Email to Senator Barnaby Joyce on 15 May 2007

Dear Senator Joyce,

I am writing to acknowledge that Ms Denis advised me on 10 May 2007 that you did not support the petition for people’s fundamental constitutional rights to obey law at work “at this point” even thought you might believe in equality before the law, upholding the Constitution, parliamentary democracy, the democratic process and accountable government. Ms Denis also said: you got a response from the minister, which was the High Court’s transcript, you respected the High Court’s decision, and therefore did not support the petition “at this point”.

The High Court’s attitude towards the case was better than the Federal Courts. The Federal Courts did not deny that Hilda’s complaint about her boss’s unlawful instructions and activities were right but held that it was vexatious to seek support and protection from the Federal Courts against the retaliatory dismissal.

Nevertheless thank you for your time and attention.

You might notice that the High Court’s decision did not address our appeal ground as to whether the people at work have rights to uphold and obey law before filing a complaint “to a Court or Tribunal” about unlawful matters. The High Court did not affirm the law made by the Full Federal Court and did not even mention it, however, the Notice of a Constitutional Matter was mentioned. The High Court did not hold that the Notices of a Constitutional Matter should not have been served or that the Notices of a Constitutional Matter failed to identify any constitutional matter. Therefore, the High Court tacitly approved to the effect that there had been a constitutional matter raised by our appeals.

The High Court refused to deal with the constitutional matter identified in the appeal because the Federal Attorney-General’s decision to not intervene in the matter relied on “a technical assessment of the constitutional significance of the proceeding”. Obviously, the “technical assessment” asserted that the people have no right to obey the law at work. I have requested the Attorney-General’s department to release the “technical assessment” and have paid $30 for it. Once receiving the “technical assessment” I will forward a copy to you.

You might want to alter the wording in the Covering Clause 5 of the Constitution from “This Act, and all laws…… shall be binding on the courts, judges, and people of every State” to “This Act, and all laws…… shall not be binding on the courts, judges, and people of every State” because you did not respect and support the people who try to uphold and obey both of the laws and the Constitution, yet you respect both the Courts and persons, who have contravened both of the laws and the Constitution.

The issues always are: if the elected lawmakers do not care whether people have the right to uphold and obey the law why should the Governments care; if the Governments do not care about people’s rights why should the Judges care; if the whole system does not care whether people have the right to uphold and obey the law, why are the people punished in the name of the law, and why do the lawmakers make these laws anyway?

On 28 March 2007 you told me that you could not support the petition because the Uniting Church had not supported the petition. On 10 May 2007 Ms Denis told me you respected the High Court’s decision after informing you the Uniting Church had supported the petitions.

The High Court respected the lawmakers’ intentions and issued Notices of a Constitutional Matter to the Attorney Generals, who are elected lawmakers, in accordance with the Judiciary Act 1903. Implicitly the High Court understood that the Attorney Generals did not intervene because the Attorney Generals believed that the case law made by the Full Federal Court was acceptable. Therefore you actually respected the Attorney-General’s decision of not intervening in the matter.

You did not deny that the case law was wrong, but you could not do anything against them “at this point” because of your respect of the Attorney-General. According to your logic, such principle ought to apply to all employees; the employees ought to follow any instructions from their bosses including unlawful instructions because the employees should respect the employers anyway; this country does not operate under the rule of law; the ordinary people and politicians should respect the Attorney-General and employers more than the laws and the Constitution “at this point”. If I am wrong please correct me.

Obviously, you were not guided by your conscience and did not act on behalves of your constituents “at this point”. You choose to respect a few persons’ omission or mistakes other than to respect millions people’s rights at work. “At this point”, you prefer dictatorial power to the principles of equality before the law, in upholding the Constitution, parliamentary democracy, the democratic process and accountable government. If I am wrong please correct me.

This is a matter as to whether we can say: “no” to unlawful activities. This case indicates well, how the system technically allows people with power to act unlawfully and disallow vulnerable people to act lawfully when conflicting with the interest of people with power. Apparently you hold it is acceptable that people have no right to obey the laws at work “at this point” even though you are a lawmaker yourself elected and paid by the people to make law for everyone to uphold and obey “at this point”. If I am wrong, please correct me.

We believe: people’s rights at work are worth fighting for, and we have obligations to tell you what has happened and what will happen to the workers who are your own constituents, despite frustrated by the difficulties we faced.

Thank you anyway for your response and particularly for giving me the opportunity to meet you in the Parliament House in Canberra on 28 March 2007.