Dear Sir_

							Dear Sir,

Four months have passed since our Notices of a Constitutional Matter (the Notices)
serviced to you on 21 April 2006 by both email and mail. After your office and the
Government Solicitor’s office had lost the original documents and I resent the
documents, finally I received a letter from Mr James Ruddle of the Government
Solicitor’s office, which is attached.

Whose obligation in response to the Notices?

The Constitutional matters, the workers’ fundamental Constitutional rights in workplace,
were brought to your attention under section 78B of the Judiciary Act. The Judiciary Act
specifically requests the High Court, by saying: “it is the duty of the court” to ensure the
Notices to be served to Attorneys-General, the elected officers and members of
parliaments, and to get their opinions, apparently for the applications for special leave to
appeal for this matter, on whether workers’ Constitutional rights were “of public
importance”, which is an essential “Criteria for granting special leave to appeal” under
35A of the Judiciary Act.

However, you have failed to respond to the Notices by yourself, which was your
obligation required by the Judiciary Act if the workers’ fundamental Constitutional rights
in this matter were of public importance. Put it another way, you surrendered your
responsibility as the elected people’s representative, which is enacted by the Judiciary
Act, to some solicitors.

Apparently, the High Court Judges did not need legal advices from solicitors on whether
the workers’ fundamental Constitutional rights in this matter were of public importance.
Even one of Australian Governments Solicitors responded to the Notices by saying: “If
special leave to appeal is granted, the Attorney-General might decide to intervene in the
appeal”. However, in the transcript, the High Court declared: “No Attorney-General has
indicated a desire to intervene”.

Mr Ruddle wrote: “This office deals with all s 78B notices referred to the Attorney-
General for the State of Victoria”. The Judiciary Act did not refer to s 78B notices to any
Government Solicitors, who were neither the elected officers nor members of
parliaments. There is apparent disconformity between your obligation enacted by s 78B
of the Judiciary Act and your office’s practice in response to “all s 78B notice”.

Please kindly advise us why you have not responded to “all s 78B notices” yourself.

Whether it was appropriate to service the Notices of A Constitutional Matter?

Mr Ruddle wrote: “As a general rule, the Attorney-General does not intervene in special
leave applications”. Apparently this is an excuse why you failed to respond, and why the
Notices were lost. There is apparent disconformity between the general rule referred to by




                                             1
Mr Ruddle and s 78B of the Judiciary Act. Plese kindly advise us who made this general
rule and where this general rule is located.

Mr Ruddle wrote: “The High Court has indicated previously that is not appropriate as,
until leave is granted, there is nothing to intervene in”. Please kindly advise us where the
indication of the High Court is located. In the transcript of this matter, the High Court did
not indicate that “it is not appropriate” to served the Notices. Furthermore, the High
Court referred to them and said: “No Attorney-General has indicated a desire to
intervene”. Apparently, the High Court relied on your response, which was no response,
to the 78B notices to dismiss our applications for special leave to appeal, and assumed
that you failed to respond to the 78B notices because you considered that workers’
fundamental Constitutional rights aroused from this matter were of not public
importance. Please kindly advise us whether you accept that you considered that workers’
fundamental Constitutional rights aroused from this matter were of not public
importance.

I noticed that, on 9 February 2005, Mr James Syme of Victorian Government Solicitor
filed and served a Notice of a Constitutional Matter as the respondent on matter M5 of
2004, which was an application for special leave to appeal, however, the High Court
Judge did not mention about the notice in the transcript at all when dismissing the
application on 26 May 2005.

Whether there are Further Roles for the Attorney-General in this Matter after the
High Court Refused Special Leave?

Mr Ruddle wrote: “As the High Court refused special leave, there is no further role for
the Attorney-General in this matter”. The High Court Registry has advised us that the
Governments and the Parliaments could request the High Court to readdress this matter
after the High Court refused special leave. Please kindly advise us whether the advice
given by the High Court Registry is wrong and the locations of Mr Ruddle’s authorities.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

Daming He




                                             2