

Act does not.	Or that particular provision does
not.	And if it does not line up, this is where

Skyring(ll) 13 27/6/91

your generalia specialibus comes in. If your

detail is at odds with the general, then the detail

is invalid, end of story and that is it. Which

means that what we call legal tender reverts back

to what it always has been, which is a promissory

note. That is all it ever has been and that is all

it ever can be.

If you want payment in the Queen's money you

ought to be able to get it and it behoves the Crown

to run the system so that that is so. In the

normal course of events the great majority of the

people will never want to do this because it is too
bloody inconvenient, but it is like a standard

measure:  it needs to be there and we have got to

see it and we have got to be able to get our hands

on it. When that is done, what it will show up is

where all the fraudulent practice is coming in.

So by addressing that problem - that is why

this currency becomes so vital, because that is out

ultimate measure of value for the nation, and if

that is an elastic measure then no-one has any hope

of doing anything, and that is where the nation's

problems are, because we have had this imposed on

us from abroad, which is based on practice in the

US, which in terms of a series of submissions or

items that appeared in the press in 1984,

interestingly just after I had raised a matter in

the Court here, that said that the American

practice is unconstitutional from top to bottom.

Now, that is imposed on this country. So if it is

unconstitutional over there, it is bloody well

unconstitutional here, and even more so.

HIS HONOUR:  Now, please express yourself in acceptable

terms, Mr Skyring.

MR SKYRING:  I take your point, Your Honour. In so far as I

am erring, then I plead M'Naghten's rules, Your

Honour, driven to it out of utter desperation. It

is not my normal manner of conduct. I am driven to

enormous pain, and I am

it because of inability, for whatever reason, of millions of Australians

the authorities to come to grips with this problem.

damned if I can see why a few people who think they

have power, but if you chase it back have no

ultimate constitutional basis for that power, can

act like bloody dictators. They need to be brought

to order, and that is what this is about.

In respect of this item that is currently

doing the rounds about this republicanism, this

centres very much on -

HIS HONOUR:  I am not concerned with that.

Skyring(ll) 14 27/6/91

MR SKYRING: Who is the king in this country? Is it the

international financiers who are ultimately behind

this paper money, or is it our own monarch with a

proper legal system on Christian principles that

runs the place? It is the latter I back, not the

former, and that is what this argument is really

all about.

HIS HONOUR: All right. I think I understand, as best I

can, what you are saying.

MR SKYRING: It is a complex problem, Your Honour. If you

are having difficulties, I can sympathize with you.

HIS HONOUR:  Yes.

MR SKYRING: It has taken me a lot of years, I can assure

you.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, I can understand that. But, Mr Skyring,

I really do not think that you are advancing your case by addressing - - -

MR SKYRING:  No, well, that is why I would submit, Your

Honour, that it is far better if you would hear

Mr Cusack - he has made a couple of interesting

observations which are, in fact, breakthroughs on

this central point which would allow then this

effort I am on about to be followed through.

HIS HONOUR:  I am going to hear Mr Cusack in relation to

this application, but I am going to deal with your

applications first.

MR SKYRING: Well, I would make the concluding point, Your

Honour, that if in fact, by whatever decision you

give here now, you put me in a position that I

ca~not properly follow through what you are asking

to have me do, then this is going to cause ructions

down the line. I can assure you they will be

caused. I entreat you, Your Honour, do not put me

in that position. Do not put me in that position,

because I will follow through, with force of arms

if necessary.	I mean that, so do not put me in
that position.

HIS HONOUR:  All I can say to you, Mr Skyring, is this: I

will give a decision according to the law.

MR SKYRING:  I am asking - bear in mind, Your Honour, we

have two forms of law and there are two sets of

diametrically opposed - - -

HIS HONOUR:	I know, and I do not want to get into an argument with you about that, but you must
appreciate that the decision I will give in these

Skyring(ll) 15 27/6/91

cases is a decision that I believe is in accordance

with the law.

MR SKYRING:  Okay, well, if you do what you believe to be

right I can ask no more. I would put the point,

Your Honour, that unless you are very

discriminating, because there are two sets of - - -

HIS HONOUR:	Yes, but you must not threaten the Court.
MR SKYRING:	I am not threatening, Your Honour.  I am just

making the point very forcibly because of what I have found over the years, that this argument is

extremely subtle, and we are dealing with a

subverted law here. This is the very concept of the rule of law itself which is at issue in this case. This is the difficulty. All these other

matters just follow on as corollaries to that.	But
that is the point.	Which law are you going to work
to?	Now, there is one law I would concur with you

on, but if you are trying to put this subverted law

on me, there is no way I am going to accept that.

The fundamental inherited traditional law is the

one I will back you all the way on, but I will

fight you all the way if you come in on the other

one. So that is really your decision.

HIS HONOUR:  Yes, thank you. Now, Mr Hack, do you wish to

say anything about these two applications by Mr

Skyring, including his application in number B43

for this order that he be accorded the standing of

the Attorney-General for Queensland?

MR HACK:  Your Honour, so far as the last point is concerned

I am quite sure the Solicitor will advance the

arguments there. So far as the fundamental

argument is concerned, as I think Your Honour has

already observed, the matter has been dealt with by

this Court in a series of cases. They seem to

start with a decision of Mr Justice Deane in 1985.

The appeal - - -

HIS HONOUR:  Then there was an appeal to the Full Court from

that decision.

MR HACK:  There was an appeal to the Full Court from that

decision later in 1985. The point arose

again - - -

HIS HONOUR:  In the judgment of the Full Court on that

occasion they dealt with both the points, did they

not?

MR HACK:	Yes.
HIS HONOUR:	That is, the currency point and the validity of

the Income Tax Assessment Act?

Skyring(ll) 16 27/6/91

MR HACK:  Yes. At page 2 of the unreported judgment the

Court said:

We should say in addition that the power

conferred upon the Commonwealth Parliament by

s.Sl(ii) of the Constitution to legislate with

respect to taxation extends -

et cetera. So that the two points, the currency

point and the taxation point, have been agitated in

this Court and have been found to have no

substance.

HIS HONOUR:  And then again, later on, I think it was in

1988?

MR HACK:  Yes, on 1 July 1988 this Court, on an application

for removal, the Court comprised of yourself and

Justices Wilson and Gaudron, said, in effect,

"Having regard to the judgment of this Court
affirming the judgment of Justice Deane at first
instance, we do not consider there is sufficient

substance in the points to warrant the making of

orders removing them into this Court". Your

Honour, unless there is anything else those are my

submissions.

HIS HONOUR:  No. Thank you. Mr Davies, do you wish to say

anything about the subsidiary notice of motion in

number B43?

MR DAVIES:  No, really nothing further than I have said,

Your Honour, that no basis has been established in

law for the proposition that Mr Skyring can either

make submissions on behalf of the State of

Queensland or seek to represent the Attorney in

obtaining removal to this Court.

HIS HONOUR:  Yes. Now, Mr Skyring, do you want to say

anything in response to what we have heard from

Mr Hack and from the Solicitor-General?

MR SKYRING: My very word I do, Your Honour, yes. In

respect of the first one, the whole thing swings on

this interpretation of your wording, "insufficient

substance to the points". Now, the way I read

tnat, or what has been taken - - -

HIS HONOUR: That is the second judgment.

MR SKYRING: Yes, that was in 1988 when I sought the removal

of both my actions, the ANZ and the Tax

Commissioner then. Now, it is the interpretation

put on that which seems to me to be the crux of the

matter. In essence, it seems to me the legal

fraternity have basically taken that to mean that

there is no - how can I put it - the argument in

Skyring(ll) 17 27/6/91

terms of the technicalities of the law, so to

speak, is without foundation.	Okay, well, I have
always disputed that.

There is a second interpretation - and I still

do - because I reiterate, if so, then how come we

can have this awful conflict of values in respect

of the currency and the inability, in my instance,
by playing strictly to the detailed provisions of

the statutes, on the presumption that everything is

all proper and correct, which is what everybody

would have me believe, how come I get into this

awful bind in respect of form of payment to not only pay my tax returns but even to fill in the forms, which is the basis of the latest

application?

Now, my reading, looking at the total

situation in respect of what you then said, and I

believe you said quite correctly, if one takes this

interpretation on it, that the matters that I was

seeking to bring up were not of sufficient moment

at the time - it was a mere 30 grand to me

personally - as could merit this Court taking a

hand in proceedings because, as I µnderstand

proceedings in this Court, they are as much

political as they are legal and because of what you

say here it has enormous import for this nation.

Now, also as I understand the situation, I had

not dug deep enough in respect of what I was about

in this whole action. Okay, there was the form of

payment, but I was only talking comparatively

surface efforts. One needed to get in to a much

deeper effort to make it worthwhile bringing on.

That, I would submit, is what Mr Cusack has

subsequently done. Just because of the
circumstances of my life I was not prepared to go
into that much deeper area, and for a whole lot of

other reasons as well.

But that has now been done, and when one takes

the joint actions, what I sought to do then but had

not gone deep enough, I believe we now have got the
matters in a form where they can be dealt with

quite quickly by this Court, and you can sort out

some awfully longstanding problems. So my method

is that the wording of the interpretation that has

been put on "insufficient substance to the points",

is, in fact, not correct. At that time, perhaps

so, but although we brought it back again, it is a

much more comprehensive matter now and it is, if

you like, up for a review. Have we now got

sufficient substance to the points where I am on

the one hand virtually challenging the ultimate

legality of the last Federal election? Mr Cusack

in his part is getting in to the whole operation of

Skyring(ll) 18 27/6/91

the banking system. Now, again, to say that there

are no problems in the public arena at the moment

would be just totally misconstruing things.

Now, in respect of the second point, might I

say that I am not - if one looks closely at what I

asked there, I am not asking to speak for the A-G.

What actually prompted that application, and the

wording in the form it was, was an item which I

included in a swag of documentation which I put up

to the State A-G late last year, in respect of the

law of agency - this was a Yanky background effort

- talking about the role of the feds versus the

States. The Yanks have been a federation about a

century more than we have, and so they have got a

bit more experience in the area.

The point that was made was that the

pre-existing bodies were the States and the feds

act as the agents for the States. Now, if in fact,

the feds do anything wrong, then it behoves the

States to act. This means not one individual, but

the State, which, as I understand that, means

mobilizing the full resources of the State. This
means your whole administrative structure in

concert with the population, those who are able to

participate.

So what I sought to do in that application was

to have the formal machinery of state put in

motion. Now, bear in mind that as with the normal

role of counsel, they act on advice from their

customers, and in this instance the customers

happen to be the members of the State. It was a

matter of being formally stated who the customer

was and as a matter of who gives instructions.

Now, this is a normal legal practice.	My
instruction was, "Right, question that".

Now, this, of course, raises the whole matter

then of the role of the administration and, indeed,

calls into question, if you like, by a parallel

action of what I got in the High Court, which you
have not yet ruled on, and that is, are in fact
these various Ministers of the Crown properly
there? They purport to be there on the basis that
they say they were elected, but if they are not

properly nominated - - -

HIS HONOUR:	But that is another matter altogether.
MR SKYRING:	But this comes into the relevance of this

argument, Your Honour, because if, in fact the A-G,

who purports to be properly there, is in fact not
properly there, then who should argue? And this is

a very real case because we have the same provision

in the State electoral laws as we have in the

Skyring(ll) 19 27/6/91

Federal electoral laws, except they are rather more

precise in the Federal - they talk about legal

tender:	shall a company .... for electoral deposit.
In the State Act they talk about money.	But if you

look at the State supreme court rules, when they

talk about money they talk about the Currency Act,

so we are back to the same problem again.

So my submission is that there is a two-level basis for my action in respect of the second notice

of motion in regard to the State A-G's in that,

firstly, I query whether he is properly there and

holds his office anyway, on the basis of not having

been properly nominated. If he is not properly

nominated he is not properly elected, so I am

doubtful of that. But even that aside, because of

the nature of response that I have drawn to my

various 78B notices, three in fairly quick

succession to this current A-G, and a series of

about four or five to the previous incumbents, they

just go dead. Yet there is a vital matter which

needs to be sorted out.

So, on the basis of this Yankee effort about

law of agency, it seems to me that the A-Gs are the

boys who should bring this action. It is the

States' rights that have been violated and by the

State generally that impinges on me, and I am very

upset about it, as I hope I have made very clear by

the manner of my presentation. So proper process is that the State should take a hand to sort out,

"Okay, what does this provision mean?" It has

never been interpreted and we are entitled to an

interpretation, par~icularly when there is so much

swinging on it, as there now is.

So it seems to me that, for the A-Gs not

intervene, of themselves, means that either they
are incompetent - that is the kindest thing I can

say - or they are outright crooked, part of this

general financial conspiracy. Now, on the basis of

the fundamental principles which I adhere to, you

are innocent until you are proved guilty and you

get the benefit of the doubt. The kindest thing I

can say is to come back to the first one, because

he said he will not intervene.	We have just had
that repeated.

So to me it is quite wrong, Your Honour. Now,

if he will not move of himself, I have got one hell

of a problem. Now, this comes back then to the

fundamental principles of the whole of the legal

structure as set up by John Locke -

HIS HONOUR:  Yes, I realize that.

Skyring(ll) 20 27/6/91

MR SKYRING: Right, I will act rather than go through him as

my counsel and I will put the argument myself,
which is why I have been doing it over the

intervening years because I could never ever get

any sense out of any other counsel. That is why I

have appeared in person, Your Honour, rather than

argue through them. It is better for me to put my

case direct. So that is the rationale for it.

HIS HONOUR:	Yes, thank you.
MR SKYRING:	Now, it seems to me that it is just totally

wrong for this not to proceed as I have sought to

have it done, Your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:  Very well. I understand the argument.

Application number.B43 of 1990 is an application under section 40 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) for the removal into this Court of a cause said to

be pending in the Federal Court of Australia on the

ground that the cause involves the interpretation

of the Constitution. The applicant identifies the

cause as number QB 351 of 1989. That is a

reference to proceedings in the Federal Court

concerning three applications made .by Mr Skyring.

These were:

(1) an application that a sequestration order made

against Mr Skyring on 24 April 1989 be

annulled;

(2) an application that the creditor's petition on

which the sequestration order was made be

annulled; and

(3) an application that leave be granted to

Mr Skyring to file a counterclaim sought to be

filed in September 1988 in response to the

bankruptcy notice upon which the creditor's

petition was grounded.

On 22 November 1990, the three applications

came before Mr Justice Pincus, who dismissed them.

Mr Skyring has appealed to the Full Court of the

Federal Court from the orders made by

Mr Justice Pincus, and that appeal is now pending

in the Federal Court and is the subject of the

removal application.

The grounds of appeal set out in the notice of

appeal are prolix and imprecise. They contain

complaints of denial of natural justice, conflict

of interest, misconduct on the part of Crown

authorities, and other matters not relevant to the

present application. The grounds said to be

relevant to this application, and to involve the

interpretation of the Constitution, are set out in

Skyring(ll) 21 27/6/91

paragraph 6 of the grounds of appeal. That

paragraph reads as follows:

proper legal foundation as no final	The subject bankruptcy proceedings have no
determinations have yet been made on the
following issues:-
(i) The legality of the physical tokens
presently in circulation with which debts
incurred may be properly discharged by
monetary means, having regard for the
provisions of ss.51(xii) and 115 of the Constitution, taken together, and provisions of the Currency Act enacted pursuant to these
constitutional constraints, which matter was brought into question in action W2292/87; and
(ii) The appellant's (tax) Appeal No.5 of
1983, challenging the constitutional validity
of the Income Tax Assessment Act as a
whole - which action gave rise to W2292/87
noted above - in that, as presently framed,
that Act contains provisions which violate
property rights of the individual secured by
25 Edward I, C.29, part of the inherited law
which provides a constitutional protection of
rights of the individual against the Crown in
right of both the Commonwealth and the State.

This is by no means the first occasion on which Mr Skyring has endeavoured to pursue these

points in this and other Courts. It seems that the
debt on which the petition and the bankruptcy

notice was founded was a judgment debt for unpaid

income tax owing by Mr Skyring to the Deputy

Commissioner of Taxation. Mr Skyring argues that

there was no debt owing by reason of the two

contentions which I have extracted from the grounds
of appeal. There is no substance in either

contention, and this Court has so held in earlier

proceedings to which Mr Skyring was a party.

On 23 January 1985, in consequence of an

earlier direction by the Chief Justice that the

Registrar refuse to issue writs at the instance of

Mr Skyring without the leave of a Justice of the

Court, Mr Skyring sought leave from Deane J. to

issue writs against a Minister of the Commonwealth

of Australia and a judge. He sought, in the

proceedings, to obtain a decision by the Court that

the provisions of the Commonwealth Constitution do

not authorize the issue of paper money as legal

tender; that section 36(1) of the Reserve Bank Act

1959, which so provides is invalid; that taxation

is an infringement of property rights deriving from

Magna Carta; and that therefore the Income Tax

Skyring(ll) 22 27/6/91

Assessment Act 1936, in making provision for

taxation, is invalid and unconstitutional.

On 6 February 1985, Deane J. refused leave,

stating at the time:

"I have come to a clear conclusion that there

is no substance in the argument that there is

a constitutional bar against the issue by the

Commonwealth of paper money as legal tender.

Nor, in my view, would there be any substance

tn an argument that the provisions of section

36(1) of the Reserve Bank Act 1959 are
invalidated or overruled by the provisions of

the Currency Act 1965. That being so, I am

unpersuaded that there is any substance in the

proposed proceedings against

Mr Justice Spender, nor am I persuaded that

proceedings by certiorari against

Mr Justice Spender would in any event be

appropriate.

As regards the other and more general

matters which Mr Skyring seeks to litigate, it

appears to me to be plain that there has not

been disclosed any basis at all upon which the

relief sought in the proposed writs or the

relief indicated by Mr Skyring in the course
of his submissions could or should properly be

granted by this Court."

On 9 July 1985, in dismissing an appeal

against that decision, the Full Court of this Court

said:

"Having listened attentively to the

submissions made by the appellant in support

of this appeal, we are not persuaded that the

judgment of Deane J. contains any error.	We
should say in addition that the power
conferred upon the Commonwealth Parliament by
s.Sl(ii) of the Constitution to legislate with respect to taxation extends to the imposition
of taxation and its collection, even though it
has the effect of requiring the person on whom
taxation is levied to pay the tax out of
property which he owns."

I would add that section 115 of the Constitution, on which Mr Skyring now places some reliance, is a

provision addressed to the States and not to the

Commonwealth. I should also refer to a later

attempt by Mr Skyring to raise the currency

question. That was the subject of a further writ

which Mr Skyring sought leave to issue. An

application for leave was refused by Deane J. in

1988, and his refusal to grant leave was again

Skyring(ll) 23 27/6/91

upheld by the Full Court of this Court. On that

occasion the Full Court said that there was not

sufficient substance in the points which Mr Skyring

sought to raise. Accordingly, the application for

removal must be refused.

In association with that application for

removal is another notice of motion in which

Mr Skyring seeks an order that he be accorded

arguments that are encapsulated in the two contentions in the grounds of appeal to which I

standing, the standing being that of the present the

have already referred. Just what the order sought
by Mr Skyring in this notice of motion means, and

what it would entail if it were made, is far from

clear. It is enough for me to say that it is not

an order which I have jurisdiction to make and

there is no legal foundation for the making of such

an order. Certainly Mr Skyring has been unable to

establish that there is such a legal foundation.

Accordingly, I would also dismiss the notice of motion.

The next application by Mr Skyring is No B11

of 1991. It again is an application for removal of

proceedings in this Court. In this instance the

application relates to a pending appeal in the

District Court of Queensland against an order that

was made against Mr Skyring for failing to lodge an

income tax return. Once again, Mr Skyring seeks to

present in those proceedings the arguments which he

sought to present in the proceedings, the subject

of number B43 of 1990. Having regard to what I have already said about the issues in No B43 of

1990, it necessarily follows that I must refuse

this application for removal as well.

In the result, I refuse the two applications

for removal, and dismiss the notice of motion which

is associated with No B43 of 1990. Now, Mr Skyring, you cannot resist an order

for costs if an application for costs is made
against you.

MR SKYRING:  I object, Your Honour. My very word, I can. I

submit to you Chapter 29 of the Great Charter

reinstated in this State by No 70 of 1984 which

says very simply, "To no man shall we sell, defer

or deny justice or right". I have effectively been

denied both justice and right by that judgment and

I am damned if I am going to pay costs.

HIS HONOUR:  Do not speak in those terms, please.

Skyring(ll) 24 27/6/91

MR SKYRING:  I again plead M'Naghten's rules, Your Honour.

This matter cannot be left lying. Seeing this is given by yourself as a single judge, it seems to me

this becomes fair game for appeal. That shall be

done, because to me that is a gross miscarriage of

justice.

HIS HONOUR:	Would you please resume your seat.
MR HACK:	I ask for costs, Your Honour.
MR DAVIES:	So do I, Your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:  Yes. The applications will be refused with

costs.

AT 10.54 AM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED SINE DIE

Skyring(ll) 25 27/6/91