Jeremy Shum warns RAJ SINGH on potential legal action against MATHEMAGIC (MATHS WORLDWIDE)
mat...@hotmail.com
- http://mathsworldwide.org/
- http://www.youtube.com/mathsww
- http://www.petitiononline.com/mathsww/petition.html
Maths Worldwide Litigation Group
Allegations - Responsibility - Class Action - Quotes
Plaintiff: Public interest litigation group, a proportion of the
800,000 mum & dad investors, who have been ripped off by Maths
Worldwide. If you are interested in joining this consumer group,
please sign this public petition. vs. Defendent: Maths Worldwide (ABN
59 134 783 663), which secured $4.8bn in terms of total sales under
the name "Mathemagic Computer Tutor".
Who is responsible for the $4.3bn worth of damage to families
worldwide?
Because the Company has not provided any names (very secretive), we
cannot ascertain specific fault yet. It is assumed the Company has
done this intentionally, to prevent managers from being "named and
shamed" (a classic public relations move).
1) Grant Thornton, specifically, the receivers (November 26, 2008),
Trevor Pogroske and Paul Billingham. We are claiming that the
partners did not act with due diligence, and behaved negligently,
sending the Company down the same path it went into bankruptcy for.
2) Glenhutt Holding Pty Ltd, based in 2065 (New South Wales), has been
active since July 1, 2003. There is a possibility this corporate head
was started for the pure purpose of avoiding liability to Mathemagic.
This is illegal if this is the case. The ABN of this firm is 81 105
679 641, and the ACN is 105679641. This is the registrar of the
MathsWorldwide.com.au domain name.
3) NSW All Schools Track & Field Championships, who are cobranded in a
five year naming rights sponsorship, ending August 2009, with the
Australian Institute of Mathematics. Doing so, may have been
misleading for NSW customers, thus they were negligent in their
partnerships.
4) TPP Internet, the firm that hosted the Australian Institute of
Mathematics and Literacy Pty Ltd (ABN 48080351597). The webmaster is
under Raj Singh (rsi...@mathsworldwide.com.au). The Company is also
linked to twoplums.com.au. By keeping the domain mathemagic.com.au,
and linking to Maths Worldwide, the new company is misleading
customers Maths Worldwide has purchased mathemagic (if it hasn't yet).
5) Back To The Future Education (Australia) Pty Ltd, who seem to be
selling a product very similar to Mathemagic, now rebranded to
Mathspower. If their product is analogous to Mathemagic, it may be
yet another rip-off which we will be taking action against.
6) South African Government organizations, which seems to be where the
program originates from (based on the accent of the voice prompt on
the program). The South African Government should ensure phony
programs shouldn't be able to be exported into Australia.
7) CAMI (Computer Aided Mathematical Instruction) Educational,
Advanced Learning Power, Maths and Excellence Learning Pty Ltd, who
seem to be based only through the Internet, and are selling the
product. Selling a misleading product means you are vicariously
liable for damages suffered. The web sites on the Internet are
scattered, but include camiweb.com; cami.com.au; aiewa.com.au;
orangeeducation.com.au; learnmaths.com.au; future4kids.com.au. The
best is probably the Indian CAMI, accesible at speedmaths.in. Web
hosts, web designers, and web masters can be legally liable for
content on these web sites.
8) Lombard Financing, the Company that charges a 19% annual interest
rate, selling the total product over 4 years for $7940.
9) Mathemagic Computer Tutor Ltd (Company No 05642193), based in The
Lodge, Darenth Hill, DARTFORTH (DA2 7QR). This Company was
administered on March 2, 1997 - only later to reappear in Australia.
10) Laton.com.au, which is profiling the Mathemagic Computer Tutor web
site. They also detail a contact address, Level 2 79 Hay Street,
Subiaco (6008) in Western Australia. The phone number listed is 08
9489 7600.
11) Damian Bock and Damian Frearson, the director of Mathemagic
Computer Tutor AIMWA Pty Ltd, who were fined $1,200 in a Perth
Magistrates Court for failing to give mandatory customer information
about their rights to cancel door-to-door trading contracts.
12) Renaka Senaratna of Croydon in Victoria, was fined $1,000 in the
Joondalup Magistrates Court for not ensuring his company provided
mandatory customer information about their rights to cancel door-to-
door trading contracts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All material presented on this web site exclusively represents the
opinions of its authors. We disclaim liability for all content.
Material has been provided for the exclusive purpose of organizing a
class action between existing Mathemagic customers.
Freedom of speech on this web site guaranteed under the First
Amendment of the U.S.A. Constitution.
© 2010 Maths WW (Property of MathsWW.com)
Harmony
mistake. Back To The Future Education does NOT sell the same product
as the companies under the MATHEMAGIC (Maths Worldwide) umbrella.
After discussing with Anthony Tannous, I am aware that:
- It is widely known that Mathemagic were unethical scammers
- Back2Future are Christian, family owned, 100% Australian,
independent company of teachers
- Back2Future are a Government endorsed supplier
- Back2Future are Australia's leading and most reputable education
provider
It seems as though Back To The Future Educational Australia Pty Ltd
was mistakenly associated with Mathemagic (Maths Worldwide), because
Anthony Tannous (Director of Back To The Future) has taken Mathemagic
to court (in 2003), because they said that Back To The Future was a
subsidiary of Mathemagic. Mathemagic also then stole the name
"Mathemagic" from Anthony Tannous (trying to use Tannous' good
reputation). In the end, Tannous did not stick with "Mathemagic"
because they did not want to be associated with such a fraud.
You can contact Anthony Tannous on 1300 133 831 if you want further
information.
--------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
Below are some of the commentaries that have been made regarding the
Maths Worldwide case, which does NOT apply to Back To The Future
Educational Australia Pty Ltd and Anthony Tannous.
--------------------------------------------
LOS ANGELES, CA — I recently read rumors on a blog about David Newman
(Maddocks Lawyers, Sydney AU) and his campaign to try to discredit the
$4.3bn Jeremy Shum lawsuit, by attempting to portray him as a juvenile
(synonym: child, immature, young, youth, teenager, deliquent).
Apparently, the people from Maths Worldwide (Mathemagic) which Jeremy
Shum will be suing for about $4.3bn, are also being asked to do the
same; just think about it, the power of a sheer organization posting
malicious comments on the Internet, about the Disney teen star turned
lawyer. Nothing out-of-the-ordinary in terms of a response to a case
that is putting Directors of Maths Worldwide and their accountants
(Paul Billingham et al) at a huge risk of liability, though. Most
recently, I have seen gossip regarding an alleged Jeremy Shum sex tape
with Brooke Fraser and Demi Lovato, which simply just doesn’t exist.
Now of course David Newman’s actions would currently seen to be
“allegations” (not yet proved in a court of law), but after making a
few phone calls around to the Law Council of New South Wales and
about, I have been advised that David Newman is supporting these
allegations, and do not have reason to believe otherwise (feel free to
the right of reply if so). Mr. Newman must now respond to media
claims, and answer: (1) did he try to spin public opinion to portray
Jeremy Shum as a juvenile; and (2) why is he using such unethical
methods, if so?
The question about David Newman’s conduct as a lawyer is not really
extraordinary though. With only experience in commercial law, Newman
has little experience altogether in media law; Jeremy Shum, plenty.
Mr. Newman just isn’t well knowledged in the area of media law, and I
could imagine Jeremy Shum receive a series of legal threats, which he
knows very well Mr. Newman will not be able to pull through with.
Thus, Mr. Newman’s last option, is to try to harass, threaten, and
abuse Jeremy Shum personally, so that Mr. Shum will pull his $4.3bn
lawsuit against Maths Worldwide off the reins. This course of action
however, is going to be severely limiting. As a renowned Disney star,
Jeremy Shum’s popularity well towers over David Newman. In fact, one
critic observed that David Newman may have been intentionally asked to
serve as the lawyer, to give publicity to the Maddocks Lawyers
company. Talk about where legal ethics is in modern society. Mr.
Newman however, may have just had his last punch, as the wider
Australian public are going to judge Maddock’s Law firm on prima
facie, and its blatantly unethical strategies in the media. In many
ways, it is hard to see why such immoral conduct on David Newman’s
behalf is not acclaimed as a criminal offense. The other question of
course, is whether Mr. Newman is going to turn into a laughing stock,
seeing as though the Disney star’s looks triumphs easily over the
nerdier looking Mr. Newman, who was described by one blogger as a
“double chin fatso”. Not that Mr. Shum is void of any commentary,
including a remark that Jeremy Shum was an “anorexicly skinny foul-
mouthed slut”, but the Internet can be a harsh judge of truth, and
Newman just isn’t ready for the reality, but merely, a false
impression, in an arrogant, self-enlightened sense. David Newman is
taking a dangerous route turning a serious lawsuit into a complete
comedic farce, where looks are all that matter; taking up this media
stunt for his law firm Maddocks Lawyers.
For me, the issue is lawyers are not meant to be getting into dirty
work such as public relations. David Newman is simply too arrogant and
proud, to admit his loss, to a younger alma matter of the law. The
profession of law however, in many ways, has seemingly turned from its
ways of protecting legal rights, to now, a farce of the law as David
Newman has, turning the courts into a media circus. This has even led
to one blogger, who apparently has reported David Newman to the New
South Wales Law Society, to have him deregistered as a lawyer. I was
recently conversing with a Professor in the Law from the University of
Sydney, who advised that Jeremy Shum may actually be able to
personally sue Mr. Newman for defamatory comments made Shum (even if
implied), which could potentially shatter Mr. Newman’s chances of ever
working again in the legal profession. Of course I am glad that here
in the United States, our American legal system is far from the farce
it has become in Australia. With an express freedom of speech
constitutionally guaranteed, manic controlling suppresionists like
David Newman (and Paul Billingham) would clearly be unable to restrain
freedom of speech. For the comparisons made of Australia against
China, David Newman is heading up a dangerous route trying to
manipulate its common law to bar “implied freedom of political
communication”, which is the only implied guarantee in the
Constitution that Australians have.
Then there is the issue about Paul Billingham et al (Grant Thornton
Accounting) and their handling of the Maths Worldwide accounts. As
Jeremy Shum admits himself, there is so little information available
on Maths Worldwide, it is near impossible to ascertain what Maths
Worldwide is, yet alone details about its Directors, and its
commercial activity. Mr. Billingham should be required to provide
sufficient information about Maths Worldwide, which they simply
aren’t. Who is Maths Worldwide? Where are they located? How can I
contact them (other than through an email address)? I find it hard to
believe this isn’t misleading and deceptive conduct on behalf of Paul
Billingham et al. Where is the Institute of Chartered Accountants of
Australia to take action, when you need them to? Until Maths Worldwide
responds to media questions (which it isn’t), you cannot but just
mistake the Company for a fraud. Or at least this is the market
perception. And “A Current Affair” is already crawling on their backs.
Mr. Billingham is also taking a dangerous route in terms of trying to
make the court case a media circus, by painting Jeremy Shum as a
juvenile. Recently, I saw public anger spark over Paul Billingham’s
conduct, as a commentary (who claimed to be a former co-worker with
Paul Billingham) described him as a “cocky fat bastard”, to omit other
expletives which would not be suitable in a forum relating to
children’s current affairs.
Journalists often should try to stay disinterested from the matters of
a case; but I for one, am very dissapointed in Maths Worldwide, and
their obstruction of international law (I’m not so much concerned
about the claims in relation to the Trade Practices Act; but combined,
they are serious offences against children). Defrauding children can
be inserted on the same platform as pedophelia, child pornography,
physical abuse, and other child-related crimes. I’m obviously not
going to say that David Newman and Paul Billingham are child
pedophiles, but to have such reckless disregard for children, surely
the law should do more than it does right now? Sure, media spinners
from Maths Worldwide are going to try to twist Jeremy Shum’s image
into the evil stepfather; and their own image into fairytale child
lovers, but anybody who has more than a meticulous eye, will see David
Newman and Paul Billingham for who they really is. And in my view,
what’s a commonly used word in English that expresses a deranged
mentally unstable sociopath who have the need to make insane
pathological equivocations? Liars.
(Please note that that the above comments are my own opinion, and may
not represent fact – even though they are based on facts)
--------------------------------------------
Affecting 800,000 students across Australia, Math’s Worldwide is going
to be facing a lawsuit with a market cap of over $4.3bn, excluding
court costs and other criminal proceedings. Maybe it was a relative,
but impacting over 1.6 million parents, if you’ve been the one in
twenty Australians who have been so unlucky as to have purchased their
overpriced $5,995 software, you’ll be on the hoodlums of this case.
With another Australian company recently facing class action, a medic
company, Australians seem to have truly embraced the concept of class
action law suits.
But do we have to wait for generous legal imports from China such as
Jeremy Shum stand up for the poor and destitute to have a say, or
should the Government be doing something about it?
Furthermore, for companies like Math’s Worldwide, who have a history
of liquidation – in the United Kingdom, it bankrupted in 1997,
surfaced in Australia five years later, only to go bankrupt once
again, only to once again re-spawn. Where should the line be drawn for
proprietary limited liability companies? Should companies be able to
liquidate and relieve itself of all contracts?
There’s no doubt Math’s Worldwide has a number of hoops to jump
through. With a range of allegations ranging from the Trade Practices
Act’s (1957) misleading and deceptive conduct, misuse of market power,
inflating price of goods, labor law, unsuitable goods, false
description, un-merchantable qualities, child protection issues,
obstruction of international law, intentional liquidation – the
Company, which is already knee deep in borrowings and loans, not to
mention its recent save from bankruptcy, chances for this company to
fully recover seem meek.
So comes the question of the idea of public interest corporations.
That is, the Government taking forced ownership of companies which
have been behaving unethically in the markets, and whose actions
impact children. Or at least this was the opinion of one author who
was the chair of the United Nations UNICEF children support program.
Furthermore is the ability for Mathemagic Computer Tutor, to list
under various company names, including Back to the Future Education
Pty Ltd, CAMI Educational, Advanced Learning Power, Math’s and
Excellence Pty Ltd. Do we want another repeat of ENRON in Australia,
or have we learnt from the United States of America’s lessons in
corporate governance. Appropriately, it wasn’t too far long ago that
Australia faced its recession.
The next question is of course whether Directors can be charged with
an offence for bankrupt companies. There needs to be a balance struck
between Directors who honestly go bust, and yet, Directors, who go
bust over and over again. The latter is not preferred in any type of
legal system, and in Australia, we need a catch all solution to keep
these sorts of Directors behind bars, and in gaol for good.
--------------------------------------------
This new breed of men are sexy men who make the court a farce, by the
media circus that is generated by the publicity surrounding the cases.
The perfect example is the Jeremy Shum court battle against Math’s
Worldwide (formerly Mathemagic). With allegations the Company ripped
off over 800,000 students over Australia amounts between $5,995 and
$8,000, one can but have little remorse for the Company.
Sporting a pair of blue skinny leg jeans and a low slung checkered
top, you wouldn’t expect Jeremy Shum to belong in a court session, but
he does, and he’s a dangerous weapon, defending over 800,000 students
in a court battle that may reap in over $4.3bn for families around the
country.
We make no reservation that hundreds and thousands of mothers and
fathers from the blue belt, and are of course thankful that Jeremy
Shum is representing them for free.
But the question is, should media magnets like Jeremy Shum be banned
from taking public interest litigation in our high courts? There’s no
doubt that the likes of Selena Gomez and Debby Ryan have no place in
our court session, or our legal system would be turning into a media
farce.
But how would the Country’s Parliament deal with the
unconstitutionality of the suggestions?
You just have to look to the recent K-Generation and Gypsy Jokers
cases, to realize that Australia’s High Courts are much closed to the
idea of impressing laws against just one group of people, yet along
one person. And we tested that in South Australia with the case of the
serial pedophile Daniel Ferguson.
As such an option looks meek, the other alternative would be to ban
the media from the doorsteps of the court. No more shouting matches,
and no more circus clowns.
For these goody two shoes, who help moms and dads in court, of course
we must be grateful as a country as Australia. But just please, if the
court session is going to be a media circus, at least ban the media.
Looks like Math’s Worldwide knocked on the wrong door, though. With
over 4.9 million fans, Jeremy Shum reaches far more children than
Math’s Worldwide has customers.
--------------------------------------------
THE CHINESE aren’t known for highly public legal battles, but one
Chinaman from the rich suburbs of Adelaide, Jeremy Hsien-Kwong Shum,
may just be the first. A true David and Goliath Story, Jeremy Shum, is
gathering as many of the 800,000 moms and dads, who are customers of
Mathemagic, in an attempt to sue the firm for $4.3bn in damages.
But you wouldn’t ever expect Shum to hurt a fly. With an excellent
career as a Disney radio host and legal defense, this well-spoken
gentleman comes across as an imaginative and creative artist. But not
in the corporate legal world. Strapped in a pair of blue skinny leg
jeans and a relaxed patterned shirt, his hairstyle says
“professional”, but not “warrior”. But, he has strapped around his
left wrist a stylish Rolex watch – only that a businessman with a BMW
and a Hollywood mansion would own – with jewel action too.
Pocketing $4.8bn, Math’s Worldwide has bankrupted under the same name
in the United Kingdom in 1997, only to resurface in Australia nine
years later – and to bankrupt once again – before once again, re-
spawning, under the name Math’s Worldwide.
With a range of allegations ranging from the Trade Practices Act’s
(1957) misleading and deceptive conduct, misuse of market power,
inflating price of goods, labor law, unsuitable goods, false
description, un-merchantable qualities, child protection issues,
obstruction of international law, intentional liquidation – Jeremy
Shum, a double threat as learned in the law, and a Disney radio icon,
is being a true Aussie blue fighting for the rights of moms and dads
who simply cannot afford a lawyer.
Mathemagic Computer Tutor, and a list of other companies, including
Back to the Future Education Pty Ltd, CAMI Educational, Advanced
Learning Power, Math’s and Excellence Pty Ltd, all seem to have been
received by Grant Thornton, under the leadership of Trevor Pogroske
and Paul Billingham. Unfortunately for these two accountants, Mr. Shum
is charging forward to have these accountants at the very least
audited, and put into court for negligence, and other criminal action
if possible.
“I will make sure these criminals who rip off working moms and dads,
end and stay in jail,” he stated in a media release.
And that’s not it. Under the name of The Jeremy Shum Invent Company,
he has initiated an educational series to assist young people who have
been ripped off by Mathemagic, with their mathematics and sciences,
particularly targeting those in their matriculation years, years
eleven and twelve.
Although initially from Hong Kong, it’s always fascinating to see
oversea immigrants adopting true Aussie blue values, and fighting for
the underdog.
With lawyers like Jeremy Shum around, it won’t be long before
companies will have to stop scamming parents – or watch out, and be
sued by the next Aussie heavyweights.
But with physical resemblance to The Disney Channel’s Joe Jonas and an
excellence career in the Law, we will have to see whether the lawsuit
turns into a media circus. But for now, it seems as though Selena
Gomez, Demi Lovato, and Debby Ryan aren’t about to turn up any time
soon. Or will they?
There’s nothing better than bringing the “magic” of legal aid to those
who cannot afford it.
And that is true ambition.
--------------------------------------------
We will never know for sure, maybe unless the Australian Federal
Police Hi-Tech Crime Center, Fraud Division, picks up all of the
computers, cell phones, Blackberries, and iPod’s of the Directors of
Math’s Worldwide, and does a full Parliamentary Inquiry, but it
doesn’t take a genius to connect the dots, and to reach the ratio
decendi that Math’s Worldwide is spreading lies about Jeremy Shum over
blogs, tabloids, and newspapers.
I can state for a fact, for instance, that I saw real-time, a user
spamming a forum with posts that Jeremy Shum has “too much time” to
sue Maths Worldwide. And can you guess who may have written that, if
not a person from the Maths Worldwide Pty Ltd group?
Over the course of the last few years, since Math’s Worldwide
bankrupted in 2007, mysterious articles about Jeremy Shum’s alleged
affair details with Brooke Fraser and Krystal Meyers have been
appearing over on blogs, tabloids, and newspapers. These lies, like
Chinese whispers, are quickly spun to sound even treacherous than they
were initially.
With no obvious hint of a sex tape anywhere to be seen, re-quoted and
reprinted, nobody really knows where they come from; and as time
passes, people start to believe these lies, and believe the
unbelievable: maybe there was a Brooke Fraser sex tape, taken off the
Internet by the Police Force. Or was there?
Although revered by working moms and dads Australia-wide, Jeremy Shum
is now the number one public enemy of Math’s Worldwide, who he is
setting to take to court representing the 800K parents, in a class
action lawsuit that has a market cap of almost USD$5bn. With claims as
far wide under the TPA (1957) as misleading and deceptive conduct,
misuse of market power, inflating price of goods, labor law,
unsuitable goods, false description, un-merchantable qualities, child
protection issues, obstruction of international law, intentional
liquidation – it sounds like a court battle that is going to take the
next ten or so odd years. Maybe another Mabo case?
The problem with the current Australian law is the problem with
defamation and libel. Under the guise of freedom of speech, newspaper
editors can get away with spreading rumors far too easily. If only
they were living in the Roman Empire, where gossipers would be burnt
at stake.
As Demi Lovato from The Disney Channel states, “these bullies just
need to know how much damage their writing does to some people”.
Criminal defamation is almost always impossible to prove. Even for a
legal like Jeremy Shum; it looks like he will have to stay low, and
continued to be ridiculed for the speculated immoral conduct with
Brooke Fraser and Krystal Meyers. But at least he was coupled with a
few pretty girls; it could have been worse.
But we know better. As the alma mater of the University of Australia
in law and commerce, a sex tape is just a farfetched fantasy.
--------------------------------------------
From what we can gather Paul Billingham and Trevor Pogroske from Grant
Thornton Accountants, were in charge of the liquidation of Mathemagic,
which was subsequently sold to Math’s Worldwide. Taking a look at
their personal profiles, it seems as though Trevor Pogroske is the one
with the more experience who oversaw the process, and Paul Billingham
the principal. After all, in such a large business, where Mr.
Billingham is the Head of Liquidation and Recoveries, it would be
unlikely to provide Mr. Pogroske with such a portfolio.
So the question is, whether Paul Billingham did, or should have taken
into account “children’s interest” in the liquidation of Mathemagic
(which is now apart of Math’s Worldwide).
If the decision of David Newman from Maddocks Lawyers is to take
Jeremy Shum to the Courts, I have no doubt that the question of
whether “children’s interest” is going to be a legitimate claim
against a receiver. After all, it really depends on the judge and
court sitting, as to whether they will accept adventitious findings.
But my question is, as the nation of Australia, how can we afford not
to treat “children’s interest” as the prime importance in every
process, whether it be professional, administrative, judicial,
executive, or parliamentary? Having signed the United Nations treaty
relating to children, take for instance if the laws in relation to
legitimizing suicide. Would this prima facie apply to children? The
answer is, of course not. Another example is the criminal code.
Special consideration is made for children.
The question is, then, should accounting law make special
consideration for children?
I have no doubt that companies like Mathemagic, which have faced
bankrutpcy and then reliven, should be done so in the sole interest of
children (not commercial markets).
This is yet another move of the “free hand” that is guiding the
markets, which fails to take into account. And in my opinion, a much
more drastic concern than environmental change, because children are
our future.
Maybe Paul Billingham (of Grant Thornton) may not have been negligent
for not taking into “children’s interest” with the current law, but
from the sole perspective of morality, I would argue that persons
dealing with children should, or at least should have considered,
acting in the best interest of the child. Otherwise it wouldn’t be UN
Law.
Looking at the recent laws on pedophelia, child protection, custody
and family law, juvenile criminology, child abuse: it seems like the
Law is really on the side of children.
And those who don’t like children so much? Well, just a little
shunned, I’d say.
--------------------------------------------
Headlining this week has been Jeremy Shum’s lobby of the Governments
to prioritize the needs of children, as he tries to gather 1.6m mom’s
and dad’s. The question many people have been asking is, why the
public uproar, and is it justified?
An accounting graduate himself, Mr. Shum knows where children are
prioritized in a shareholder transaction: Last. This is despite the
United Nations UNICEF Treaty being in operation for almost half a
century. If people like Jeremy Shum are not going to stand up for
children, who is? The child??
In a lawsuit that is estimated to go into the billions of dollars,
thousands of dollars of court fees, and potentially A-class celebrity
appearances, this is an action that Hollywood’s big names, including
Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, would be incessantly interested in.
So what is the current Accounting Law exactly? On first glance, it
really is quite straightforward. The listings are creditors first, and
then shareholders. Where then, do customers come in? The answer is
nowhere. When a Company shuts down, all customers are gone.
But what about companies like Mathemagic that shut down, only to
immediately come back into the market as if nothing happened, like
Maths Worlwide? The answer is, there is no defense. In the
transaction, the children are simply put last; ignored, if you like.
Even though the UNICEF Treaty has been assented by the Australian
Government, until we have a Bill of Rights, these rights will not be
protected. And guess what, with the current Bill of Rights in
discussion, have children been included? No.
So, with the purpose of a Bill of Rights ineffective, can one not
wrath over this unjust?