Monday, August 28, 2006

Online Petition to Federal Senate; Victorian Government Solicitor’s Arguments

The petition for workers’ Constitutional rights has been put on Internet at:

* * *

Our Notices of a Constitutional Matter (the Notices) to the Attorney-General for Victoria were finally responded by Victorian Government Solicitor on 23 August. They provided excuses why the Attorney-General and they lost the Notices dated 21 April 2006, and did not respond.

The solicitor wrote: “This office deals with all s 78B notices referred to the Attorney-General for the State of Victoria”. However, s 78B of the Judiciary Act does not refer to Government Solicitors, who were neither the elected officers nor members of parliaments. There is apparent disconformity between the Attorney-General’s obligation enacted by s 78B of the Judiciary Act and the solicitor’s opinion in terms of who should respond to “all s 78B notice”. The Attorney-General surrendered his responsibility as the elected people’s representative, which is enacted by the Judiciary Act, to some solicitors.

The Judiciary Act specifically requests the High Court, by saying: “it is the duty of the court”, to ensure that Notice of a Constitutional Matter to be served to the Attorneys-General, the elected officers and members of parliaments, and to get their opinions, apparently for this matter, on whether workers’ Constitutional rights were “of public importance”, which is an essential “Criteria for granting special leave to appeal” under 35A of the Judiciary Act.

Apparently, the High Court Judges did not need legal advices from solicitors on whether the workers’ fundamental Constitutional rights in this matter were of public importance. Even one of Australian Governments Solicitors responded to the Notices by saying: “If special leave to appeal is granted, the Attorney-General might decide to intervene in the appeal”, in the transcript, the High Court declared: “No Attorney-General has indicated a desire to intervene”. Apparently the High Court assumed that the Attorneys-General had considered that workers’ Constitutional rights aroused from this matter were of not “public importance”.

Further the solicitor wrote: “As a general rule, the Attorney-General does not intervene in special leave applications”. However, we noticed that on 9 February 2005, Victorian Government Solicitors filed and served a Notice of a Constitutional Matter to Attorneys-General as the respondent on matter M5 of 2004, which was an application for special leave to appeal.

Finally the solicitor wrote: “As the High Court refused special leave, there is no further role for the Attorney-General in this matter”. The High Court Registry has advised us that the Governments and the Parliaments could request the High Court to readdress this matter after the High Court refused to grant special leaves for appeals.

(file below is downloadable as .doc file)

an email to the Attorney-General for Victoria dated 28/08/06

(file below is downloadable as .pdf file)

a letter from Victorian Government Solicitor dated 23/08/06