Email of 23 June to Secretary of Senate Committee on Workplace Relations

Dear Mr Carter

You know best why I send emails to members of committee. You know you have provided fraudulent reasons and ignored first request of petition. You have not denied it. Have you?

Should Australians at work have rights to obey the laws and Constitution becomes a question after first request of petition is not dealt with by the committee.

Some members forward my emails to you. Apparently they believe the onus is on you, not them, to answer why you fail to address the first request of the petition, why you give fraudulent reasons in your letter.

You advise us to ‘turn [our] energies to more productive activities’, implicitly, you mean ‘more productive activities’ are needed for Australians’ constitutional right to obey the laws at work, but just fall short of saying what are ‘more productive activities’. We are trying to ‘turn [our] energies to more productive activities’. The common ground among members of committee, you and us is ‘more productive activities’ are needed for Australians’ constitutional right to obey the laws at work.

Members of committee know what requests of petition are and what kind of misleading reasons have been provided. They can access diverse resources. Furthermore:
a. many Labor parliamentarians including members of committee have supported the first request of the petition, they want Australians have rights to obey the laws at work
b. the Democrats Party have supported the first request of the petition as well
c. Senator Marshall has advised Deputy Prime minister the committee would ‘decide whether any further action will be taken in relation to the petition’ but, the committee has not dealt with the first request of the petition
d. The Deputy leader of Opposition states: ‘I believe that a number of the issues you raised with respect to the constitutional right to obey the law at work deserve some attention’; however, the committee has not paid any attentions at all on ‘the constitutional right to obey the law’.

That is why no one has written to me that he or she is not ‘interested any longer in this matter’. You may say my email will not be answered because members of committee are unable to work out proper responses for your fraudulent letter. That is why we seek advices from members of committee before doing anything else.

It seems you respond particularly to my last email of 23 June. Comparing with previous emails the last email is more like a courtesy email as there is common ground among members of committee, you and us as outlined above.

You know it is wrong to knowingly provide fraudulent reasons. Don’t you? Why are you doing that? If you hadn’t given fraudulent reasons, would your job have been in jeopardy?

We really appreciate your response. It is very helpful to clarify the common ground. I look forward to receiving your response to this email.

Yours sincerely

Daming He

Cc: members of committee

(file below are downloadable as .doc file)

Mr John Carter’s email of 23 June 2008