Decision Maker

Andrew Wilkie MP

  • Federal Independent Member for Clark

Does Andrew Wilkie MP have the power to decide or influence something you want to change? Start a petition to this decision maker.Start a petition
Petitioning Andrew Wilkie, Zali Steggall, Kristina Kerscher Keneally, Nick Mckim

End Indefinite and Arbitrary Immigration Detention

In July 2017, my friend Jack was arrested by the police. He made bail a few hours later. His bail had strict conditions including surrendering his passport to the police and not going anywhere near an airport. Immediately after that, immigration cancelled his visa on character ground because of the charge. They assessed him as a risk to the community for merely being charged. Police charged him based on a compliant made against him by another person, without any evidence at the time. The judge who granted bail already assessed him not to be a risk. Migration laws override criminal laws when it comes to migrants. He was detained as he became an unlawful non-citizen without a visa. Detention facilities are to be used only as a last resort to facilitate the deportation of non-citizens. Immigration was fully aware he could not be deported due to his pending trial, and his passport was surrendered to police. His detention was purely punitive. He applied for bridging visas to be in the community while he was in Villawood Detention Centre. Immigration refused those visas. He appealed the refusals with the Administrative Appeal Tribunal (AAT), and he won. Immigration Minister then threatened to personally refuse his visa, a decision that could not be appealed with the AAT. It could only be appealed in courts, but the process was lengthy and costly. He gave up and withdrew his application, spent 1.5 years in detention solely because immigration suspected he might be a risk to community. Detention changed him forever. He was already extremely stressed about something he was accused of doing, that he did not do after the police arrest. Immigration detaining him when he had not even had a chance to get proper legal assistance for his criminal case, added to his existing stress. Being isolated from the outside made it difficult for him to get access to legal assistance. The decision from his criminal case could be a life-changing decision that would profoundly affect the rest of his life, but he was not able to adequately prepare his legal defence. He was 1 year away from finishing his study. He was forced to stop it when his visa was cancelled, and being in detention made it impossible for him study anyway. He was anxious about his future. If he were to be deported back home, his highest qualification would only be year 12, which was useless in his country. He would not be able to find a decent job at all. He saw no future. Being isolated in detention meant he had to rely on help from people around him. After the visa cancellation and appeals, the subsequent visa applications, refusals and appeals, he lost hope in the system. He pushed his girlfriend away as he didn’t want her to wait for him indefinitely. He pushed me away as he didn’t want me to waste time and energy on him. He pushed his mom away as he couldn’t stand to hear her crying everyday. He felt inferior to his other friends who were on track to complete their studies and having a bright future. He became socially withdrawn. He used to be a happy and outgoing boy who gave money to homeless people on the street when he saw them. He gave up on himself. He left his fate in God’s hands. 1.5 years’ detention for no good reason destroyed him. We live in a society that enforces 2 sets of rules: For Australians: if you are charged with a crime, you are innocent until proven guilty. For migrants: if you are charged with a crime, you are guilty until proven innocent. For Australians: if you are charged with a crime, you get bail, you wait for your trial outside of a prison. For migrants: if you are charged with a crime, you get bail, you wait inside an immigration prison that the government calls a “detention centre” only to mislead the public. For Australians: if you are charged with a crime, you get a judicial system that includes legal professionals, expert witnesses and a jury of your peer to decide if you should be locked up. For migrants: if you are charged with a crime, you get migration laws which include a few government employees with no legal expertise and one person (Immigration Minister) to decide if you should be locked up. We already have a highly functioning legal system, we don’t need the character test in migration laws. We already have police officers, prosecution and judges to assess who present risks to community, we don’t need immigration officers to make another assessment based on nothing but their personal opinions. If a judge grants someone bail, regardless of that person being an Australian or migrant, they should be allowed to remain in community until their trail is complete. Immigration should not be allowed to disregard a judge’s decision and play police, prosecution and judges with migrants. They certainly should not detain migrants who cannot be deported within a certain timeframe just to punish them. If we want people to succeed in life, we should not set them up to fail by taking away their liberty without sufficient justification, their opportunity to study for no good reason. Even if detained, people should be able to continue their study, so that they can have a productive life after they are deported to their home country. This is someone’s life, not some political campaign. It should not be up to politicians to decide, it should be up to legal and medical professionals to decide who are potential risks and who should be detained. Therefore, I call on Immigration Minister to stop using detention facilities to punish migrants for just being migrants, release everyone who cannot be deported within a reasonable timeframe immediately!,15526 

Lina Li
8,736 supporters
Petitioning Andrew Wilkie MP, Parliament of Australia: Members of the House of Representatives and Senators, Dr Helen Haines, Ms. Zali Steggall OAM MP, Mr. Andrew Wilkie MP, Mr. Adam Bandt MP, Ms. Rebekha Sha...

Australia wants an INDEPENDENT Federal Integrity Commission (ICAC) & tough Code of Conduct

On Monday 26th October 2020 - Dr Helen Haines, Independent Member for the Victorian seat of Indi - with the support of other Federal Independent MPs and Senators - introduced the Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill 2020 with its strong Parliamentary Code of Conduct requiring  politicians to ACT with INTEGRITY into our House of Representatives. EDIT:  But GUESS WHAT Australia?  While WE were distracted with the Covid Delta variant, our slow vaccine roll-out, the problems with hotel quarantine and sudden lock-downs - the Government quietly and DELIBERATELY KILLED OFF Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill 2020! ONLY SEVEN MONTHS LATER!   They MUST have been VERY WORRIED about being made ACCOUNTABLE by the Code of Conduct in Dr. Haines' Bill! Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill 2020Type   PrivateSponsor(s)  HAINES, Helen, MP Originating house    House of RepresentativesStatus     Not ProceedingParliament no   46"Removed from the Notice Paper in accordance with (SO 42)25 May 2021" But WHY did they want to get THIS Bill OUT of OUR parliament? Because they have their OWN Claytons Federal ICAC Bill - waiting to be forced through parliament. A Bill designed by Christian Porter with clauses ensuring that Parliamentarians and senior bureaucrats CAN'T be investigated at all - unless CRIMINAL corruption is absolutely SUSPECTED! It's NOT CRIMINAL to ignore policies and procedures PROTECTING the Australian PEOPLE e.g Robodebt - or to not follow correct and best-practice processes that PROTECT the wasting of PUBLIC moneys by funneling OUR money for their OWN self-promotion e.g SportsRorts. Giving over-generous grants to FAVOURED corporations, allowing corporations and CEOs to influence PUBLIC policy affecting EVERY Australian, and paying BILLIONS way too much for contracted outsourced services is seen as CORRUPTION by MOST of US - but politicians will insist that DELIBERATELY ignoring time-honoured processes and procedures INTENDED to PROTECT Australians and OUR public money - is technically NOT CRIMINAL - therefore THEIR ICAC Commissioner COULD NOT INVESTIGATE further. In fact the Government's Bill ensures THEIR ICAC Commissioner CAN'T even CRITICISE a Parliamentarian OR their STAFF in ANY ICAC Report! You can NOW understand WHY the Government HAD to KILL OFF Helen Haines' Federal Integrity Commission Bill 2020 and WHY Australians should be ANGRY about it! And WHY the Governments' ICAC Bill has been criticised by MANY ethicists, judges and lawyers - as WORSE than not having a Federal ICAC at ALL? Nearly EVERY strong, retrospective Integrity Commission Bill has been DENIED by Federal Governments in Australia over the past 11 years - no matter what SIDE of politics the  Politician who TRIED to introduce the Bill believed in.. The ONLY Bill still standing now is Larissa Waters' National Integrity Commission Bill 2018 (No. 2) and that is staggering on its last legs and ONLY alive because it was passed by the Senate first! Why are our Politicians so SCARED of a STRONG Federal Integrity Commission to ensure they are accountable to the Australian PEOPLE and our children and grand-children? Larissa Water's Bill was even SENT to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on HUMAN RIGHTS for their input - and as you would expect from a committee dominated by the TWO MAJOR parties - there was a LOT of concern about our POLITICIANS' "Human Rights"! If ONLY they were so concerned about the Human RIGHTS of wrongly and DELIBERATELY targeted Robodebt victims AND the INCREASING amount of WORKING people who cannot afford RENT to keep a roof over their heads?! I WILL keep this Petition going because Larissa Waters' National Integrity Commission Bill 2018 (No. 2)  was originally Independent MP Cathy McGowan's 'National Integrity Commission Bill 2018' but was amended as suggested by major Party politicians and reintroduced to Parliament and OUR MPs are STILL not HAPPY! However the Government DOES plan to introduce its Claytons Bill - most likely BEFORE the next election to ENSURE they will NEVER be made accountable if they LOSE Government.. (You can read more in the latest petition update) THAT is the sort of FALSE ICAC they think WE DESERVE and they INTEND us to HAVE no choice but to ACCEPT - before the next election I guess if you've SIGNED and SHARED this Petition - THEIR 'pretend' ICAC is not GOOD ENOUGH for you either! IF we give enough SUPPORT to Helen AND the cross-bench - this Bill MAY be able to be reintroduced into OUR Parliament with minor amendments and a new name.  WE still WANT that parliamentary Code of Conduct as part of it! But we will need to SHOW Politicians in MARGINAL seats an EFFECTIVE and TOUGH Federal Integrity Commission is the ONLY kind of ICAC WE the Australian PEOPLE are interested in! We can START by signing a petition and if they TRY to introduce THEIR Claytons ICAC - bombard MARGINAL MPs with emails and protests outside their offices! If you are angry about the way OUR wishes are being IGNORED please SIGN and SHARE as much as you can.. Thank you so much! **ORIGINAL PETITION INFORMATION BELOW** If PASSED this Bill WILL create a Federal Integrity Commission (Federal ICAC) - INDEPENDENT of ANY Federal Government that happens to be in office - with powers to assess and investigate allegations of corruption in our public sector and in our Houses of Parliament. A STRONG, RETROSPECTIVE Federal anti-corruption body which will be a long-awaited and exciting change in Australian Federal Politics and FOR the  PEOPLE  of Australia - who believe this should always have been SEEN by our Politicians as a NON-PARTISAN issue! The Commission will able to accept referrals from the public and public sector whistleblowers - who will have FULL Whistleblower protection.   The Commission will also be able to conduct Public Hearings. The Commission can investigate retrospectively, so WILL be able to investigate past questionable instances of Conflicts of Interest, Maladministration of Public Moneys and suspected corruption. Dr. Haines says this Bill was developed in consultation with Government and Opposition Politicians, legal academics, panels of retired Judges, civil society stakeholders and ethicists - so there appears to be no reason WHY Members of ALL political persuasions should have major issues with this Bill. Petitioners do not agree that the Federal Government has been so busy with the Covid19 Pandemic that there has been no time to debate/pass any anti-corruption legislation as much of the responsibility for the management of the Pandemic has been handed to the States. Dr. Haines' proposed Integrity Commission will have the power to conduct public hearings in the public interest, balancing the seriousness of allegations with any unfair prejudice to a person’s reputation or unfair exposure of a person’s private life. Statutory definitions will protect against frivolous or vexatious claims. The proposed commission will also have the power to make findings of fact and recommendations in a public report.      It would refer matters involving criminality to law enforcement authorities. The Commissioner will be a Statutory Office holder who is independent of Government. He or she would be supported by several Assistant Commissioners to assist and allow for internal checks and balances. As part of this Commission there would also be established a new Code of Conduct for Parliamentarians and their staff to be overseen BY the Commission. The body will also include a Whistleblower Protection Commissioner, particularly necessary as Australia’s Whistleblower protection laws are not at all robust. Australian Citizen signatories Petition/Request Members of the House of Representatives to ALLOW the Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill 2020 be DEBATED in OUR House (during the December sitting of Parliament - which was NOT done) or as soon as possible in the first 3 months of 2021 (once again NOT put onto an Agenda!). So we NOW request that the Bill be Debated and Voted ON as soon as possible THIS year in 2021 WE the Petitioners also want the Federal Integrity Commission Bill 2020 PASSED by BOTH the House of Representatives and the Senate and instituted as soon as possible We request that debate NOT be GAGGED by Government MPs - as has been done on TWO occasions in 2020 with the National Integrity Commission Bill 2018 (No. 2) - so that WE the people, can follow the debate and track any amendments made by our Elected representatives. This is what Australians WANT in their anti-corruption body.  Public Servants have a Code of Conduct/Ethics which they are mandated to abide by - so WHY NOT those who MAKE the legislation affecting the LIVES of every Australian? The Bill also includes external accountability mechanisms to “watch the watchdog” via Parliament and the Courts. The Bill proposes oversight by a Parliamentary Joint Committee to ensure the body’s compliance with the law, due process and other standards. Its decisions would also be subject to Judicial review. The Commission’s funding would be approved and safe-guarded by the overseeing Joint Parliamentary Committee, as well, which will provide financial protection so it cannot have its funding cut by a vengeful partisan Government. This is VERY important to Australians as the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) has had its budget severely cut following its revelations of corruption in Government. What Australians WANT is an INDEPENDENT anti-corruption body that will PREVENT corruption and if by chance corruption DOES happen - ensure those responsible are penalised just like any other Australian who BREAKS the Law Petitioners are AWARE that Prime Minister John Howard PROMISED Australians in 2006 a strong anti-corruption body which never eventuated - and that in the past 10 YEARS the Australian Greens and Independent MPs have introduced SIX different Bills into Parliament for a strong independent Federal Anti-Corruption body in Australia.  Each Bill has been ignored by being gagged and left to die or voted down in our Parliament by various Governments Those who have signed this Petition are NOT satisfied that the current Draft Legislation for a Commonwealth Integrity Commission tabled by past Attorney-General Christian Porter MP - WILL result in the strong, independent and retrospective body that WE the people want. We view this Draft Bill as a serious disappointment after waiting so long and we do NOT want Australia's money WASTED on an anti-corruption Commission so weak - it will be unable to provide the oversight and protection that the Australian people need. We the Petitioners believe that the Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill 2020 will result in a Commission that is strong, independent and will protect the Australian PEOPLE'S best interests. Australians will be most CONCERNED if we find our Elected Representatives in both the House of Representatives and the Senate do NOT put the Australian PEOPLE'S interests and wishes FIRST.

Bev Prior
3,333 supporters
Petitioning Andrew Wilkie MP, Andrew Wilkie MP, Andrew Wilkie MP, Rebekha Sharkie MP

Australia wants to be PROTECTED by our own Australian Charter/Bill of Human Rights

As Australian Citizens MOST of us just presume that our Human Rights are PROTECTED under our Australian Constitution. The MAJORITY of Australians may be SHOCKED to learn that Australia is the only western democracy WITHOUT a Charter or Bill of Human Rights And that under OUR Constitution we have only IMPLIED Rights - that NEED to be DECIDED on by our High Court - there are no ACTUAL Rights EXCEPT for FIVE. Which is WHY we must support Andrew Wilkie MP's fight to get a Bill of Rights PASSED in OUR Parliament In September 2019 Andrew Wilkie introduced the 'Australian Bill of Rights Bill 2019' into OUR House of Representatives. The Bill was seconded by Rebekha Sharkie - Centre Alliance MP for the seat of Mayo in South Australia The Bill was NOT supported by the major parties and was QUICKLY removed from the House agenda - lapsing under SO42 by March 2020 DISCLAIMER:  Please be aware - this petition is NOT about 'Freedoms' over-riding the RIGHT to health & safety of others in our community - so please DON'T SUPPORT this petition if this is YOUR idea of "Freedom" I am NOT in favour of 'Freedom at any cost' - I SUPPORTED the Covid lockdowns that have happened in Australia as I believe that fellow citizens who are vulnerable - the elderly, those immuno-compromised and people with disabilities have the RIGHT to be PROTECTED from the selfish attitude of those whose main focus is only THEIR own individual wants. As one of the authors of the American Constitution Thomas Jefferson said: "The purpose of government is to enable the people of a nation to live in safety and happiness. Government exists for the interests of the governed, not for the governors." Although many have hijacked Jefferson's quotes about liberty - he was a man who believed in the teachings of Jesus which we all know were NOT about individualism but LOVE for our fellow man and for the common good of society. "Without health there is no happiness. An attention to health, then, should take the place of every other object." ~ Thomas Jefferson We are requesting that Andrew Wilkie re-introduce his Bill - modified and renamed if necessary - into OUR House of Representatives as soon as possible - but THIS TIME with the support of THOUSANDS of Australians! OUR Parliament should SUPPORT a Bill of Rights for the Australian People - WHY wouldn't they?   Why SHOULDN'T they?   What are OUR Politicians scared of? "A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference." ~ Thomas Jefferson IN AUSTRALIA WE HAVE NO ACTUAL RIGHT TO FOOD, WATER, TO NOT BE HOMELESS AND SLEEPING ON THE STREET OR HEALTHCARE.  Circumstances such as mental illness, disability from illness or accident, or unemployment can happen to ANYONE! For those who are religious it truly is "there but for the grace of God go I'! In our Australian Constitution there are ONLY five explicit individual rights.      These are the right to vote (Section 41), protection against acquisition of property on unjust terms (Section 51 (xxxi)), the right to a trial by jury (Section 80), freedom of religion (Section 116) and prohibition of discrimination on the basis of State of residency (Section 117). A copy of our Constitution printed in 2012 which was produced by the Parliamentary Education Office and the Australian Government Solicitor, Canberra; has an overview by the Australian Government Solicitor which states: "RightsThe Constitution has no Bill of Rights, such as that found in the United States Constitution, which prevents a legislature from passing laws that infringe basic human rights, such as freedom of speech. Some express protections, however, are given by the Constitution against legislative or executive action by the Commonwealth, but not by the States. Examples are:  Section 51(xxxi) (acquisition of property must be ‘on just terms’), Section 80 (trial by jury is required in relation to some criminal offences), and section 116 (a right exists to exercise any religion). Section 117 prohibits the Parliament of a State from discriminating against non-residents of that State.   It provides, in effect, that a resident in, say, Victoria shall not be subject to any discrimination or disability in, say, Queensland unless the person would also be subject to that disability or discrimination as a resident of Queensland. (The question whether section 117 limits the lawmaking power of the Commonwealth Parliament has not yet been conclusively resolved by the High Court.)" NOTE: What the Solicitor General in 2012 DIDN'T say was that Section 116 ALSO gives us the RIGHT to Freedom FROM Religion - something MORE than a FEW of the Politicians CURRENTLY in the Government and some Religious Institutions seem to conveniently 'forget' when they try to impose THEIR values onto EVERY Australian - SUCH as with Voluntary Euthanasia as an example? "116. Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religionThe Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth." So DO our 'implied Rights' really MEAN that it WILL take an Australian Citizen who is ABLE to AFFORD the cost AND GAMBLE of taking their case to the High Court of Australia - to find out WHAT other RIGHTS Australian Citizens REALLY have? Basically YES!      And if it WAS decided we actually DON'T have some  presumed RIGHTS - THEN what DOES this MEAN? Does it mean our 'Rights' DEPEND on WHAT KIND of Government (and  Politicians) 'RULES' us at the time? Whether or not Australians agree on the finer details of Andrew Wilkie's original Bill shouldn't be the main issue  - but our Politicians must start taking OUR RIGHTS  seriously - because it's very OBVIOUS our Constitution does NOT protect us! And IF they WON'T support US - WHY should WE support THEM? Please read and if you are particularly passionate about an area - as I am about First Nations' Makarrata and Rights - and the RIGHT to a roof over the head of every Australian - please put in the comments section when you sign the Petition. If you read our current Constitution it's nearly ALL about the PROCEDURE for running our Governments and Parliaments - and not much about Australians at all!  Because when our Constitution was WRITTEN Australian Citizens DIDN'T EXIST - we were ALL British Subjects! The article linked here* discusses our (lack of) RIGHTS in very good detail including the fact that our country - even though Australia is a SIGNATORY under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights - when: "Two Australian citizens stranded overseas recently applied to the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) for an order requiring Australia to bring them home. They invoked Article 12(4) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which says that “no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country”.  The UNHRC issued an interim order requesting our government bring the applicants home, pending a full hearing of the case. But here’s the problem:  International conventions and covenants to which Australia is a party have no force under Australia law, unless they have been explicitly adopted by legislation here. The covenant has not, so the government can ignore it along with the UNHRC’s ruling. Which it will." Please read the full article - it is fascinating and rather scary.. * ***EDIT: I have NOW placed the detail about Australia's Constitution right at the bottom of this petition  - because only those MOST KEEN will want to read in this much detail - but it explains WHY some responsibilities BELONG SOLELY to the Federal (Commonwealth) Government! When it comes to our Government  -  Australians with children and grandchildren, or other relatives trapped overseas may be rather shocked to learn that despite Government MPs and Senators SAYING they are 'concerned' and 'sympathetic' about our Citizens - GOVERNMENT* Senators have voted TWICE -  AGAINST  motions  'Assisting Australians trying to return from overseas' At the end of November LAST year AND in February THIS year.. On 15th February 2021 - the motion called on the Australian Government to: (i) expand safe and effective federal quarantine capacity so that people stranded overseas can safely return home, (ii) ensure that those stranded overseas can access affordable options to fly home, and (iii) ensure that everyone is welcomed home with care and compassion. Also in November 2020 - Government* Senators voted AGAINST keeping parliament INFORMED about: (a) the total number of stranded Australians that returned to Australia during the identified week; (b) the total number of stranded Australians that remain overseas, along with the total number per country in which they are stranded and broken down by; (i) age, (ii) gender, and (iii) Australian state or territory of usual residence;(c) the total number of non-Australian citizens that entered Australia during the identified week broken down by visa class and nationality. The link is for Matt Canavan's 'They Vote For You' page on this motion - but if you click on the people menu at the top of the page or type in a name on the Home page - you can search how your MP/Senators voted Their page will bring up how they have voted on MANY different subjects - but  for some HORRIBLE reason(?) - our STRANDED Citizens seem to be a PARTISAN issue(?!) I am pretty sure if you search - that you will find ALL LNP* Senators VOTED STRONGLY AGAINST these motions! [Edited: *The motions were never voted on in the Lower House so Government MPs COULDN'T vote against them.  Haven't checked to see if anyone TRIED to introduce them as the Government controls the Lower House Agenda] They Vote For You  So BASED on this - it seems it is VERY much about WHO Politicians are..  THEIR ETHICS, PRINCIPLES AND BELIEFS (are the Australian PEOPLE THEIR Priority?) and whether our Politicians CHOOSE to put the RIGHTS of the Australian PEOPLE first OR their PARTY first. If a PARTY has absolute POWER/NUMBERS to DECIDE (in a pandemic, other disaster or war) YOU and yours MAY get some SUPPORT to come home..    Or may be LEFT to struggle on your own.    [This voting ONLY with the Party line is WHY Helen Haines' and Larissa Waters'  #FederalIntegrityCommission Bills can't get ONTO the Lower House Agenda!] So Australia NEEDS a STRONG, RETROSPECTIVE Federal Integrity Commission to oversee our Politicians BEHAVIOUR and to PREVENT as much as possible rorting of OUR Public money and corruption..(to Investigate and refer for prosecution if it DOES happen!) and necessary Whistleblower Protection (so Public Servants aren't at risk of PROSECUTION and AFRAID to come forward!) because the RIGHT to KNOW if our Politicians are corrupt or not - is surely a BASIC RIGHT  in a Democracy? BUT we HAVE to DEMAND a Bill of HUMAN Rights for ALL Australians too - including OUR children and grand-children!    Who KNEW we have so much to fight FOR? "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.~ Thomas Jefferson ~ “Thomas Jefferson, His Words and Vision” (1997), p.18, Peter Pauper Press, Inc. ADDENDUM: People may be disappointed to learn that only TWO Federal Governments in Australia have TRIED to get through parliament a Bill of Rights for Australians -  The Whitlam Government  and the Hawke Government. Based on the demise of Andrew Wilkie's bill in 2019 - would the Labor Party of TODAY support a Bill of Rights for Australians?  If you click on these links you MIGHT be surprised (or NOT!)                  ********************************************************* ***Our Current Constitution Part V under The Constitution gives the Commonwealth PARLIAMENT the right to make  Laws                                              "Part V – Powers of the Parliament 51. Legislative powers of the Parliament The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power (12) to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to: (i) trade and commerce with other countries, and among the States;(ii) taxation; but so as not to discriminate between States or parts of States;(iii) bounties on the production or export of goods, but so that such bounties shall be uniform throughout the Commonwealth;(iv) borrowing money on the public credit of the Commonwealth;(v) postal, telegraphic, telephonic, and other like services;(vi) the naval and military defence of the Commonwealth and of the several States, and the control of the forces to execute and maintain the laws of the Commonwealth;(vii) lighthouses, lightships, beacons and buoys;(viii) astronomical and meteorological observations; (ix) quarantine; (x) fisheries in Australian waters beyond territorial limits;(xi) census and statistics;(xii) currency, coinage, and legal tender;(xiii) banking, other than State banking; also State banking extending beyond the limits of the State concerned, the incorporation of banks, and the issue of paper money;(xiv) insurance, other than State insurance; also State insurance extending beyond the limits of the State concerned;(xv) weights and measures;(xvi) bills of exchange and promissory notes;(xvii) bankruptcy and insolvency;(xviii) copyrights, patents of inventions and designs, and trade marks; xix) naturalization and aliens;(xx) foreign corporations, and trading or financial corporations formed within the limits of the Commonwealth;(xxi) marriage;(xxii) divorce and matrimonial causes; and in relation thereto, parental rights, and the custody and guardianship of infants;(xxiii) invalid and old-age pensions;(xxiiiA)13 the provision of maternity allowances, widows’ pensions, child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services (but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription), benefits to students and family allowances;(xxiv) the service and execution throughout the Commonwealth of the civil and criminal process and the judgments of the courts of the States;(xxv) the recognition throughout the Commonwealth of the laws, the public Acts and records, and the judicial proceedings of the States; (xxvi)14 the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws;                                                                                                      (xxvii) immigration and emigration;(xxviii) the influx of criminals;(xxix) external affairs;(xxx) the relations of the Commonwealth with the islands of the Pacific;(xxxi) the acquisition of property on just terms from any State or person for any purpose in respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws;(xxxii) the control of railways with respect to transport for the naval and military purposes of the Commonwealth; (xxxiii) the acquisition, with the consent of a State, of any railways of the State on terms arranged between the Commonwealth and the State;(xxxiv) railway construction and extension in any State with the consent of that State;(xxxv) conciliation and arbitration for the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes extending beyond the limits of any one State;(xxxvi) matters in respect of which this Constitution makes provision until the Parliament otherwise provides;(xxxvii) matters referred to the Parliament of the Commonwealth by the Parliament or Parliaments of any State or States,15 but so that the law shall extend only to States by whose Parliaments the matter is referred, or which afterwards adopt the law;(xxxviii) the exercise within the Commonwealth, at the request or with the concurrence of the Parliaments of all the States directly concerned, of any power which can at the establishment of this Constitution be exercised only by the Parliament of the United Kingdom or by the Federal Council of Australasia;(xxxix) matters incidental to the execution of any power vested by this Constitution in the Parliament or in either House thereof, or in the Government of the Commonwealth, or in the Federal Judicature, or in any department or officer of the Commonwealth.

Bev Prior
500 supporters
Petitioning Andrew Wilkie MP, Mark McGowan

A True Democracy in Australia

“The Government You Elect is the Government You Deserve" Thomas Jefferson Five Steps to A True Democracy in Australia Step One – Sign and ShareSign this petition and share. Please. Do it now. Raising awareness is everything. Many people feel there is nothing they can do but the truth is that they can do everything that matters. Step Two – Put Politicians on Notice Please write to, or email, Andrew Wilkie and ask that he reintroduce his Australian Bill of Rights Bill (with suitable amendments to quash any form of arbitrary vaccine mandate in Australia, digital ID’s, Passports etc) for free vote prior to the next federal election. Step Three – Decide Who Deserves Your Vote Review the history of this and preceding versions of Australian Bill of Human Rights Bills. Why don’t Australians enjoy the protection afforded to the citizens of all other western democracies? Who rejected them? If they are still in the government write to them and ask them what they have personally done in their political career to support the enactment of an Australian Bill of Human Rights? Because it should be beyond any question that if they do not support the interests of the Australian people, they are clearly serving other interests. There is no excuse, this is unforgiveable. Step Four – Identify the Politicians That Support Human RightsAssuming Andrew Wilkie reintroduces the Bill follow it through the process and see who supports it and who does not. Email support and criticism accordingly. Politicians should feel that every vote they make is being scrutinised. They should feel that their voting record is their CV at every election and they’re applying for a job. Step Five – Declaration by all Standing Candidates at Next Federal Election.Depending on the outcome of step four the Bill will either succeed and become legislation or be rejected again; and require one or two declarations to be publicly made by all political candidates that stand for election in 2022:1/ Unequivocal support for a reintroduced Australian Bill of Human Rights Bill in the first sitting of the Parliament. 2/ Unequivocal support for a Royal Commission into the conduct of the State Premiers, their Ministers and others in their various responses and uses of their authority and the use of Emergency Powers in the management of the Covid-19 Pandemic. A Federal Election Must be Held on or Before May 21, 2022, vote only for candidates that convince you that they will support your Freedom and Human Rights. Thomas Jefferson again;“[A] bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse.”December 20, 1787 So why is Australia the only western democracy that does not have a Bill of Rights? It means that although we typically take for granted the right to speak freely, to love who we choose and to come and go wherever we please and many others, they are not explicitly protected in law. The few that are protected in our constitution, either explicitly or implied, are hence difficult and expensive to enforce for any ordinary person, and as we today are abundantly aware of all too easy to ignore. Australians travel the world and visit many places where people are not free; and we are educated on history by the millions that come from places where freedom was hard fought and won with bloodshed. So, when we see politicians ignoring the law, or trying to create new ones to legitimise their desire for power, we understand instinctively that we too could find ourselves subjects rather than citizens. The Root of the ProblemBut when we say “Government” we’re only talking about 226 people just 151 Members of Parliament and 75 Senators. These people are the difference between whether we continue to live freely in this country or become hostages to State Premiers that insist that we submit to ongoing injections with experimental vaccines to simply be allowed to enjoy the rights that we had assumed are ours without condition. Rights that they have illegally stolen and turned into carrots to dangle to control our choices and our lives. And while fear and propaganda are being used by state Premiers to turn Australians against their families, friends, lovers, employers, and neighbours in an attempt enforce the agenda of the many and various corporate interests (that we understand our governments now represent) the Australian Federal Government is doing nothing. WHY??? Simply put, because behind many, if not most, of these 226 people are the powerful corporations or special interest groups that fund their party’s or their campaigns so that they will serve their interests instead of ours. In 2001, 2017 and 2019 legislation to enact a Federal Bill of Rights was introduced into the Australian Parliament (see first and second update for what occurred in 2019). The public record shows that it did not get beyond a first reading and we must hold those who failed the people they are elected to represent to account for that failure. Any person that did not support those bills must be removed from public office at the next election. (Excerpt of speech by Andrew Wilkie on introduction into the parliament August 2017)“A federal Bill of Rights is necessary to ensure that the Federal and state governments respect human rights and that power-hungry politicians don’t infringe those rights. Many members of the community agree that we need a Bill of Rights. The Australian Human Rights Commission, the Human Rights Law Centre, the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services and the Refugee Council of Australia have all supported a Bill of Rights at some point. The Bill of Rights would prevail over any Commonwealth, State or Territory law that infringes on the rights and freedoms that it outlines. It would also allow individuals who feel that their rights have been infringed upon to object to the Human Rights Commission and seek a solution through the courts. I call on the Government and the Opposition to support this bill and bring Australia into line with other countries.” Each of those bills made clear that all Australians have the explicit right to accept or refuse any medical procedure. There are other rights those bills would protect but the people we have elected, paid, and trusted to look out for those rights have made it very clear that they prefer Australia remains the only western democracy that does not explicitly confer basic, fundamental Human Rights upon its citizens.  So, once we understand all that it means that for over 55 years Liberal and Labor governments have refused to enshrine the principles inherent in our constitution and the promise of our national anthem that we are “One and Free” into law then our course of action should be clear. We must put an end to it. We must expose who the compromised are and remove them like the cancer they have become in our democratic process. How? On or before the 21st of May 2022 a federal election will be held. Anyone that did not vote for the Australian Bill of Rights Bill 2019 must not be allowed to remain in office and we should only elect those that we are 100% confident will correct this injustice and insult to us all.

432 supporters
Petitioning The Hon. Elise Archer, Senator Michaelia Cash, Shannon Fentiman, Mark Speakman, The Hon Selena Uibo, The Hon Jaclyn Symes, The Hon Vicki Chapman, The Hon John Quigley, Shane Rattenbury, The Hon Sco...

Justice for Sue Neill-Fraser

(Bob Martyn,               Sue Neill-Fraser,             Robert Chappell.           pictured) SUE NEILL-FRASER NEEDS A CRIMINAL CASES REVIEW COMMISSION Now!!!  “It Stinks!”, says Robert (Bob) Martyn, of the wrongful conviction of Sue Neill-Fraser. Bob is a long-term friend (since 1980s)and business partner of Sue, (for a time in the  1990s) and also separately, a close  friend of Robert Chappell (since the 1960s). Bob can attest to the strong bond between Sue and her partner, Robert of 18 years and can state definitely that she would never wish to harm him, let alone murder him under any circumstances.   What has enraged Bob , about his friend’s case, is that he has not been permitted to give evidence so far in court to counter the claims made by key prosecution witness, Triffet, in particular. Through all these years despite many appeals, vital evidence (including Bob’s) that can prove the innocence of Sue Neill-Fraser, has never been presented in court due to the severe limitations in the appeal process. Bob has a very strong personal reason to advocate  for a legislative reform that can allow all the evidence of a case to be reviewed with the potential to finally exonerate his friend, Sue from her injustice. Bob is calling on the Federal Attorney General and state Attorneys General to establish a National or Muliti Jurisdictional Criminal Cases Review Commission! see here for more background on this need:- A Criminal Cases Review Commission is an independent body that has the power to re-examine evidence, call witnesses and further investigate a case where there is a possibility that there has been a miscarriage of justice.  If it is identified that there is the possibility that a person has been wrongfully convicted, it can be referred back to the appeals court. In the UK over the last 20 years or so they have overturned some 460 convictions which had otherwise exhausted all avenues of appeal. They include over 100 murder convictions and the convictions of four people who had been hanged. In that same time, the US has identified over 2,600 wrongful convictions, more than 500 based upon DNA findings.  Last year, New Zealand established a CCRC, and this year Canada is proceeding towards the establishment of one.  Australia is one of the few comparable countries without one. If Sue Neill-Fraser’s case was re-investigated by a CCRC (independent body), vital evidence that can prove her innocence would have to be considered. If successful,  the matter would be referred back to the appeal court to be re examined. Should that lead to her exoneration, Sue would be  released to go home to her loved ones, including her dear friend Bob Martyn. If this wrongful conviction can happen to Sue it can happen to anyone. Studies in this area estimate that 3% of the prison population are wrongful convictions. If Australia has a wrongful conviction rate of 3% based upon the size of Australia's prison population that would amount to around 1,200 persons in prison who should not be there. Many people and their families are suffering unnecessary injustice and pain over many years. Please sign our petition for a CRIMINAL CASES REVIEW COMMISSION, so that Sue and other wrongful convictions can get the much-needed review of their cases. 

Justice Reform
329 supporters
Petitioning Senator Richard Di Natale, Derryn Hinch, Adam Bandt, Andrew Wilkie, Tony Windsor, AUSTRALIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Stop Scott Morrison & Fair Work Commission discriminating against casual employees!

Stop Scott Morrison & Fair Work Commission discriminating against casual employees! If you believe in equality, in equal legal and human rights for ALL Australians, this is the most important petition you will ever read and sign. Currently in Australia, paedophiles, rapists, murderers, thieves, terrorists and refugees enjoy greater legal and human rights – rights to lawyers, rights to have the merits of offences tried in courts, rights to appeal to higher courts - than Australia’s 2.6 million casual employees. You will get mad as hell when you read how: Australian Federal Governments have since Paul Keating in 1994, implemented apartheid laws to deliberately discriminate against casual employees, and how your government’s industrial relations agency, the Fair Work Commission, systematically and consistently violates your legal and human rights, and strips you of your dignity – I should know as it happened to me; and   Work Choices is alive and well and flourishing in 2019, thanks to former Prime Minister Julia Gillard, the principal architect of the Fair Work Act 2009, who resurrected the old Work Choices law and disguised it as Sections 382 to 384 of the Fair Work Act 2009! Sections 382 to 384 (the unfair dismissal sections) directly affect Australia’s 2.6 million casual employees, discriminating against them by imposing segregationist legal standards that do NOT apply to other employees when bringing unfair dismissal applications. An earlier iteration of these laws - Regulation 30B of Work Choices – was declared in 2001 by the Federal Court of Australia as unlawful since they discriminated against entire classes of casual employees. Such flagrant, deliberate discrimination and segregation must stop … NOW! A highly-paid public servant, Adam Hatcher (Vice President of the Fair Work Commission) has stated in writing to me that: there is no legal equality under the Australian Constitution, and that laws that discriminate against Australia’s hard-working casual employees, stripping them of their legal rights and human rights are lawful, constitutional, and even beneficial! The Fair Work Commission is unlike any other legal jurisdiction: it’s the bizarro-world of Australian legal jurisdictions, described by barrister  So, the Fair Work Commission: Strips you of your basic legal rights, of your basic human rights, of your personal dignity; Denies you the right to have the merits of your case heard, holding bogus “jurisdictional hearings” in which the Commission decides whether it will hear the merits of your unfair dismissal application; Denies you legal representation; Denies you the right to appeal decisions unless your appeal is in the so-called “public interest”; Rewrites your entire work history by imposing artificial “probationary” periods upon you - not at the beginning of your employment, but at the end - so that, even if your employment is long term, it’s actually considered short term; and Accepts perjured and fabricated evidence, refusing to follow these matters up with the Australian Federal Police. Sections 382 to 384 contravene the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Article 14(1) (equality before the courts and tribunals); Article 2(1) (equal access to courts and tribunals), and Article 26 (equality before the law and entitlement to the equal protection of the law). These laws are a national disgrace; a national and international embarrassment. If any other Australian court or tribunal operated in the same way as the Fair Work Commission, hordes of QCs would pound down the doors of the High Court of Australia demanding that their clients’ legal and human rights must be protected. But, since you are dealing with casual employees, your fellow Australians who are among the most vulnerable members of Australian society, these laws are deemed “acceptable”, lawful even. Remember: your Federal Governments have previously discriminated against indigenous people, gay people, and same sex couples. Your governments believe they can impose apartheid laws on you. Send a clear message to the Federal Government that you won’t take this! Don’t be complacent like your politicians, public servants and the media who don’t give a toss about these critical issues. Don’t let your Federal Government strip you of your precious legal rights and human rights. Please sign this petition and help me smash Work Choices, the Fair Work Commission, and the Federal Government’s apartheid industrial relations policies.  

Joe Calleri
75 supporters