First of all, some quick notes: Firstly none of this can be considered legal advice, I am not a lawyer, I am just someone who is passionate about research and doing what’s right.
Secondly I left a space blank for you to input your own organisations policies and procedures. If there is anything that is in line with what you’re about to read, include that to hold your organisation accountable. For example every Australian organisation should have privacy principles. The one I (currently) work for does, and I’ll be including that in my email. Also if there’s anything in your organisation policies and procedures that violates any of the laws within, feel free to point that out.
Finally, my particular strategy has been to not consenting to revealing my “vaccination” status, under the Privacy Act 1988, and to remind my employer that I am fit and healthy with no signs and symptoms (which means none of the restrictions can apply to me, under the Biosecurity Act, as you’ll soon see). So this information works best under those conditions.
Well, hope it helps, and all the best in standing your your rights. Thank you for your time!
Chapter 1: The premiers and politicians have no power or authority to make laws or mandates
Something that is good to remember is that in Australia laws cannot be made by dictatorship. A politician, or premier cannot just give commands. There are ways laws are passed which I’ll explain shortly, and mandates can only be made through law, or a judicial decree.
A good way to explain this is by looking at the Fair Work Commission – Appeal of decisions Jennifer Kimber v Sapphire Coast Community Aged Care Ltd (you can find that result below, and a few quotes from the case that make this absolutely clear)
Section 38: The Commissioner accepted Ms Kimber’s submission that the Media Release had no force at law,
Section  True it is, as the applicant submitted, the Media Release had “absolutely no force at law”,
Section 87: The Commissioner, having acknowledged that the Media Release had “absolutely no force at law”…
Speaking of having no force at law. Here’s High Court Chief Justice Latham on the Uniform Tax Case:
Uniform Tax \case, 1942 (65CLR 373 at 408) 23-7-1942
“Common expressions such as: ‘The Courts have declared a statute invalid’,” says Chief Justice Latham, “sometimes lead to misunderstanding. A pretended law made in excess of power is not and never has been a law at all. Anybody in the country is entitled to disregard it. Naturally, he will feel safer if he has a decision of a court in his favor, but such a decision is not an element, which produces invalidity in any law. The law is not valid until a court pronounces against it – and thereafter invalid. If it is beyond power it is invalid ab initio.”
This is echoed in another case here: https://www.scribd.com/document/36789805/09AUTH8d-Amended-091222
So we know laws can be void. The Commonwealth Constitution of Australia -W Harrison Moore states on page 383 (which is a whole chapter about unconstitutional legislation) that: An Act of Parliament which deals wholly with matters not granted to the Legislation, or with matters withheld from it, or exercises power in a forbidden way, is void… Thus, when it is once established that some part of an Act of Parliament is invalid, the ordinary presumption in favour of the validity of a legislative Act gives way.
How laws are actually made:
These processes take months, and then documents are produced. Note that the final step is the Royal Assent, which means the Governor-General has to sign off on the law. Until that moment, even if the law has been passed through all the steps, it’s still not a law. You need to be able to show this to show that something is a proper legitimate law.
You can find more about that here: https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/bills-and-laws/making-a-law-in-the-australian-parliament/
It’s important to note that a “mandate” needs to be enforced by law, or by a judicial order: “Mandate” definitions:
Miriam Webster: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mandate
: an authoritative command especially : a formal order from a superior court or official to an inferior one
(Ask your employer if they could please provide you with the relevant court order documents?)
The Law Dictionary: https://dictionary.thelaw.com/mandate/
THELAW.COM LAW DICTIONARY & BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 2ND ED.
(A) practice. A judicial command or precept issued by a court or magistrate, directing the proper officer to enforce a judgment, sentence or decree.
(Ask your employer if they could please provide you with the relevant judicial decree?)
You can find more about that here: https://auspublaw.org/2018/11/can-once-valid-legislation-become-invalid/
Chapter 2: The Commonwealth Constitution – The Highest Law of the Land
The Lexis Nexis Introduction to Australian Public Law states:
The Introduction to Australian Public Law -5th Edition David Clark states that (1.7): The Constitution of the Commonwealth to be found in s9 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia Act 1900 (UK) and is the highest form of law in Australia.
The Commonwealth Constitution of Australia itself states:
Preamble: Whereas the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution herby established. (https://constitutionwatch.com.au/wp-content/uploads/PREAMBLE.pdf ) Indissoluble means it cannot be dissolved or watered down.
Then there is the clause which gives clear instructions that it is binding on EVERYONE, it especially makes it clear that it’s also binding to the highest authorities in the land, the courts and judges.
Part V (Clause 5)
This Act, and all laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth under the Constitution, shall be binding on the courts, judges, and people of every State and of every part of the Commonwealth, notwithstanding anything in the laws of any State
Note: there is nothing in the Constitution that allows for emergency overrides, in fact quite the opposite: section 118 below shows this.
Recognition of laws etc. of States
“Full faith and credit shall be given, throughout the Commonwealth to the laws, the public Acts and records, and the judicial proceedings of every State”
Now here is a section that makes it clear that the Constitution is in continuous force (and can only be changed by a specific way, – which states in another part is a national referendum where every person in Australia votes)
Section 106: The Constitution of each State of the Commonwealth shall, subject to this Constitution, continue as at the establishment of the Commonwealth, or as the admission or establishment of the State, as the case may be, until altered in accordance with the Constitution of the State.
On the subject of being subjected to, or coming under:
Also worth noting is the many times the constitution makes it clear that all laws are SUBJECT TO THIS CONSTITUTION.
(Section 2, Section 8, Section 9, Section 10, Section 27, Section 31, Section 51, Section 52, Section 58, Section 76, Section 87, Section 106, Section 108, – of course Section 109 – ) In case this isn’t clear, it’s mentioned at least 14 times. You can check this out at the following link below:
Lastly, the Australian Legal Dictionary echoes this too:
Since the Constitution establishes all these powers, it means that each one of them comes under, and is subject to the Constitution.
So now that we have established that, let’s jump to the significance of all this which is section 51.23a of the Commonwealth Constitution.
http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s51.html (Section 51.23a -xxiiiA)
The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to… (xxiiiA) the provision of maternity allowances, widows’ pensions, child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services (but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription)
This includes any form of forced medical services.
(more info here: https://constitutionwatch.com.au/section-51xxiiia-but-not-so-as-to-authorise-any-form-of-civil-conscription/ )
Also worth noting is: http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MelbULawRw/1999/14.html “Latham CJ cited the Supreme Court’s interpretation of this section in Alonzo Bailey v State of Alabama,  USSC 3; 219 US 219, 243 (1911) and United States v Reynolds; United States v Broughton,  USSC 262; 235 US 133, 146 (1914), stating in BMA  HCA 44; (1949) 79 CLR 201, 253 that
[t]his prohibition has been construed broadly so as to give effect to its evident purpose and to prevent evasion by the creation of crimes in relation to acts or omissions which are connected with the rendering of services …”
Another source makes it clear that this act should “be construed widely” https://www.researchgate.net/publication/40646829_Constitutional_limits_on_federal_legislation_practically_compelling_medical_employment_Wong_v_Commonwealth_Selim_v_Professional_Services_Review_Committee
Here’s another source: https://quizlet.com/22328632/medical-law-round-2-flash-cards/ which states that: “2. ‘Civil conscription’ refers to a compulsion to render a service, and ‘Any form of’ gives the term a very broad meaning.”
Section 109: Inconsistency of laws
When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid.
You can look this up here: http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s109.html
What this means is that IF there is a law to force medical treatments, then they are automatically null and void. Since there is no law, it can’t be enforced. If there was one, it would be invalid.
To further drive this home, here is the Fair Work decision: https://constitutionwatch.com.au/fair-work-commission-appeal-of-decisions-jennifer-kimber-v-sapphire-coast-community-aged-care-ltd/
Some quotes that stand out from the case are: Fair Work deputy president Lyndall Dean said the decision was a serious injustice to Ms Kimber which denied her protections under workplace law.
She declared mandatory immunisation could not be justified in “almost every workplace in Australia”. “All Australians should vigorously oppose the introduction of a system of medical apartheid and segregation in Australia,” she said. “It is an abhorrent concept and is morally and ethically wrong, and the anthesis of our democratic way of life and everything we value.”
Here are a few more notes from the case:
Vaccinations should be voluntary
 It has been widely accepted that for the overwhelming majority of Australians, vaccination should be voluntary.
 The commonly accepted definition of voluntary includes acting of one’s own free will, optional or non-compulsory. This is the opposite of the definition of mandatory, which is something that is compulsory, obligatory or required. Something that is mandatory must be done.
 The stated position of the Australian Government is that the vaccine is voluntary. On 21 July 2021, the Prime Minister in a media conference stated that “people make their own decisions about their own health and their own bodies. That’s why we don’t have mandatory vaccination in relation to the general population”.
 On 13 August 2021, the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) and the Business Council of Australia (BCA) issued a joint statement on mandatory COVID vaccinations in which it acknowledged the Australian Government’s COVID vaccination policy that the vaccine is voluntary, and confirmed the views of the BCA and ACTU that “for the overwhelming majority of Australians, your work or workplace should not fundamentally alter the voluntary nature of vaccination”. (emphasis added)
 The Fair Work Ombudsman has publicly stated that employers will need to have a “compelling reason” before requiring vaccinations, and that “the overwhelming majority of employers should assume that they can’t require their employees to be vaccinated against coronavirus”. (emphasis added)
 Safe Work Australia has publicly stated that “most employers will not need to make vaccinations mandatory to meet their [health and safety] obligations”. (emphasis added)
 Despite this, many employers are declaring they will mandate COVID vaccines for their workers, and PHOs are being made by State Governments, in circumstances where there is no justification for doing so.
Mandatory vaccination cannot be justified
 COVID vaccinations, in accordance with the Australian Government’s policy, must be freely available and voluntary for all Australians.
 Mandatory COVID vaccinations, however, cannot be justified in almost every workplace
“Employers have a duty under the model Work Health and Safety (WHS) laws to eliminate, or if that is not reasonably practicable, minimise the risk of exposure to COVID-19 in the workplace.
……… However, while this is a decision you will need to make taking into account your workplace, most employers will not need to make vaccination mandatory to comply with the model WHS laws.
Lastly, it’s important to remember that there is a legal precept that states that “what cannot be done directly, cannot be done indirectly” Find out more from the links below:
Chapter 3: Consent and the privacy Act 1988
Privacy act 1988 https://www.findandconnect.gov.au/guide/australia/FE00127
Or here to make it easier to view: http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/pa1988108/
Some notes on the Privacy Principles:
For more information on this, you can check it out on the government website:
Here are some quotes for quick reference: “Information about your vaccination status is sensitive information and is afforded a higher degree of protection under the Privacy Act. Generally, your employer must seek your consent in order to collect your vaccination status information”
. This means that your employer cannot pressure or intimidate you to provide information about your vaccination status where they are relying on your consent as the lawful basis for collecting it. Your employer should provide you with adequate information about what information will be collected, why it is required and what it will be used for, prior to you giving consent. Your employer should also tell you whether the information will be disclosed to any third parties.
“Where your employer has provided a lawful and reasonable direction to you to be vaccinated, your employer can ask you to provide evidence of your vaccination, if this is reasonably necessary. Your employer must also obtain your consent. More information about lawful and reasonable directions is available from the Fair Work Ombudsman’s website.”
We discussed the law earlier, if it says lawful, there must be a law or an Act to back it up.
“However, your employer will still need to obtain your consent to the collection.”
“Your reasons for choosing to not have the COVID-19 vaccination and medical evidence related to this decision is also considered to be sensitive information under the Privacy Act. As with vaccination status information, your employer can generally only collect this information with your consent, and the collection must be reasonably necessary for your employer’s functions or activities.” (note it also needs to be necessary for the organisations functions – eg that you cannot perform your duties without it. This is clearly not the case, as it might be with a CPR certificate where children might have allergies).
“The information collected should be limited to what is specified in the relevant law, or to what is reasonably necessary in circumstances where it is collected by consent.”
Under the privacy principles, (find them here: https://sprintlaw.com.au/13-australian-privacy-principles/ ) Each person must be 1. given the option of remaining anonymous or using a pseudonym (which so far I haven’t seen this offered to anyone). 2. It must also be specifically relevant to the job as discussed earlier, and we have already discussed 3. Consent.
On the note of consent, it is also important to have proper informed consent:
The Australian Immunisation handbook states:” Immunisation providers should screen people before vaccination, obtain valid consent, and ensure that the correct equipment and procedures are in place before vaccination”
( https://immunisationhandbook.health.gov.au/vaccination-procedures/preparing-for-vaccination )
This is also echoed in the Charter of Human rights
Charter of Human Rights And Responsibilities Act 2006 :
Protection from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
A person must not be—
(a) subjected to torture; or
(b) treated or punished in a cruel, inhuman or degrading way; or
(c) subjected to medical or scientific experimentation or treatment without his or her full, free and informed consent.
Lastly, informed consent needs thourough knowledge of all possible risks and adverse effects of the medical treatment, and access to all the ingredients through the MSDS on the treatment.
Here’s a start for some of the adverse effects that some people have reported: https://vaers.hhs.gov/data.html
Chapter 4: The Biosecurity Acts and Chief Health Orders:
This outlines how biosecurity control measures must happen:
Biosecurity Act section 60: http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ba2015156/s60.html
Imposing a human biosecurity control order on an individual
(1) The following officers may impose a human biosecurity control order on an individual:
(a) a chief human biosecurity officer;
b) a human biosecurity officer;
(c) a biosecurity officer.
(2) A human biosecurity control order may be imposed on an individual only if the officer is satisfied that:
(a) the individual has one or more signs or symptoms of a listed human disease; or
(b) the individual has been exposed to:
(i) a listed human disease; or
(ii) another individual who has one or more signs or symptoms of a listed human disease
This is all pretty self explanatory. No Biosecurity orders can be placed on someone with no symptoms. Also the order must provide evidence of the listed disease
Biosecurity Act Section 61: (Gives instructions on how a biosecurity order should be carried out.) http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ba2015156/s61.html
A human biosecurity control order that is in force in relation to an individual must specify the following:
(a) the ground in subsection 60(2) under which the order is imposed on the individual;
(b) the listed human disease in relation to which the order is imposed on the individual;
(c) any signs or symptoms of the listed human disease;
(d) the prescribed contact information provided by the individual under section 69 or 70 (as the case requires);
(e) a unique identifier for the order;
(f) each biosecurity measure (specified in Subdivision B of Division 3) with which the individual must comply, and an explanation of:
(i) why each biosecurity measure is required; and
(ii) in relation to a biosecurity measure included under section 89 (decontamination), 90 (examination), 91 (body samples) or 92 (vaccination or treatment)–how the biosecurity measure is to be undertaken;
details of a chief human biosecurity officer who can be contacted for information and support in relation to the order;
(k) any other information that the officer imposing the order considers appropriate;
(l) any other information required by the regulations.
A few points here that stand out are that 1. Only a biosecurity officer of some sort can put these limits on someone (makes sense, a non-medically trained person can’t legally give medical advice). 2. Only a person with symptoms may have a biosecurity order placed on them -also makes sense, you quarantine the sick, and not the healthy, which also means a healthy person with no symptoms cannot be placed under any of these conditions. And 3. The individual must be named. As you can see here, there is no such thing as a blanket health order. It has to be very specific to specific individuals, and it has to follow the previous conditions.
Now under the Public Health and Well-Being Act 2008 section 184, it is an offense to impersonate an authorised officer – the penalty is 60 penalty units (which is equivalent to roughly $181.74 PER unit).
(find that here: http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/phawa2008222/s184.html )
Chapter 5: Discrimination:
Equal Opportunity Act 2010 Section 10: http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/eoa2010250/s10.html
“In determining whether or not a person discriminates, the person’s motive is irrelevant.”
Now let’s remember Section 117 of the Constitution: A Subject of the Queen, resident in any State, shall NOT be subject in any other State to any disability or discrimination which would not be equally applicable to him if he were a subject of the Queen resident in such other State”
(Which means that if there is a law or precedent, or court order that is in effect in one state, then it’s applicable in every state and you can check that out here below:
This means that you cannot discriminate based on someone’s age, race, gender, medical information or lack thereof, religious views, or any other reason. Discrimination is discrimination, no reason will suffice under this act.
Now let’s look at the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 section 6 and section 24.
1) For the purposes of this Act, a person (the discriminator ) discriminates against another person (the aggrieved person ) on the ground of a disability of the aggrieved person if:
(a) the discriminator requires, or proposes to require, the aggrieved person to comply with a requirement or condition; and
(b) because of the disability, the aggrieved person does not or would not comply, or is not able or would not be able to comply, with the requirement or condition; and
(c) the requirement or condition has, or is likely to have, the effect of disadvantaging persons with the disability.
Goods, services and facilities
It is unlawful for a person who, whether for payment or not, provides goods or services, or makes facilities available, to discriminate against another person on the ground of the other person’s disability:
(a) by refusing to provide the other person with those goods or services or to make those facilities available to the other person;
Also interesting to note is the Section of the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 section 103 which states “A person must not victimise another person”
Which you can find here: http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/eoa2010250/s103.html
A description of what that means can be found in section 104 here: http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/eoa2010250/s104.html
(1) A person victimises another person if the person subjects or threatens to subject the other person to any detriment because the other person, or a person associated with the other person… has made a complaint against any person under the old Act; or…
(d) has given evidence or information, or produced a document, in connection with—
(i) any proceedings under this Act or the old Act; or
Which basically means that you cannot have negative actions taken against you for raising a complaint under this or the old act.
For more information check out this: http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/bill_em/eob2010260/eob2010260.html
Clause 104 defines victimisation. Clause 104 is similar to section 97 of the Equal Opportunity Act 1995 and has been modified in order to reflect the new dispute resolution process under Part 8 of the Bill. Victimisation is prohibited in a range of circumstances, including because the person brought a dispute to the Commissioner, brought proceedings at the Tribunal or made allegations of discrimination, sexual harassment or victimisation. Clause 104 also protects a person who took action under the Equal Opportunity Act 1995. Division 2--Authorising or assisting discrimination Clause 105 prohibits a person from requesting, instructing, inducing, encouraging, authorising or assisting another person to discriminate against, sexually harass or victimise another person. Clause 105 re-enacts section 98 of the Equal Opportunity Act 1995. Clause 106 provides that both the person authorising or assisting the discrimination, sexual harassment or victimisation and the person who carries out the prohibited action are jointly and severally liable for the contravention. Clause 106 re-enacts and amends section 99 of the Equal Opportunity Act 1995 to reflect the changes to the dispute resolution procedure in the Bill.
Chapter 6: * Policies and Procedures
Just a reminder here to look into your organisations policies and procedures to hold them accountable to their own word too.
Chapter 7 Human Rights, Nuremberg Code etc
Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/cohrara2006433/ (CHARTER OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES ACT 2006)
Article 6: Everyone has the right everywhere as a person before the law.
Article 13: Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
Article 30: Nothing in this declaration may be interpreted as implying for any state, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
(Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Act 1986 http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/num_act/hraeoca1986512/ )
You can check this for yourselves here: https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/whole/html/inforce/current/act-2020-013 under applications of the act/definitions.
Here’s a quote from the first part of the Nuremberg code: Section 1: “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.
This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be
so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element
of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and
should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter
involved, as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision”
and section 5: 5. “No experiment should be conducted, where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur”
Some quotes from the Safe Work page (mentioned above) “most employers will not need to make vaccination mandatory to comply with the model WHS laws.
A safe and effective vaccine is only one part of keeping the Australian community safe and healthy”
Here’s another: “While the Government aims to have as many Australians as possible choose to be vaccinated, receiving a vaccination is voluntary.”
On the topic of reducing the spread of covid: “At this stage it is too early to tell if the COVID-19 vaccines will stop a vaccinated person from being infected with the virus. This means that a vaccinated person may unknowingly carry and spread the virus to others around them, including workers and others in their workplace. For this reason, you must continue to apply all reasonably practicable control measures.”
(Side note, does this description of the injection sound like a vaccine to you? Let’s look at some dictionary definitions:
The Macquarie Dictionary and Thesaurus: 1. To inoculate with the vaccine of cowpox so as to render the subject immune to smallpox. 2. To inoculate with the modified virus of various other diseases as a preventative measure.
The Oxford Australian Dictionary: 1. To inoculate someone with a vaccine. 2. a substance used to immunise a person against a disease.
Now what does Inoculate mean? It means: to inject or treat with a serum as a protection against a disease.
and of course “immune” means to be safe or protected against something.)
One final quote from the Worksafe page: (*Note: recently Worksafe has made changes to its page to make it more ‘pro vaccine’ but there is still useful information there, and you can use these quotes to show what it said before they updated it. Will update the changes at a later date)
Will I be held liable under WHS laws if I don’t make my workers get vaccinated and one of them gets COVID-19?
There is currently insufficient evidence about the impact of COVID-19 vaccines on transmission of the virus which means that a worker could get COVID-19 even if they are vaccinated. It is therefore unlikely that you have breached model WHS laws simply because you don’t require your workers to get vaccinated.“
(Which means that under the children’s health and safety act, covid vaccinations are irrelevant/don’t apply.)
The Helsinki Declaration
Good Clinical Practice (GCP) in Australia
Chapter 8: Other breaks in the law:
On the restriction of movement:
Section 92: trade, commerce, and intercourse among the States, whether by means of internal carriage or ocean navigation, shall be absolutely free.
Quick and Garran state in the Annotated Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth that on section 92: (p1024 section 84)
“Freedom of Interstate Trade: This section is intended to provide for the perfect freedom of trade and commerce among the States, from the moment of the imposition of uniform duties. In order to secure that object the strongest possible words have been used. Nothing has been left to implication. In this respect the Constitution of the Commonwealth is more explicit than the Constitution of the United States”
and on Page 1025:
“…absolute freedom of trade, commerce, and intercourse may be defined as… the right to travel unburdened by State restrictions, regulations, or obstructions. “
W.GMcMinn states in a Constitutional History of Australia that : “the Commonwealth was bound as much as the States not to interfere with trade between states in any way”
On page 570 it states clearly that: “in the case of The Commonwealth Constitution sec 92 establishes specifically that freedom of trade, commerce, and intercourse which the implied will of Congress imposes in the United States. In that it is Explicit and not Implicit, it is stronger than the American Constitution. It is secured also against any impairment by the Commonwealth Parliament , that Parliament cannot, like Congress, remit the obligation of the States to respect the freedom…. It also imposes restrictions upon the Parliament, which cannot by any Act of its own impair freedom. In one sense, every condition or regulation laid upon inter-State commerce is a restriction of its freedom.” (check out Fox v Robbins)
Section 12: Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities: http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/cohrara2006433/s12.html
Freedom of movement
Every person lawfully within Victoria has the right to move freely within Victoria and to enter and leave it and has the freedom to choose where to live.
CRIMINAL CODE 1899 – SECT 78
Interfering with political liberty
78 Interfering with political liberty
(1) Any person who by violence, or by threats or intimidation of any kind, hinders or interferes with the free exercise of any political right by another person, is guilty of a misdemeanour, and is liable to imprisonment for 2 years.
You can find that act here:
Contact Tracing – requiring the use of the QR codes:
Privacy Act 1988 Section 94H
Requiring the use of COVIDSafe
(1) A person commits an offence if the person requires another person to:
You can also find out more through the Fair Work Act 2009: http://classic.austlii.edu.au//au/legis/cth/consol_act/fwa2009114/
Section 6: http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/fwa2009114/s6.html
And The Australian Government Law Reform Commision page: https://www.alrc.gov.au/publication/family-violence-and-commonwealth-laws-employment-and-superannuation-law-ip-36/fair-work-act-2009-cth/
Some things to note are:
b) protects freedom of association and involvement in lawful industrial activities; and
(c) provides other protections, including protection from discrimination.
(We covered discrimination earlier, and offering services to one person and not another is clear discrimination. Remember motive is irrelevant. )
For more information check out the government website on this:
Here is a quote: Can someone make me use the COVIDSafe app?
“No. The app is voluntary. Whether or not you choose to download and use the app is entirely your choice. You cannot be required to download or use the app. If the app has been installed on a device you use at your workplace, your employer should delete the app upon your request.
It is an offence under the Privacy Act for any individual, organisation or government agency to require you to download or use the app.”
Here’s another: You cannot be required to download or use the COVIDSafe app to take part in an activity or provide or receive a good or service
your employer cannot dismiss you, alter your position to your detriment, stop you entering your workplace, or pay you less just because you don’t have the app (even if you are using a work-issued phone)
Here is a link to make a complaint if an employer is in breach of these instructions: https://www.oaic.gov.au/privacy/privacy-complaints/
They even recommend making a complaint to the Federal Police (that’s how serious these breaches are): https://www.afp.gov.au/contact-us/report-commonwealth-crime
Some notes on the PCR tests:
PCR Test inventor says results are flimsy (and false positives are likely):
“Scientists are doing an awful lot of damage to the world in the name of helping it. I don’t mind attacking my own fraternity because I am ashamed of it.” –Kary Mullis, Inventor of Polymerase Chain Reaction
(Hear him in his own words)
On “Following the directives”
Note that it specifically says a direction is not mandatory. And we already covered that there is no blanket health order. It can only be done by a person with the relevant qualifications, and under strict conditions, as discussed earlier. It also states that it is contrasted with a mandatory rule.
QR codes for quick reference:
I’m sure you’ve heard of the Emperors New Clothes: Here is a child friendly version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9mQoJU-6I0
Here’s the original Hans Christian Andersen version: https://andersen.sdu.dk/vaerk/hersholt/TheEmperorsNewClothes_e.html
After everything I’ve discusses previously, it’s apparent that some things are going on right now that aren’t legal, and because not enough people know this information, people are just going along with it. It’s important to remember that following illegal directions isn’t an excuse in a court of law. It’s also important to remember that each person is responsible for their own actions.
The main point of all of this is to show people that they can actually stand up for their rights, but to do that, first you must understand your rights.
I hope I’ve helped with this endeavour.
“In order to stand for your rights, you must first understand your rights”
– Me, just then!