EN1216 Are creationist a danger to our country

Terms:

• Reason: Several branches of Christianity believe God created the Earth about 6000 years ago. The people who adhere to this faith are reluctant to comprehend science that requires facts and data that is more than 6000 years old. The sciences affected are geology, geography, meteorology, physics, chemistry, biology, ecology, oceanography, human biology, mycology, astronomy, zoology etc. Are members of parliament who adhere to these branches of Christian faith putting parliament and our country in danger by refusing to consider science that relies on facts and data older than 6000 years? Nobody can stop someone believing a religion that says the earth is 6000 years old but parliament must act to protect itself and our country from religious extremism that denies science and scientific fact.

• Request: We therefore ask the House to declare those branches of Christianity that believe God created the Earth 6000 years ago are a danger to parliament and our country. 

 Signatures haven't opened yet, because it is up to Llew O'Brien to declare the petition is OK to present to parliament.  The distinct fear of work from our Members of Parliament means this wont happen until February.

 A request from me for a Paypal cup of coffee or a cold beer.    Paypal me

EN1199 refer Mr Dutton to High Court and Criminal court

Terms:

• Reason: In February 2019 Mr Dutton declared he was a beneficiary of RHT family trust in his Register of Members Interests. At the same time the ABN data base lists two companies as being the responsibility of RHT family trust, CAMELIA AVENUE CHILDCARE CENTRE and BALD HILLS CHILDCARE CENTRE. The Department of Finance list both of these companies as recipients of Commonwealth funding for many years. After the election Mr Dutton declared he had renounced his family trust and was not a beneficiary. Mr Dutton's wife and children are beneficiaries of the trust and the Commonwealth money given to that trust and the two child care centres. Because his family still benefit that is an indirect pecuniary interest in that trust and a breach of S44 of our constitution. The house can not determine if an MP has or hasn't breached the constitution, that can only be determined by the High Court. Recently the Crown Solicitor said of Mr Dutton "I consider there to be some risk ... that the High Court might conclude that there is a conflict between Mr Dutton's duty as a parliamentarian and his personal interests" The Crown Solicitor noted they are not given much factual information by the MP. The High Court can and does demand much more information and can and does provide a binding judicial decision. Mr Porter refused s44 petitions based on that Crown Solicitor's advice.
• Request: We therefore ask the House to refer Mr Dutton to the High Court and AFP for determination.

Your petition was considered by the Standing Committee on Petitions at a recent meeting, and was found to meet the petition requirements. It is now available for signature online.
Signatures open: 4/12/2019
Signatures close: 1/01/2020


Signatures can be made here

Should you liek to send some Christmas cheer or just a bottle of beer, please Paypal me

EN1198 re-examine S44 cases

Terms:

• Reason: Voters can only use the Court of Disputed returns to examine the eligibility of MPs in the electorate the voter voted in. To examine an MP's eligibility out of the voters electorate a petition to parliament is the only option. That option has been sullied recently. The Attorney General Mr Porter has refused several recent petitions mentioning S44 because of the Crown Solicitor's advice, even when that advice says the High Court might conclude that there is or may be a conflict. The house can not determine if an MP has or hasn't breached the constitution, that can only be determined by the High Court. The Commonwealth Solicitor has been proven wrong about S44 on many occasions, most famously with the then Deputy Prime Minister Mr Joyce. Recently the Crown Solicitor said of Mr Dutton "I consider there to be some risk ... that the High Court might conclude that there is a conflict between Mr Dutton's duty as a parliamentarian and his personal interests" The Crown Solicitor noted they are not given much factual information by the MP who obviously wants to ensure they stay in Parliament unhindered. The High Court can and does demand much more information and can and does provide a binding judicial decision.
• Request: We therefore ask the House to re-examine all petitions relating to breaches of S44 and put those cases to the High Court for determination.

Your petition was considered by the Standing Committee on Petitions at a recent meeting, and was found to meet the petition requirements. It is now available for signature online.
Signatures open: 4/12/2019
Signatures close: 1/01/2020



Signatures here -


If you would like to buy me a cup of coffee or a beer, please Paypal me 


Terms:

• Reason: Voters can only as the Court of Disputed returns to examine the eligibility of MPs in the electorate the voter voted in. To examine an MP's eligibility out of the voters electorate a petition to parliament is the only option. That option has been sullied recently. The Attorney General Mr Porter has refused several recent petitions mentioning S44 because of the Crown Solicitor's advice, even when that advice says the High Court might conclude that there is or may be a conflict. The house can not determine if an MP has or hasn't breached the constitution, that can only be determined by the High Court. The Commonwealth Solicitor has been proven wrong about S44 on many occasions, most famously with the then Deputy Prime Minister Mr Joyce. Recently the Crown Solicitor said of Mr Dutton "I consider there to be some risk ... that the High Court might conclude that there is a conflict between Mr Dutton's duty as a parliamentarian and his personal interests" The Crown Solicitor noted they are not given much factual information by the MP who obviously wants to ensure they stay in Parliament unhindered. The High Court can and does demand much more information and can and does provide a binding judicial decision.
• Request: We therefore ask the House to re-examine all petitions relating to breaches of S44 and put those cases to the High Court for determination.

The petition was considered at a recent meeting of the Committee, and certified as meeting the requirements for petitions. It was presented to the House on 10/02/2020 and has recently been referred to the Attorney-General. Under the petition requirements, Ministers have 90 days from presentation in the House to respond to a petition.

Petition number:	EN1198 (Please quote in future correspondence)
Date submitted:	26/11/2019
Number of signatures:	7

Which MPs are creationist?

A creationist is a person who believes god created the Earth 6000 years ago. This basically means most science is a nonsense to them.  Any science that says something happened or began before 6000 years ago is totally against the belief system a creationist understands.


How many members of parliament are creationists in the Australian federal parliament?

The only way I can think of finding out is to put a petition to parliament.

Petition EN1206 was lodged today and must go through the Petitions Committee to see if it is acceptable then it is a month for signatures and 3 months to be answered.  Fingers crossed.

This is what I put in the petition:-

If you want to buy me a cup of coffee or a beer, please Paypal me