Letter of 7 July 2008 to the Prime Minister

Dear Sir,

I refer to my previous letter of 8th March 2008 and thank you for forwarding it to the Attorney-General on 9 April.

The Attorney-General’s office first advised me a response would be sent to me, then informed me a letter had been sent out on 12 May, and finally on 25 June confirmed no response would be provided at all because no new issue was raised even though I argued the Attorney-General’s conclusion should be in writing anyway.

I called your office and asked whether your office considered the Attorney-General had responsibility to reply a letter forwarded by you. Mr Michael Parry told me that it was up to the Attorney-General. Apparently, you didn’t instruct the Attorney-General to do anything, or you could not push further.

On 24 April Ms Sue Sadauskas replied on behalf of the Hon Gillard MP that she had nothing further to add on the Hon Gillard MP’s letter of 18 February, which stated: ‘no further question of intervention arises in relation to the matter. As a result, the Government can take no further action’, ‘In addition, Senator Marshall has advised me that your petition was presented in the Senate’, ‘The committee will decide whether any further action will be taken in relation to the petition’.

On 15 May the secretary of the committee wrote: the committee would not recommend the Senate take up the matter. I replied to the secretary’s letter by an email of 26 of May and pointed out his letter failed to address the first request of the petition and provided fraudulent reasons. The correspondences between the secretary and me are attached. The secretary did not deny at all he knowingly provided fraudulent reasons. Obviously, the committee chooses to ignore the first request of the petition, which is to ‘ensure that employees’ rights under the Constitution are upheld by the laws and courts’.

Should Australians at work have rights to obey the laws and Constitution now becomes a ‘further question’ as the committee comprised of senators from the Labor, Liberal and Democrats has chosen not to ‘ensure that employees’ rights under the Constitution are upheld by the laws and courts’. Nobody has openly opposed Australians’ right at work to obey the laws and Constitution. Nobody has denied Australians at work cannot obey the laws and Constitution due to the case law that requests Australians to complain about workplace illegalities ‘only to a Court or Tribunal’.

No lawyers, no Australians at work can ignore the Full Court’s interpretation of the unlawful dismissal laws that workers complain about workplace illegalities ‘only to a Court or Tribunal’. Many judges have made decisions in accordance with the Full Court’s interpretation of the unlawful dismissal laws, for instance, Dowling v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2007] FMCA 2104 (20 December 2007) and Sapula v ResMed Ltd [2007] FCA 438 (19 March 2007) etc.

The Attorney-General’s Department have confirmed to the effect that they cannot find and disclose any legitimate reasons for not intervening in the constitutional matter.

Having known the bureaucrats have no legitimate reasons for not upholding Australians’ right to obey the laws at work, ministers and you seemly cannot convince bureaucrats in the Attorney-General’s Department that Australians at work ought to have rights to obey the laws and Constitution.

The secretary of the committee urges us to ‘turn [our] energies to more productive activities’.

Workers’ rights are the heart and soul of Labour movement. What is your advice on how to uphold Australians’ constitutional right to obey the laws and Constitution at work, or how to raise ‘further question of intervention arises in relation to the matter’ for all concerned?

One proposal is a hunger strike in front of the Parliament House for:
a. Australians’ constitutional right to obey the laws and Constitution at work
b. This country operates under the rule of law.
In our opinion, that will push the bureaucrats in the Attorney-General’s Department at least to disclose or work out the reasons for not dealing with the constitutional matter and answer the further question: Should Australians at work have rights to obey the laws and Constitution?

I look forward to receiving your advices.

Enclosures:

Letter of 18 February 2008 from the Hon Gillard MP

Letter of 15 May 2008 from the secretary of Senate standing committee on Education, Employment and Workplace Relations and P.2