Urgent! The government has introduced a trio of laws which are a direct attack on democracy in Australia. Any day now, MPs will vote on one of them, the Espionage and Foreign Interference Bill.
We must raise our voices loud. Right now. We need to express our outrage, our refusal to allow such anti-democratic legislation ever becoming law in this country.
Call the Attorney-General and Shadow Attorney-General right now to demand they reject this draconian law.
Attorney-General Christian Porter – (02) 6277 7300
Shadow Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus – (02) 6277 4205
What to say
The Espionage and Foreign Interference Bill is anti-democratic and designed to make the Australian government less accountable to its people.
- This bill could bring criminal charges and severe penalties to charities and not-for-profits that are an essential part of a robust democracy. Individuals and groups should be free to hold the government to account without fear of prosecution or imprisonment.
- This bill is a clear overreach by our government. It is not acceptable, nor necessary, to trample the rights of Australians.
Ask Christian Porter: Will you kill this bill and go back to the drawing board consulting organisations, charities and other stakeholders to discuss the impacts and concerns?
Ask Mark Dreyfus: Will your kill this bill and remove bipartisan support because it erodes our democracy and ability to hold our government to account?
Find out more about these proposed laws.
- When you call, you might speak to a staffer. Ask them to leave a message for the Attorney-General or Shadow Attorney-General. If you can't get through, keep trying!
- Be polite and encouraging – we want them to make a good decision!
- Talk about why you care about this
- For more tips, check out this toolkit!
Rang both offices, the staff mentioned they were receiving a large amount of calls regarding this issue ( that’s good to hear). Mentioned to send an email too, which is in creation as typing this ( for both offices).
Call to Christian Porter answered by Atia who was very polite and promised to pass on my concerns to the Minister.
Call to Mark Dreyfus was answered by staffer (Alan I think). He explained that there are 3 bills that are being debated in the context of National Security. Of these Mark supports the stance of the NFP’s on 2. The other , the E and F I bill should not be of concern to the NFP’s as it is merely and update of standing legislation. He thinks the NFP’S do not understand the distinctions between the bills well enough. My response was that maybe these distinctions were not being communicated clearly enough if there was nothing to be concerned about.
He did commit to pass my concerns on to Mark.
Rang both offices. Mark Dreyfus’ office were very receptive and asked for a digital copy of concern. The Attorney General’s office was polite and said they would pass on concerns, however, the tone did not make me feel reassured this was the case.
I’m in a public library at this time but will make both calls when I get home. This is an attack on our Democracy and these members of our Government need to be made aware that this will no longer be tolerated.
Called both. Passed on the message. Apparently was the 15th caller today. That number could be higher! Took me 5 minutes to make both calls. Please peeps just make the call.
Made both calls which were answered quickly. Both office receptionists listened patiently and said they would pass on my concerns however both sounded a bit disinterested . The Dreyfus office said the 59 amendments would safeguard community groups,etc. from prosecution if they spoke out.
Good spoke with both offices & Libs were cold but polite. M Dreyfus office was nice & says Labor don’t support it.
Last week I called B Shorten, Tanya Plebk
& my local Senator the lovely Ericabets..
4joy4joy!!! Thanks for Caring Guys
at the Attorney-General’s office took my details but suggested I email [email protected]
if I wanted a response. It will probably a generic reply but at least it will be on their records. Mark Dreyfus’s office took a long time to answer and the staffer took my details agreeing with my sentiments.
The call to Christian Porter’s office was robotic, my name was noted and a note made of my call and my sentiments. The person stated that they have been getting a lot of calls on the matter this morning.
The call the Mark Dreyfus office was interesting. the person who answered the call said they had 10 calls this morning on the Bill so far. She said labour does not support the bill in it’s current form, and that there are 60 recommended amendments to the bill under consideration, and that these amendments would make the bill much less harsh.
The person in the Liberal did not comment ,listened and said thank you . Lie talking to the wall.
Mark ‘s office much more responsive and I felt that they may not allow this to happen .
I spoke to both offices of the Attorney General and Shadow Attorney General and requested that they both oppose the espionage and foreign interference bill because it will erode our democratic right to speak up for the environment and humanitarian concerns, that we should feel free to speak up without fear of prosecution or imprisonment. I spoke to Atia at Christian Porter’s office and Evelyn at Mark Dreyfus’ office, kind regards Kate Donovan
I rang both offices and gave my name and electorate, then asked that the bill not be supported because of its anti-democratic nature. I also asked that Christian Porter consult charities in future. Both assistants promised to pass on the information and Dreyfus’s assistant seemed pleased that I had rung.
The person who picked up at Christian Porter’s office said they had been receiving a few phone calls today and is taking down everyone’s concerns and would pass them to the correct advisor.
I called Christian Porters office first. The phone was answered quickly by a woman called Atia who claimed to be the office mgr. She took my name and number and indicated an advisor may or may not return my call to talk further about my concerns (Espionage and Foreign Interference bill). She said that she had received a couple of calls already this morning and thought as a result she would be requesting people to make their requests by email. She provided the following email to do this. [email protected]
I repeated my request for someone to return my call.
I then called Mark Dreyfus’s office. Evelyn answered the phone quickly and said she was a research assistant. She took my name and number, asked me what I was calling for and said she was not sure if anyone would return my call. I repeated my request for Mark Dreyfus to call me to discuss the espionage and foreign interference bill. I also asked for an email address to correspond to. She provided the following [email protected]
I explained to Evelyn my concerns about the bill and my wish for it to be killed, for bipartisan support to be removed because of the problems inherent in the bill in its current form and to hold our government to account.
My call to the AG was brief and the staffer simply said he would pass my concerns to the AG. My call to Mark Dreyfus was also answered by a staffer. He spent some time clarifying the three bills and said that it was only the third bill that I seemed to I have concerns about, namely the potential to limit my democratic rights by imposing red tape on eg donations processes. He said Labor opposes this. He suggested I check Hansard for details of the Mark Dreyfus contribution last night on theee bills. He also said that Labor did not agree with sme groups criticism of the first two bills.
The AG’s assistant, Anthea, was polite and patient. How much of my request was noted? I would guess, little! My main point was to draw attention to Australia’s increasing slide towards totalitarianism~ riveting stuff to a young career minded person with prospects! But, never mind; perhaps the volume of calls is the important thing. Let’s hope so
Call was brief.l just stated my concern about and opposition to this possible legislation and its erosion of democratic right to hold government to account and that it is designed to detrimental to democractic right to free speech. She was polite and ssid she had many calls coming in.
Rang both , got two secretaries . The second Dreyfus was more sympathetic. The first said “we are getting a few calls”
Called both numbers and left messages that this bill must be stopped. The persons accepting the calls said the messages would be passed on.
Both sides thanked me for the call. I raised my distrust of the bill that threatens to silence robots discussions on the environment. My concerns were to be passed on to the Attorney-General
I called and got a great reception from the AG’S staffer. I was greeted politely and listened to attentively. I ask others to ring because it’s the way to make out voices heard in an environment of heavy-handed law making and policy making that is designed to undermine democratic rights of the people in this country!!! It’s also character building to take action!
I was told that my message would be passed on and it was suggested that I also send an email outline my concerns. Which I will do. Regards Graeme
Called them both. Voiced opposition as a constituent and voter. Staffer said they would pass on the message.
The person who answered the phone said it was not possible to put me through to the attorney general. He said I should write to [email protected]
and my concerns would be passed on the the Attorney General. I asked the man (I did not get his name) if he knew about the bill. He said he knew it was coming before parliament but did not know about its content in detail. I said I was surprised that someone working in the AG’s department would not be taking an interest in a bill that may erode the rights of everyday Australians like him and me. I also said I was doubly concerned about this bill because of the power that people such as Peter Dutton has in his super department. A partment that was created on the same day that a report advising strongly against such a department was received by the PM’s office. With people such as him in charge, and the general direction of legislation about civil rights I am very concerned about the direction this country is heading. He said I am entitled to have my opinion and he is entitled to his. I said it was not his opinion that concerned me it was that he did not take an interest in a bill that is clearly of concern to many people and that he has not taken the time to appraise himself of the issues. I said I would write and he thanks me for my call.