Australian High Court Rules the Constitution BANS Mandatory Vaccination
In Part One of a 6-part series of interviews with Darren Dixon for the ‘GLOSSA channel’ Aussies learn that their High Court has already ruled that under law, they can refuse ALL government ‘mandatory’ vaccinations.
Transcript (by Marian Calcroft) below:
Rob: Hello everyone, and welcome back to the Glossa Channel. I am here today to speak to Darren Dixon here in Melbourne, Australia regarding something called a Constitutional Guarantee. Welcome to the program Darren. How are you doing today?
Darren: Good, thanks Rob! Finally great to meet you.
Rob: Yes, we’ve spoken on the telephone long-distance from time to time, but it’s good to be here in person. Can you explain to us what this Constitutional Guarantee is? You’ve told me in our private conversations a bit about it, but I believe the listeners and viewers would be greatly interested by this topic.
Darren: Well – in this current time of what’s going on, in Australia, and all around the world, in regards to medical services, um a lot of people are feeling that they are, er, being forced to accept certain medical services, we’ll call them medical services, and they relate to any medical service that can be provided, whether it be general or preventative it’s irrelevant, it covers all medical services. And, what it is, in the Commonwealth Constitution, it’s a very unique guarantee that we have, er, compared to every other country in the world. And what it actually says is that the Parliament have power to make laws for the good, for the peace, order and good government in respect to medical and dental services but so as to NOT impose any form of Civil Conscription.
Now what does that mean exactly?
Well, it’s in regards to medical and dental services, that’s the subject matter, but there’s another part which says “NOT to impose any form of CIVIL Conscription”.
What’s Civil Conscription? Well, we know what military conscription is. That’s when you’re forced to provide military services to the government. Well, this is to NOT impose any form of Civil Conscription, so a Civilian Conscription, and NOT to impose any form of it.
So, basically, I’ll go back to how this was created. And how that was created, is in 1946 Australia had a Referendum, and the people in 1946 voted for this to be inserted into The Constitution. And it provides a medical protection, that I know a lot of people are looking for and are a bit bewildered at a lot of the, a lot of the State news that’s coming out at the moment in regards to being… having certain medical procedures forced upon them.
Now the High Court has actually spoken on this, and they’ve interpreted this “NO form of Civil Conscription”, over 60 years in much settled Case Law. There’s been 38 High Court Judges involved, and they’ve actually interpreted that part of Civil Conscription to which I was speaking about. And what they’ve actually interpreted it to be is the fact that, in regards to medical procedures, there is a thing called the doctor-patient relationship. And the doctor-patient relationship cannot be penetrated. It’s voluntary, it’s by your consent, and then no third party can get involved in this particular relationship, it’s just you and the doctor. Not even the Government can get involved in the doctor-patient relationship.
So having said that, what actually the High Court have defined and interpreted, is that the Government cannot provide any legal or practical compulsion for you to accept any medical procedure. It’s totally voluntary, and it’s by your consent, and if the consent is forced, or the consent is withdrawn during the medical procedure, it’s actually assault.
So, this guarantee that we have, is something that can be relied upon in respect of any encroachment of any Government compulsion, so as to force a medical procedure upon you. And once again, Rob, this isn’t me saying this, this is the High Court. And this is backed up by the People of Australia in the 1946 Referendum. It’s not me, I’m just the vessel delivering the message.
It’s a long-forgotten part of our Constitutional History, er, and ever since then there’s been multiple cases that have called for an interpretation of that particular provision of the Act, and I think the People of Australia need to know that they can rely on Section 51.23a, that no form of any medical procedure can be forced upon you, without your consent and without your WILL. And there’s actually a case, which is the Medical Practitioner’s Case, where it says the Commonwealth, the High Court said this, that the Commonwealth cannot write any laws so as to impose immunisation or vaccination upon the People of Australia. So that’s been settled Case Law, and we’ve actually got some letters from the current Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, which backs this up.
So, now there’s concerns about some State Laws for example in Western Australia there’s a State Health Act, where they say they can do the opposite of that. That they can actually impose some sort of a medical procedure upon you, without your consent. This is in breach of the Constitutional Guarantee. It needs to be challenged in Courts. There needs to be a challenge in regards to the invalidity of that State Act, which is governed by Section 109 of The Constitution, when a Law of the State is inconsistent with a Law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail and the former shall be inconsistent to the point of the invalidity.
So, what that basically means is, is when a State Law is inconsistent, or in… and not in harmony with the Commonwealth Law, that Law is INVALID. It doesn’t have to be decided, it’s invalid from the beginning. Although people would like a Court to proclaim it, that is the fact. It cannot be inconsistent with the Commonwealth Law, and that’s another thing you can rely on. But these things are soon to be played out in the High Court. I’m aware of multiple people taking multiple challenges to the High Court, in respect of the Constitutional Guarantee found at Section 51.23a and these are in respect of, um, some protesting rights that have been happening in Victoria, and forced medical services in respect of wearing masks and, and other alike subject matter. So, there’s some interesting times that are coming towards us, that ah, we should see some interesting decisions happening from the Courts themselves.
Rob: So you would suggest that if there are any State Laws that are in conflict with, or contradictory to The Constitution, then The Constitution prevails over any State Laws?
Darren: 100 percent. And,um, there’s a Clause in the Constitution, Clause 5, which says that the Constitution is binding on all the Courts, Judges and People of every State and every part of the Commonwealth regardless of what the State Laws say. So not only is there The Constitutional Guarantee, it has a binding effect as well.
There’s also something that was brought to my attention recently, is ah, in Queensland, they are just about to bring out a CoVID App, that ah, they’re imposing. The Government are imposing businesses to enforce that people cannot enter your premises without logging in with the CoVID app through their Smartphone. Now that right there is an encroachment of Political Liberties. Number one, it’s forcing me to carry a mobile phone, which is not Law. Secondly, it’s asking the business to impose it on the customer, so it’s an over extension of the Government’s Laws realistically.
Also the Privacy Act, Section 94h of the Privacy Act says, that you cannot force someone to download the CoVID safe App, the Commonwealth one. Nor can you reject them or deny them any service. So this is once again a Law of the State that’s inconsistent with The Privacy Act which says that you cannot deny people service because they don’t have the App, and you cannot force people to download the App itself.
So this, is what we see a lot, that people are unaware of these guarantees that we have that stop this over-enforcement of the State Governments. One just needs to look to The Commonwealth Law for remedy, and usually you’ll find something either in The Privacy Act, The Constitution…. and there’s also another Act called the Australian Consumer Law Act which is the Competition and Consumer Act and that provides many protections within that Act, for Australian consumers, and any discrimination in regards to the providing of services.
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Anthony ADAMS
| #
We have a new political party in Australia that seems to confirm the essence of this article. It also suggests that, Federal Law supersedes States Law,
https://rumble.com/vjd4p7-australiaone-party-riccardo-bosi-masks-lockdowns-mandatory-vaccines.html
Reply
Zac
| #
I engaged with Richardo Bosi, and he is on the record for supporting US “interventionism” AKA, the most truly murderous regime to ever exist in the history of humanity. He also spoke about having ties to US military/intelligence community, and I remember 2 interviews he did supporting Q, which given his ties, means he knew all along it was a psyop – now thoroughly disproven – otherwise the Trump admin would have dropped the Assange case and Assange would be free to continue embarrassing the hell out of the war criminals of washington, and hopefully getting them to the Hague. They are just different shades of lipstick on the same old war pig.
Also his politics, in my view, his politics are abhorrent. Like Craig Kelly. his Foreign Policy reveals solidarity with the War Empire. That is, they don’t view Bush as a war criminal, despite the 1 million dead Iraqis, half of which are women and children. It is a fact that they killed thousands and thousands of children. All based on WMD lies – that everyone knew about (see Andrew Wilke’s whistle blowing) all for what. Oil and Haliburton infrastructure rebuild contracts.
They just don’t give a fuck.
Bush is a war criminal. Assange liberated the truth of the matter, by providing the evidence to the world. Trump had all the power to destroy the swamp, but instead ran a psyops saying theres factions high up in the military advocating to free the world from the swamp. The mere idea that freedom can come from within the Empire, is, in my opinion, is the myth that Hollywood colonises our minds with, so good people will continue to vote for war criminal and their supporters, like Bosi, and Craig Kelly, and every other cretin that just cares about one thing, and will do anything to gain it: power.
The only way decent people will vote for such cretins, is if such cretins pander to our biases and beliefs. But if we drill down and wrangle with what their actual policies entail, then we get to the questions: a) what would we be supporting if we voted for them, and b) what are our values?
Their values, their policies, support an utterly murderous regime.
Their narrative is packaged in an evidence-based story we believe in.
Their shit works, that is why they do it.
That is why we are susceptible to it.
But their shit is just shit.
Just more war.
Just more power.
The regime can not liberate us.
Contrary to Mr Dixon’s construction, or misconstruction of s51 xxiiiA, I asked Prof George Williams (who is one of the leading minds on Australian Constitutional law, and a proponent of a Bill of Rights – i.e. in solidarity with the people) if ” under s51 xxiiiA, Parliament has power to make laws with respect to: the provision of….medical and dental services (but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription)…; does that prohibit mandatory covid testing?” He said “No it just means you cannot force doctors and dentists to work for the government.”
I appreciate that we are all needing answers and solutions, but this also makes us susceptible to propaganda. Dixon may be sincere, but it appears he is wrong.
Reply
Hector
| #
Dixon is correct, keep your disinformation to yourself lefty
Reply
Lorenzo
| #
Hector 100
Reply
Patrick
| #
Refer my comment below and it will be understood that “Zac” is in the camp of both metaphorical and actual killers – that’s what history has long proved leftism/socialism/Labor is.
The attempt to kill Donald Trump certainly was not planned by conservatives.
Mandating a deadly jab that has killed or seriously disabled thousands in Australia certainly was not actioned and sanctioned by people like Craig Kelly, Pauline Hanson and Bob Katter.
Forget not that the leftist/socialist “Uniparty” of Liberal and Labor are 100% responsible for the disastrous jab-mandated mass murder and disablement of the past four years.
Case closed….
Reply
Christine
| #
Now that was a blat without any substance behind it.
Reply
Dephyant
| #
Your an idiot. Did you even listen to what he just said? Go get your jab and keep reading SMH. The words ‘ without civil conscription’ is not ambiguous and its been won by wong vs supreme court case and many others, hence a case precedence has been set. Let it be tried and eat your words. Nazi scum.
Dixon for PM.
Reply
Patrick
| #
Three FACTS
1 – George Williams is not only a leftist, he is a full-on socialist/communist Years back he proposed sneaking leftist/labor legislation via a back door when the majority refused it. OF COURSE he will try and ‘censor’ any constitutional truth he deems to be ‘unacceptable’ and counterproductive to his/leftist evil agendas.
2 – As in Australia, not ‘all’ Americans are “evil warmongers.” Unilke Australia a vast majority of Americans are genuinely “God-fearing, good people who are totally against war and the leftism that is almost always the cause of war.
3 – The return of Donald Trump – with a historical win of Senate, Congress AND the Popular Vote shouts that the era of evil controlling the USA is over and the USA will return to the “Force For Good’ it was before, starting in the 1950’s, leftist evil increasingly gained control.
3 – Unlike the USA, leftism now has a stranglehold on Australia. Historically that has always proved to be a national death sentence. The insane Leftist MAD Bill is symptomatic of the force of evil seeking to silence or shut down ( metaphorically “kill”) any opposition. If that bill succeeds, the next step will be to lay the groundwork for literally killing opposition. I do not see an Australian version of Donald Trump anywhere. Which is why, as I had been warning for over 30 years, Australia is on a superhighway to social hell.
Reply
Isaac
| #
How does privacy act s94h apply to other log in apps ie service nsw, that are not specifically the “covidsafe app”?
Reply
Susie
| #
Isaac…if you go to the relevant part Privacy Act 1988 – SECT 94H while it does mention the CovidSafe it does also say ‘COVID app data’ which would cover, I believe. Anyway I have the relevant sheets with me highlighted in bright green should I need them!!
Reply
Thor
| #
It doesn’t. All of Section 94 relates ONLY to the CovidSafe App, therefore 94H is irrelevant as to any argument that is NOT relating to the CovidSafe App. You have to read S 94 in it’s entirety to understand the implications of it. CovidSafe is ‘an’ app, meaning a singular app – not ‘any’ app.
QR Codes etc have nothing to do with the CovidSafe App. There is plenty of information going around in videos and documents showing that QR codes are unlawful because their use breaches so many other acts and laws like the Australian Privacy and Data Collection Act and Surveillance Devices Act, and Telecommunications Act, as well as the Australian Privacy Principles, which by extention through the Privact Act, most, if not all, businesses would have to comply with.
Reply
Neo
| #
It’s just an Act. Their corporate codes have no relevance to a sovereign being except by way of contract.
Reply
Michael
| #
The purpose of the Service NSW is still to collect private information, including your location. You cannot be forced to divulge such information under the Privacy Act, and a business that is open to the public cannot discriminate against you for refusing to divulge your private information, or for not wearing a mask.
Reply
Sonja
| #
Well, i got verbally abused two hours ago and told to fuck off, for not wearing a mask to order take away. I explained i had an exemption. “I don’t give a fuck, get out!” I was so shocked and told him that he was discriminating, he said “I don’t care, fuck off out of my store” I am so shaken.
Reply
Mark
| #
Easy don’t support stores like that , if they seem covid brain washed move on
Reply
Lana
| #
Name and shame
Reply
John Smith
| #
Get his info and find a no win no pay lawyer. Give him fuck off. Don’t back down as that is the problem. Step up son .
Reply
Oliver
| #
Sad that for the bigger fish. In the case of a take away just don’t go back.
Sarika
| #
get a lawyer and sue them
Reply
Sybyll
| #
Wow, that happened to me in Mackay months ago. And they yelled at me while they had the face covering dangling off one ear and a completely uncovered face .. when i pointed this out, she yelled I’m social distancing… my reply so the distance between you are i are different from your side of the counter …. you can’t fix dumb lol
So i went home, rang the place and said could i book 26 people in for dinner for friday.
You know the rest … lol
Reply
Catherine
| #
You have been discriminated against. Having an exemption is completely valid. I would take action against that store. I have a new policy in dealing with individual business owners and their staff.
If they’re militant about wearing masks, or they’re unreasonable. I walk out and state I won’t be shopping there again. Ever.
Reply
Lorenzo
| #
Catherine… well stated
GMM BSc
| #
Sonja, Call the Police on him. He is in breach of the Disability Discrimination Act, he is not a Biosecurity Officer and he does not have a Biosecurity Order signed by the Judge of a Supreme Court ordering you to be classified as a Biosecurity hazard. He has also breached the Crimes Act 1914 for forcing someone to wear a mask, (have a PCR. RBT or other test) as codified under s.51 (9 & 23A) of the Australian Constitution Act 1901. Don’t let these assholes get away with it or they will continue to segregate the community.
Reply
Mez
| #
A regional Woolworths in NSW installed a cop! Illegally asked what my exemption was & when I asked how rape was his business & explained Privacy Legislation & Disability Discrimination Act re denying entry & it is a fineable offence, he disagreed. I just left as I wasn’t going to make a scene & get arrested nor was I going to wear a mask.
Last week I bought flowers & chocs for the asthmatic exempt staff member there who has been copping abuse (& she prob knows most people as it’s small regional town). Found out later that that day, before we gave her flowers etc, she had gone home for the 2 hours between shifts & cried the whole time.
I have already emailed their head office after the cop incident (locals on fb bragged they had complained to woolies), after that I emailed them to ask what they were doing to protect the mental health of their exempt employees before they all commit suicide. Perhaps signs saying No Service if you abuse any exempt stafd, under their Duty of Care.
After living in Melb forever til Nov 2020, regional are way worse. An hour up the road today, regional nsw, locals wearing masks outside everywhere! Wtf! Fear monkeys or what!
John Lock
| #
Because of their abusive attitude, I would definitely report that store and the person involved, under the Disability Discrimination Act of 1992. I would go so far as to return to the place, with my phone recording video, and let them know they were being recorded pursuant to having a prosecution brought against them. Then I would ask if they would like me to politely explain the legal situation and the penalties that they face if they persist in discriminating. If they then continue to be abusive, I would record that and get in touch with the Disability Commission, or even the police, to bring charges.
People like that need to have their chain yanked, hard.
Reply
Ess Zee
| #
Someone today threatened to pour a large boiling hot tea over me because I didn’t have a mask… probably because he said I was spreading a virus and I told him he was a virus?
Reply
chris
| #
mike palmer from know your rights spoke of case recently where a lady was awarded 40k from sydney after mask discrimination, the matter was handled by the human rights commisioner and privacy commisioner
Reply
Rosslyn
| #
Hi there to all I love the freedom here to talk about issues. I was in a head on car accident 7yrs ago and suffered multiple life threatening injuries and 9mths in hospital. We have been fighting a horrific legal battle all this time. The man who hit us head on by driving on the wrong side of the road was from Egypt. He was allowed to go home, has paid nothing at all. Yer we have lost everything our home, block of land, and my husbands well paid job to be my carer. We have been living on $35.000 between us, and paying $420.00 a week rent. It’s a total mess. We have tried to go to media but no one wants to help us. Has anybody got any suggestions? Desperate.
Ross
| #
If anyone has any helpful information I would so appreciate it. Thanks Rosslyn Davies
Dolly
| #
Shocking!
Don’t support that business anymore and tell your family n friends to do the same!
Reply
Posey
| #
Same happened to me at Dulwich Hill liquor Stax. As I left saying forget about it the dude that works there said, thanks for leaving.
Reply
Rosslyn
| #
Sorry to hear about your plight. I have a friend who is partially deaf, he asked the shop attendant to take down her mask, she flatly refused. He said he was partially deaf,and law has it that they can remove the mask to help him understand, she refused. He went back and complained to the manager, and asked for him to be apologised to. The attendant refused and walked away. Horrific
Reply
Rita
| #
They can’t force the vaccine but can you lose you’re job if you don’t get vaccinated. If a work place makes it mandatory do we have any rights under the constitution to say no to the vaccine and still keep our job?
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
The elite are using the two steps forward one step back and their controlled media and legal baloney to condition and corral the herd. Only when enough people have enough of and the employees strike and the people reclaim their rights from the Zionist operatives will it stop. Only when people get tired of being treated like cattle going through the chute and tell the government and the employers to stick the injections in their ass will it stop. Their needs to be a boycott against all employers that are demanding injections and immediate campaigns to throw out all puppet actor politicians that support this outrageous attack on your natural rights and even the freedom over your own body.
When the British started to tighten the screws against the American colonists with their Writs of Assistance and then their move to commandeer the munitions depots, they quickly found out what free people can do. the British suffered 269 men and officers killed at Lexington, Concord in just a few minuets. Washington knew that as long as he could keep an army in the field they would prevail, even against what at that time was the most formidable power in the world.
Today the Zionist syndicate is much worse than the British government of colonial days. These elite parasites still depend on deception, fear and apathy to control the people. Let the American colonists be an example and rise up against the sociopathic eugenicists who think it is their mandate to control the world and remake it into their own Neo feudal technocratic hunger game society.
Reply
Joanna
| #
Absolutely well said
Reply
Kev
| #
Well said mate
Reply
Gordana
| #
I agree Mark, lets see how much the frog gets burned🤣Well said
Reply
Mez
| #
Brilliantly put!
Wonder how long it will take until we indeed see Vive La Revolution! When the food supply is threatened? (Or toilet paper supplies???) When there’s 10 suicides a day, directly related? (No idea, just speculating)
Reply
Mich
| #
Since when is coaxing people to take vaccination legal
I thought the coaxing was against the law and also bribing people to have a COVID injection by giving them incentive to bribe them with free plane ✈️ tickets and other briberies like a pot of beer
Do they realy 🤔 that people are like herd with herd mentality that they can’t think for themselves
Reply
Lorenzo
| #
Mich 100
Reply
Lorenzo
| #
Brilliant Mark. Unfortunately, we are a programmed to be a passive society. It’s called social engineering.
Reply
Jagat
| #
Nice broad understanding of the truth.🤓
Reply
Delia
| #
I lost my job since the flu vaccine became mandatory in health care in Australia since May 2020. I refused to have flu vaccine because I am allergy to it.
Reply
Nala
| #
What’s FAIRWORK’s position on this Unfair Dismissal?
Reply
peterbro
| #
Ask the employer to prove that their insurance policy covers adverse reactions to mandated vaccines which has now become a workplace covered incident.
Insurance companies are too smart to give such cover.
Reply
Keith Davies
| #
Delia there is a current action by Reiner Fuellmich at the Nuremberg Tribunal against WHO, CDC and Davos Group relevant to your situation. There will be plenty of Lawyers willing to take on your case with no fees up front.
Start planning on what to do with your future wealth.
Reply
Excogitatoris
| #
Contact me on my site. I am trying to set up a support group forum for people that became victim of vaccine mandates.
Reply
Mgh
| #
You are right employers don’t care about the law as most of us have not the money to get them court especially after they fire us
Reply
John Smith
| #
You have rights. Log onto larryhannigan.com.au
Get the form. Get a no win no pay lawyer. You will win. The constitution says forced vax is illegal and so is signing in and testing. https://principia-scientific.com/australian-high-court-rules-the-constitution-bans-mandatory-vaccination/
Reply
A
| #
I asked my boss if our workplace would make the vaccination mandatory. She said no because they would be legally exposed in the situation that there was a severe adverse reaction or death as a result of the vaccination. I suspect this is the case in most companies where workers are not frontline.
Reply
GMM BSc
| #
If you are fired, you can sue the employer for Unfair Dismissal and Discrimination.
Reply
John Lock
| #
Yes, the Biosecurity Act of 2015, Sections 87 and 92, state that you cannot be prevented from entering or staying at a place in which you are normally entitled to be, nor can you be made to undergo any medical procedure. No one, not police or employers, has any right under the Privacy Act to any part of your medical record, without a duly authorised warrant (for which evidence must have been presented to a judge that you may have committed a crime).
Reply
Mitch
| #
My brother works for DHS they asked him to get COVID vaccinated at work
He refused However he was a prime example of a top staff personnel as he worked there the longest caring for people with disabilities and his care house that he worked with other staff members they got the title as the examle team working together and they were the top care providers in the state
So when they told him that they unfortunately are going to let him go
He said ok give me my payout for every year of service and I’ll be out of your hair so later on they reconsidered who they are going to lose a top personal
So they reneged on their decision and said he doesn’t have to be vaccinated
I guess they worked out how much it’s going to cost them plus the loss of top person that realy knew what he was doing their loss someone elses gain
And I believe there is also a statement in Geneva convention article that protects individuals and exempts people from being forced against something they don’t want to do that they can’t be forced under human rights act
Reply
Minch
| #
My brother works for DHS they asked him to get COVID vaccinated at work
He refused However he was a prime example of a top staff personnel as he worked there the longest caring for people with disabilities and his care house that he worked with other staff members they got the title as the examle team working together and they were the top care providers in the state
So when they told him that they unfortunately are going to let him go
He said ok give me my payout for every year of service and I’ll be out of your hair so later on they reconsidered who they are going to lose a top personal
So they reneged on their decision and said he doesn’t have to be vaccinated
I guess they worked out how much it’s going to cost them plus the loss of top person that realy knew what he was doing their loss someone elses gain
And I believe there is also a statement in Geneva convention article that protects individuals and exempts people from being forced against something they don’t want to do that they can’t be forced under human rights act
Reply
Mich
| #
My brother had a situation at work as a top employee that structured a working ethics and set up an example and got a top accolades for the disability house that he worked in he got the example house for the state for his co workers as well he was asked by the employer to get COVID vaccinated HE REFUSED
however when he was told if he doesn’t take it that they may have to regrettably let him go
He replied that he is ok with that providing they pay him out for every year of service then when they reconsidered with further deliberation the employer came back to him and said he doesn’t have to have a jab
However it is against Geneva convention under freedom act to be forced into something you don’t want to do
Reply
Tim
| #
Does this same constitutional guarantee also protect us from mandatory mask wearing?
Is mask wearing considered a medical procedure?
Reply
Wendy Schulze
| #
The short answer is YOU DO NOT LEGALLY HAVE TO WEAR A MASK, LOCKDOWN, CLOSE YOUR BUSINESS. You are protected under Australian Law. Here it is…
The basics of the law of what is happening right now.
1. Check the law on contradicting Laws between state and federal.
When the state law is in contradiction with Federal Law it becomes invalid and federal law stands as the law. This is in our constitution at 109. Here is a government website that explains it.
https://www.alrc.gov.au/publication/classification-content-regulation-and-convergent-media-alrc-report-118/15-enacting-the-new-scheme/inconsistency-of-commonwealth-and-state-laws/
The Biosecurity Act of 2015
2. Here is the link that allows you to look at the federal law. THE BIOSECURITY ACT OF 2015 — this is the law to look at regarding what is happening now.
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2017C00303
Please check sections 60 and 61 that explain a Human Biosecurity Control Order who can get them how they are applied etc.
In short…
It is against our Australian law to ask a person to wear a mask, lock down, close a business etc. if they don’t have an INDIVIDUAL BIO SECURITY CONTROL ORDER
QR code CHECK IN
Here is the law regarding forcing people to check in with a QR code.
Check out 94A
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2020A00044
I have only shared GOVERNMENT WEBSITES here so this is not a “conspiracy theory.”
Criminals are in power at the moment and breaking Australian laws with their “Mandates” and imprisoning us and worse…
This is hard to get your head around at first but the media and government are lying to you.
Reply
Isaac
| #
Love your comments wendy shultze. But im curious on how the privacy act applies to nsw servise app qr check in. In section 94x subsection 2b it seams to apply only to “covid app data” meaning from the federal covid safe app and not other means of collection.
Reply
Scott
| #
As far as I can tell there is nothing in this section which gives you any freedom from being expected to use state based QR check ins. It does only apply specifically to the COVID Safe app. Did we really think they would amend the privacy act so as to exempt us from the track and trace they intended all along? That would have to make them the dumbest criminals on the planet. It seems every building we step foot in again for the foreseeable future can legally refuse you entry. Make a scene and the cops turn up to give you a 5k fine.
Hopefully there are other provisions in the constitution that protects us from this tyranny.
Reply
Alan
| #
There is no law stating you must own a smartphone. There is also no law that states if you own a smartphone that you must download or even us any app whatsoever. The requirement is to ‘check in’ and they must provide an alternative method ie. paper record. We have never used a QR code or even downloaded any related app.
According to the office of the Privacy Commissioner you only need provide your first name and contact phone number. So buy a $2 sim card, register it so you get a new number but don’t buy any credit. Put it in an old phone you don’t use, any adult in your family can memorize the number and leave it at home.
Demand manual sign in – yes it’s a pain but it’s not what the powers that be want. Using this method means you are complying with the requirement to check in whilst not participating in the tyrannical surveillance state track and trace garbage. If there really is an ‘outbreak’ they could contact you with minimal effort but you won’t be spammed and at least retain you digital privacy.
Lorenzo
| #
Thanks for sharing Wendy
Reply
Michael
| #
The mask directive is from the Chief Health Officers, and you can get a Medical Exemption from your GP to not wear one, so I would say that is sufficient evidence that it’s medical advice, and therefore is in breach of the doctor-patient relationship.
Reply
Mez
| #
Apart from many GPs NOT giving them, they are NOT required to be obtained & if you can get one from your GP, it is illegal under Privacy Legislation to ask to see it or ask what one’s exemption is.
Have you tried to enter anywhere without a mask? It can be quite stressful! Even the cop inside Woolies didn’t want to read or hear the law! And illegally asked what my exemption was! (Also have read that some present it only for a cop or shopkeeper disagree with it and still illegally refuse entry for goods/services.
I fear for the mental health of those that are exempt and are copping abuse & denied entry.
Reply
Lorenzo
| #
Mez, thanks for sharing. And the media made Karen look stupid.
Reply
GMM BSc
| #
Yes. Australian Constitution 1901 s.51 (9 & 23A).
Reply
John Lock
| #
Because the government claims (falsely, but let that slide for the moment) that mask-wearing ‘makes everyone safer’, that makes it medical advice, and thus a service offered by the government under Section 51,xxiiia of the Australian Constitution. That very sentence which grants the Government power to offer welfare, medical, hospital and dental services, also contains the clause “but not so as to authorize any form of conscription”. This has been interpreted dozens of times by the High Court to mean that the government cannot compel anyone to take up any such offers or services; it must be entirely voluntary.
So in effect, there is no valid law anywhere in Australia which can force people to wear a mask, stay locked in their home, have a vaccination, or restrict their movements or time spent outdoors. All such directives issued by States, or even the Federal government, are invalid if they conflict with the Constitution.
I carry copies of these references on my phone, and show them whenever I am challenged about not following these unlawful rules, and so far, I haven’t had any trouble.
Reply
Mez
| #
I had no probs in Melb not wearing a mask (apart from telling some rude old ladies to eff off in an IGA), but OMG regional NSW is FAR WORSE. Absolute fear monkeys here!! (And they all think they’re good cos of the floods & fires & helping their fellow man out, AND they take pride in being arseholes to exempt mask wearers!!! I bought flowers & chocs for a local woolies exempt person who has been copping it & sadly she prob knows everyone, being in a little regional area! I later heard earlier that same day she cried for 2 hours at home between shifts, and that my gift really helped. Told her she didn’t deserve the crap she’s been getting.
Reply
Neo
| #
None of their b.s. so called “law” applies to you unless you agree to be ruled under it.
You are a living soul, and this planet was made by the Creator. How on Gods green earth did these parasites acquire power over you authority to rule this planet?
Most souls are so deeply conditioned by The Matrix around them they forget these basic fundamental principles of reality. Show me where their so called law applies to a living soul. It doesn’t. Only to persons, which are commercial entities.
Reply
peterbro
| #
When people use the legal Birth Certificate (which is created by the government/corporation of the Crown) to identify themselves, then they acquiesce to be under that jurisdiction for legal fictions.
To be in the jurisdiction where the people are found requires special action.
Reply
michael obrien
| #
These puny, mere common men rule by the cunning use of words, they always have!
WORDS I tell you. Words!!
NO ONE man or woman has jurisdiction over our sovereign BEing
Reply
Mich
| #
This So called covid testing
Has it occurred to people that we are getting tested fir DNA 🧬 and collated information on us is just being added to our ID with all the other inclusive things that they know about us and the fact that the COVID injection alters you cel structure as it is done at cellular level
We don’t see the changes immediately however a number of years down the track we will be the witnesses of the effects of these injections and what it will do to the next generation we don’t know but the time will tell
Heaven help us because we are told that this pandemic is not going to stop here we will need additional booster injections and what additional concoctions are they going to experiment 🧪 on us to see who survives and who doesn’t
They are starting to give children the injections as well
So would we want to have the responsibility of wearing the guilt for the rest of our lives as parents that gave a consent for our children to be vaccinated and heavens forbid if something goes wrong something like a clot in young persons brain 🧠 or an anurism
How would you forgive your self if your child died wouldn’t it be as if you had your hand in it and they didn’t have a choice to say yes or no I’m it
Reply
Jim
| #
You’re a bloody legend Darren.
Reply
LEONARD WILLIAM
| #
If a power is denied to the Parliament of the Commonwealth (commonly know as the federal parliament) it is denied to all from the governor general and the states right up to we, the people, the peak of sovereignty. In1945 the High Court of Australia (HCA) in a decision written by the then Chief Justice of the HCA, Latham CJ, my favourite CJ of all of them, it was decided
“But the Parliament could not pass a law requiring citizens of the States to
keep their premises clean or to submit to vaccination or immunization.” Very clear and precise decision. This action brought about the referendum in 1946 which resulted in the insertion of a new sub-section (xxiiiA) in section 51 of clause 9 of An Act To Constitute The Commonwealth Of Australia 1900 (UK) 63 & 64 Victoria Ch. 12. Please download this court decision from https://www,austlii.edu.au and you can get the constitution from the same site. Cheers, LEONARD
Reply
CJ Latham
| #
Please be more cautious in how you interpret Court decisions. Chief Justice Latham was saying that the quarantine power (section 51(ix) ) could not be used to pass a law requiring vaccinations. He certainly did not say that the rest of the Constitution too forbade a law requiring vaccinations. The Justices always confine themselves to the legal question(s) they have been called upon to answer and never go beyond that.
Here is the entire paragraph that contains your quote. Context is important so please in future do not omit relevant details (such as the fact he was referring to s 51(ix) and not s 51(xxiiiA) ):
BEGIN
I illustrate the position as I understand it by taking public health legislation as an example. Under s. 51 (ix.) the Commonwealth Parliament has power to make laws with respect to quarantine. Quarantine legislation may ‘be regarded in most, if not all, of its aspects as a particular form of public health legislation. In relation to quarantine the Commonwealth Parliament has full powers of legislation. It can not only provide that money shall be spent upon quarantine, but it can devise and put into operation a whole compulsory system of quarantine under which duties can be imposed upon persons and penalties inflicted for breach of the law. But in relation to other aspects of public health the Commonwealth (once again leaving out of account the Territories) has no such power of legislation. The Commonwealth can, in my view, authorize the expenditure of public money on inquiries, investigations, research and advocacy in relation to matters affecting public health. But the Parliament could not pass a law requiring citizens of the States to keep their premises clean or to submit to vaccination or immunization. The power to appropriate and expend money, however wide that power may be, does not enable the’ Commonwealth to extend its legislative powers beyond those marked out and defined by the Constitution, although (in my opinion) those powers include a general appropriation power.
END
page 257
Attorney-General (Vict) v The Commonwealth (“Pharmaceutical Benefits Case”) (1945) 71 CLR 237
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1945/30.pdf
Reply
CJ Latham
| #
Please be more cautious in how you interpret Court decisions. Chief Justice Latham was saying that the quarantine power (section 51(ix) ) could not be used to pass a law requiring vaccinations. He certainly did not say that the rest of the Constitution too forbade a law requiring vaccinations. The Justices always confine themselves to the legal question(s) they have been called upon to answer and never go beyond that.
Here is the entire paragraph that contains your quote. Context is important so please in future do not omit relevant details (such as the fact he was referring to s 51(ix) and not s 51(xxiiiA) ):
BEGIN
I illustrate the position as I understand it by taking public health legislation as an example. Under s. 51 (ix.) the Commonwealth Parliament has power to make laws with respect to quarantine. Quarantine legislation may ‘be regarded in most, if not all, of its aspects as a particular form of public health legislation. In relation to quarantine the Commonwealth Parliament has full powers of legislation. It can not only provide that money shall be spent upon quarantine, but it can devise and put into operation a whole compulsory system of quarantine under which duties can be imposed upon persons and penalties inflicted for breach of the law. But in relation to other aspects of public health the Commonwealth (once again leaving out of account the Territories) has no such power of legislation. The Commonwealth can, in my view, authorize the expenditure of public money on inquiries, investigations, research and advocacy in relation to matters affecting public health. But the Parliament could not pass a law requiring citizens of the States to keep their premises clean or to submit to vaccination or immunization. The power to appropriate and expend money, however wide that power may be, does not enable the’ Commonwealth to extend its legislative powers beyond those marked out and defined by the Constitution, although (in my opinion) those powers include a general appropriation power.
END
page 257
Attorney-General (Vict) v The Commonwealth (“Pharmaceutical Benefits Case”) (1945) 71 CLR 237
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1945/30.pdf
Reply
Carolyn Southam
| #
Do we still have constitutional rights in a state of emergency? Are they ever suspended? On page 10 of Emergency Powers Public Health and COVID-19, a diagram shows the WHO directs the Department of Health, which then directs all other bodies in Australia. In an interview with Dr Reiner Fuellmich, Dr Astrid Stuckleberger stated that sections of the third edition of the International Health Regulations enable the Director-General to become a dictator.
Reply
nick lacey
| #
“We” do not and can not have constitutional rights, because we do not have a constitution – Australia does, we are not Australia. The Australian Constitution is a document which outlines and, more specifically, limits, the abilities and actions of the government and government employees and agencies – not the people.
This is very important to understand:
No document can give you rights, and no document can take them away. You are natural, living being, with a soul, and you answer to no one and nothing but your fellow man, (voluntarily, in the interests of peace and community), and your creator.
You have authority and control over what you own and what you create. Outside of that, man controlling man, is slavery.
Nowhere does it say that nature must obey words on paper. If it did, it would be invalid because there is no authority. Lies on paper are still lies. You are natural, you are not owned, and they did not create you.
Reply
Sam H
| #
I don’t agree that words on a piece of paper have any influence over my mind or actions. I decide what is right, no other person does this for me. I of course do not harm anyone and respect all laws that are in place to keep other people safe from my actions for example speeding laws.
Reply
Dean
| #
I have heard that the states are enacting their State of emergencies as this over rides the Constitution…Is that correct?
Reply
S Stuart
| #
If state or any law is in opposition to the constitution, it is null & void.
Reply
CJ Latham
| #
No, if a State law conflicts with a Commonwealth law, the State law is invalid (to the extent that it conflicts).
Section 109 of the Constitution
http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s109.html
Reply
Keith Davies
| #
Delia there is a current action by Reiner Fuellmich at the Nuremberg Tribunal against WHO, CDC and Davos Group relevant to your situation. There will be plenty of Lawyers willing to take on your case with no fees up front.
Start planning on what to do with your future wealth.
Reply
Paddy
| #
I’ve been hearing about this action for a long time now, since late last year. Is there any update? I can understand some cases takes a while. But an update would be great.
Reply
John Smith
| #
Good info. I spread your word. Need to beat the deep state.
Reply
Owen Davidson
| #
Thankyou for the constitutional level information, much appreciated.
Please keep up the good work as together we can beat them.
Reply
Janet
| #
The information provided about s94 of the Privacy Act is incorrect. This only refers to the Federal Government’s COVIDsafe app not the apps used by individual states. Furthermore the Privacy Act actually permits entities such as health departments to collect information that relates to public health under section 16A.
Reply
Mez
| #
May I please ask – isn’t having a sheet of names & numbers out for tracing & tracking (alternative for those with no mobiles or smart phones), actually against the Privacy Legislation? Anyone could take a photo & just randomly ring these people. (Although now it’s July 13, perhaps those will disappear?) (Don’t biz now need their own electronic recording for those with no smart phones?)(lots of oldies with old style brick mobiles where U now live!) You sound more up to date with Privacy Leg than me, and my knowledge on it is Vic Privacy Leg not NSW (gosh is it State or Federal? I’m very rusty!!)
Reply
Catherine
| #
You have been discriminated against. Having an exemption is completely valid. I would take action against that store. I have a new policy in dealing with individual business owners and their staff.
If they’re militant about wearing masks, or they’re unreasonable. I walk out and state I won’t be shopping there again. Ever.
Reply
Bill Jelley
| #
https://www.brighteon.com/a569c7c9-9572-47ed-ba3c-130b0c13aa55
Total irifutable proof of plandemic
Reply
Peter
| #
Off topic, but I have read a series of text grabs on telegram that UN troops have been landing in Darwin – from an inside fed lawyer – and they plan on rolling south in August. That will be in line with stage 5 lockdowns – the ones where people get starved out to accept the death shot. Can anyone verify – primary or secondary, via any means?
Reply
Peter
| #
So if Mr Dixon is wrong, so are the High Courts wrong too then
Reply
Michael Thomas
| #
Where can I get hold of the High Court Ruling on this matter?…
Anyone?…
Reply
Gabby Barns
| #
It is worthy of note that the lockdown measures and psychological warfare tactics imposed against the global population to accept the gene therapy mRNA injection come directly, not from your government but from the World Bank, It is a World Bank directive to all governments. All 192 countries that signed up to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals provided a commitment to the United Nations to ensure their citizens are vaccinated, against what? That unfortunately we do not know, just as you will not find anyone on this planet who can tell you what is in the Covid19 vaccine. 14 out of 17 of their Sustainable Development Goals depend upon the global population being vaccinated. Being as “Sustainable” effectively means keeping the population at a sustainable level I therefore hold the opinion that the Covid19 vaccination rollout has a sinister wave of “something doesn’t feel right” that has swept across every country and every logical thinking persons mind. I find it horrifying that the Director of the World Bank David Malpas is within a very small group of people who have for hundreds – if not thousands – of years considered themselves as God’s “chosen one’s” and the rest of us mere Goy, no better than animals. I nor any of my family will be accepting their vaccine – under any circumstances.
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Gabby.
Thank you for your appropriate description, “gene therapy mRNA injection”. Vaccine is a misnomer.
Your comment on the world bank is interesting. Of course the United Nations is the driver for much of the social engineering occurring world wide.
“The rights of Indigenous Peoples” has morphed into “critical race theory” and the indoctrinating of white school children that they should be ashamed of their accident of birth. We see a multinational move to socialism whilst those who have lived under Socialism are thundering, “Don’t Go There”.
“Early treatment protocols ” for the current pandemic are suppressed.
Nils Axel Morner was a member of the IPCC as a world acknowledged authority on sea level who resigned with public statements that the United Nations bureaucrats on the IPCC ignore the scientists and science and drive their own non scientific agenda.
Of course, if one now googles Dr Morner one will find he is a victim of character assassination to negate his statements of public accountability. As create social for many world leading atmospheric, geological and heliophysics scientists, the price for supporting science is a heavy one.
And the United Nations is a vehicle to implement deeper social division and social engineering to indoctrinate a new generation of brown shirts and storm troopers.
Cheers Matt
Reply
En Parentis Loco
| #
They cannot FORCE us to take the jab, legally, but they just told us that if we don’t get double-jabbed, we can arrange for leave (no work) and/or look for another job. Financial coercion to impose vaccination should also be illegal.
Reply
George jannis
| #
The part I don’t get…..us people who are awake and attempting to stop this extreme form of communism for the vaxxed and unvaxxed, yet call the politicians’ overlords “elite”. That is a all self professed by these shit bags so let’s call them for what they are and not tickle their ego by sub consciencely referring to them as “elite”. They are the lowest form of life.
Reply
Rosslyn
| #
Sorry to hear about your plight. I have a friend who is partially deaf, he asked the shop attendant to take down her mask, she flatly refused. He said he was partially deaf,and law has it that they can remove the mask to help him understand, she refused. He went back and complained to the manager, and asked for him to be apologised to. The attendant refused and walked away. Horrific
Reply