Letter to Assistant Secretary of Attorney-General’s Department

I refer to your letter of 10 July 2007 in relation to your decision, which “is to not remit the $40 internal review application fee”.

The backgrounds set out in paragraphs 6 to 16 are correct.

If Ms Antone had informed me that you would make the decision of “internal review fee”, I would not have requested for remission of the internal review fee because I should be able to reasonably predict that you would refuse my request because, obviously, you always want to be “consistent with [your] earlier decision of 29 January 2007”.

I enclose a cheque of $40 for the internal review application fee.

Further, I will comment on your reasons for your decision below:

1. You have failed to consider or to refer to that the request is for the petition to the Senate. You have failed to consider and to refer to that the petition has been supported by thousands people, dozens of politicians and organizations.

2. You have failed to consider whether thousands people, dozens of politicians and organizations are a significant section of the public. You have failed to explain why you disagree with the Hon Marsha Thomson MP’s opinion that the FOI request is of public importance.

3. You have failed to consider whether the matter supported by thousands people and dozens of politicians and organizations is an issue that it can “been described as ‘something which is of serious concern or benefit to the public’”. Put another way, you give no reasons why you believe that when thousands people and dozens of politicians and organizations support the petition they do not seriously concern about it. Obviously you take a dim view of the petition or all petitions.

4. As you know all relevant information about the matter have been put on Internet and made public available. You have no reason to not reasonably predict that the requested information will not be available on the same website and will not be available though other media after the petition to be presented to the Senate. Therefore, you may have predicted that the “the benefit from the release of the information contained in the particular documents will flow to the public at large, or a substantial section of the public, as well as to the specific individual [who] has requested the documents concerned” (bold added). I can promise you that the documents concerned will be put on the website, and provide to the Senators and to the media.

5. You have failed to find or refer to any beneficiary that I or the person whose case I am pursuing can get from the FOI request if the matter is not of public importance.

6. You do not argue the facts that employees in Australian workplace have no right to complain about or refuse to follow their bosses’ unlawful instructions and activities in accordance with the case law made by a Full Federal Court in the judgment of Zhang v The Royal Australian Chemical Institute and that the Cover Clause 5 of the Australia Constitution request everyone in Australia has to uphold and obey law.

7. You do not argue that the employees’ fundamental constitutional rights to uphold and to obey law at Australian workplace should be enforceable. I accept your point that I and the person whose case I am pursuing will get benefit if employees’ fundamental constitutional rights to uphold and to obey law are enforceable. I believe former bosses of AWB, HIH and One-Tel would have got benefit if such rights had been enforceable because their unlawful instructions could have been refused and complained and they would not have been convicted.

8. You believe that people’s constitutional right at work to be enforceable “appears to be no significant advantage to the public at large or even to all employees in Australian workplaces who are vulnerable to dismissal and who would constitute a substantial section of the public”. Put another way, apparently, you believe people at work should not uphold and obey law for one or another reasons. You do not provide any reasons why the public at large will not get significant advantage if all employees can be sure that their constitutional rights are enforceable. As outlined above I provide a few real examples as to why it is matter.

9. You do not argue that I am pursuing for people’s constitutional right to obey law at work, but you believe “the particular employment situations of employees in Australian workplaces are too diverse for the case you are pursuing to constitute a general precedent of benefit to the public at large” (bold added). You do not provide what kind of “particular employment situations” will not get “a general precedent of benefit to” if the people’s constitutional rights at work to obey law are enforceable. Put another way you believe that "a general precedent of benefit to the public at large” is people at work having no constitutional rights.

10. You know my FOI request is on the grounds of both public interest and Senate inquiries. I believe I have right to request your department to refund both of the application fee and the internal review fee once further unarguable evidences will be available as to that the documents concerned “flow to the public at large or a substantial section of the public”.

(files below are downloadable as .jpg files)

Letter of 10 July 2007 from the assistant secretary of A-G’s Department p. 1, p. 2, p. 3, p. 4, P. 5