I submit this petition, to call on the Australian Senate to review the events surrounding Senator Rodney Culleton’s removal from the Senate, and if the process is believed by the Senate to be corrupted, I request that the Senate provide the remedy of voiding the election of Senator Panagiotis Georgiou and reinstating Senator Rodney Culleton. I also request that those who breached laws and procedures to remove Senator Culleton, be reprimanded under the the law.

1. On 11th January 2017, Senate President Stephen Parry wrote to the Governor General of Western Australia to notify them of a Senate vacancy due to the removal of Senator Culleton, based on a purported bankruptcy (under Section 44 (iii) Commonwealth Constitution). However, the Federal Court ordered a stay on all proceedings surrounding the bankruptcy (to expire on 8th February 2017), which Senator Parry ignored. Directly after the stay expired, Senator Culleton successfully filed an appeal in the High Court of Australia on 9th February 2017. Senator Culleton filed an appeal for the following reasons:

➢ The Federal Court of Australia ignored all affidavits supporting Senator Culleton’s case and also ignored that a bond had been offered in trust to the court, as security against any purported debt.
➢ Senator Culleton proved to the court that he was solvent and able to pay any debt however the Federal Court of Australia (sitting in Western Australia) ignored this and proceeded.
➢ Senator Culleton did not have his legal team available and was denied an adjournment by the Federal Court. They proceeded without Senator Culleton having legal representation.
➢ The Federal Court was in violation of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987, as they presided on Senator Culleton’s case whilst he had Parliamentary duties.
➢ The Federal Court failed to carry out 7 of the 10 mandatory procedures required by law under the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Commonwealth). 


2. Senator Parry’s office notified ‘The Australian’ of his written correspondence to the Governor of Western Australia, that Senator Culleton had been removed from the Senate, prior to Senator Culleton receiving formal notification and whilst a court order of a stay on all proceedings was in place. Senator Parry and Senator Brandis therefore interfered with the natural course of justice and procedure by notifying third parties of a court outcome relating to the removal of a Senator.

3. Due to all court appeal avenues not being exhausted, Senator Parry disregarded the law and procedure for removing a Senator under Chapter 6 of Odgers’ Australian Senate Practice which states that Senator Culleton’s filed appeal means that no action can be taken to fill the alleged vacant senate seat. 


4. Chapter 6 of Odgers’ Australian Senate Practice also states “If a senator becomes disqualified after completion of the election process, this creates a casual vacancy which may be filled under Section 15 of the Commonwealth Constitution,” however Senator Panagiotis Georgiou was sworn into the Senate without the resolution of both Houses of the WA Parliament and Governor of Western Australia, as required.

5. The question of Senator Culleton’s removal from the senate, based on a purported bankruptcy, has never been raised or heard by the Parliament, as required under Section 49 of the Commonwealth Constitution Act 1901, as the Australia Parliament has not declared bankruptcy provisions for members and so the Bankruptcy Act 1883 (Imperial) applies. By this definition, Senator Culleton is not a current bankrupt and therefore 
Senator Parry misled the Senate, as he did not table all these associated facts regarding the purported bankruptcy.

6. The Senate, on 7th November 2016, also referred Senator Culleton to the Court of Disputed Returns due to a possible disqualification, for a larceny conviction (in absentia), handed down on 2nd March 2016.

7. Attorney-General George Brandis only presented some of the facts surrounding the larceny conviction in absentia to the Senate, to achieve a successful outcome of a motion to refer Senator Culleton to the Court of Disputed Returns. He therefore misled the Senate.

8. On 1st December 2016, Senator Culleton successfully moved and resolved a motion in the Senate that Senator Brandis be called before the House to answer why he did not present all evidence surrounding the conviction ‘in absentia’. If all facts were presented, the Senate may have dealt with the matter under Section 47 of the Commonwealth Constitution, not requiring Senator Culleton to go to the Court of Disputed Returns. See further notes:

➢ Under Section 25.1(a) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, “The Local Court must not make any of the following orders with respect to an absent offender: (a) an order imposing a sentence of imprisonment,” and therefore Senator Culleton was never subject to being sentenced to imprisonment for one year or longer which is required for disqualification under Section 44 (ii) Commonwealth Constitution Act 1901.
➢ Senator Culleton received the conviction in absentia (larceny of a $7.50 lost key) because he was denied the right to attend the hearing by Magistrate Holmes of the Armidale Local Court; denying his right to natural justice.
➢ Senator Culleton was denied an adjournment and the court automatically ruled against him, resulting in a conviction in absentia and denying a natural course of justice.
➢ Senator Culleton was never under sentence or subject to be sentenced at the time of nominating as a candidate with One Nation nor the Australian Electoral Commission, nor at the Federal election on 2nd July 2016 as he had filed an application for annulment of the conviction on 24th March 2016 and upon the acceptance of the application, the court had to deal with the matter as if no conviction or sentence was recorded (Section 9 NSW Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001).

9. Senator Culleton notified the Senate on the 7th November 2016, that the High Court of Australia (Court of Disputed Returns) was not able to preside over any matter as the High Court Rules did not abide by the High Court Act, due to the removal of Her Majesty from the court which was uncovered by Senator Culleton on 12th September 2016, in a question to the Senate.

10. The High Court and Senator Brandis proceeded with Senator Culleton’s disqualification matter even though the High Court was not operating correctly as required under the Commonwealth Constitution.

11. Larceny, under the NSW Crimes Act, is an indictable offence, and a person subject to an indictable offence under the Commonwealth can request a jury trial under Section 80 of the Commonwealth Constitution. There is no indictment record for Senator Culleton and he was not granted a trial by jury, even though the disqualification required an indictable offence.

12. Odgers’ Australian Senate Practice also states that “Presumably if a conviction is quashed on appeal the vacancy which was taken to have occurred upon conviction and sentence is then taken not to have occurred. If such a presumed vacancy has been filled the filling of the vacancy would then also be void” and “the member’s place should not be filled until any appeal against the conviction is determined.” Senator Culleton’s ‘conviction in absentia’ was annulled.

13. On the 3rd February 2017, the Court of Disputed Returns brought down an ambiguous, contradictory and indefinite judgement based on whether Senator Culleton “might have been subject to sentencing”, yet they stated that he ‘was’ subject to sentencing and ruled that is was not ever deemed to be validly elected and hence there is now reasonable doubt in their ruling. The Court of Disputed returns judgment was only an opinion, based on a referral by the Senate.

I ask the Senate to take the above facts, including any additional information that may be called upon by the Senate, or any evidence submitted by Rodney Culleton, into consideration and deal with this attack on democracy under Section 47 of the Commonwealth Constitution Act 1901.