COVID-19 and rights in Australia 

A preamble has no baring upon the document to which it is attached. That's why the "Voice" was a con.

@@frogmatt33 the so called "Constitution" is a con. It is an Act of the Parliament Of The UK. Australia is not sovereign. The King is an instrument of the Parliament of the UK. Australia is still a colony. A case was brought to the High Court in the UK in 2021 about who runs Australia, Kim Beazely tried to block the case from being hear'd, he failed. The case was never hear'd because the court said the paperwork was incorrectly filed. So, if the High Court in the UK was prepared to hear the case....who runs Australia?

Eeeeaargghh, that’s the kind of Disney comment Anne warned you about. By your reasoning, if you were to be given the opportunity to remake the laws in the image of your ideals, you would still be corrupt. Think about it, boofhead.

Then vote out the corrupt, but you won't do that will you? Because you have your own personal interpretation of "corruption"

@@vtbn53 we all only get 1 vote.

Which is why there should be a call back mechanism, why wait until the next election

@@touchstar68 True there are over 17 million one votes. My state Electorate had Daryl Maguire and in the next 2 elections, those one votes voted for in majority an independent.

Whilst I agree that more of the "medical advice" should have been published, I would summarily dismiss the ability of any non-medical-expert to analyse that advice and data. That includes your "study" as well as mine. In my experience though, Australian law makers generally followed advice I'd seen from medical experts about pandemics both during and even before COVID19.

​@davidbastow5629 I agree. I personally do not want non-professionals making decisions about collective health risks, and definitely not mine.

​@@daleford8411is Mr bill gates your professional??

​​​@@daleford8411There are problems with that approach. One was that basic democratic freedoms weren't seriously or honestly considered during the lockdowns. Rebecca Weisser's article: Choosing China over Sweden discusses some of these. Government everywhere was terrified of being targeted by political opponents for not being "tough enough". Governments also saw new opportunities for advancing their own agendas. Government response was clearly politicised with those protesting the draconian measures themselves treated very differently from BLM protesters. Generally, we saw public servant GPs dictating, with "virtuous" government sanction, the behaviour of government. Victoria, with the most draconian measures, reportedly had more Covid related deaths than NSW and Qld combined. A Royal Commission or an enquiry with real power to compel witnesses is needed otherwise, when (not if) the next emergency arises, government will probably behave even less democratically.

​@davidbastow5629 we all know that a medical degree just means you you were brainwashed by a particular university.... as a medical science student, a person working in a hospital laboratory, and a person with cancer I discovered very quickly that what they taught me and what was best practice for my type of cancer did not match up. Even my working at the hospital, mask education pre covid, and mask mandates by the CMO during covid, did not match the science.

In the USA freedom of speech means tge government can not prosecute you for something critical of it. Thats all it means Americans have much less freedom of speech than many other states Its litigation culture is a good example

I disagree. In MY opinion freedom of speech makes it very difficult to legislate against things like hate speech and clouds the issues in litigation.

Given that this video provided the reasoning as to why many rights were not expressly stated in the constitution and that an implied freedom of speech has been determined you'll need to elaborate on your reasoning.

Another interesting point would be the USA's 5th amendment. Or pleading the fifth as they say The right to not give evidence @oldnbusted What a frustrating piece if legislation that is

@@ETALAL The right to silence is a common law right in Australia and it is codified in most/all? state legislation.

The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws. Tacitus

The reasoning espoused by the lady in the video is extremely naive. Most people, and especially most Australians, are very naive

You're so right. Moreover, chief health officers were allowed to impose health orders and crush civil liberties without each measure ever being debated in Parliament. There was never a debate in the Victorian Parliament about using an emergencies act to put the entire population of the state under house arrest for 23h a day indefinitely, limiting travel to a 5km radius or imposing a curfew. If any of these measures were debated as blanket rules, they would never have passed.

@@gcobr While it is true that Directions had not gone through the processes that legislation does, they are still laws and have the same effect, as they are subordinate instruments that gain their power from primary legislation that has gone through the normal legislative process, and that primary legislation also provides statutory penalties for their disregard. For example, while section 7 of the Public Health Act 2010 provides that the Health Minister may take such action and may by order give such directions he considers on reasonable grounds that is, or is likely to be, a risk to public health, section 10 of the Act provides that it is an offence for a person, without reasonable excuse, to fail to comply with the direction. The federal government has adopted regulations under numerous statutes to address the health crisis, including the public health emergency sections of the Biosecurity Act 2015, which provide public officials with broad authority to delegate regulation-making power. Australia’s head of the executive branch, Governor-General David Hurley, can declare a “human biosecurity emergency” for a period of up to three months. (declaration made March 18, 2020, and then extended) Section 477 then grants the Minister for Health, Greg Hunt, power to “determine emergency requirements during human biosecurity emergency period.” This declaration is not subject to disallowance under the Biosecurity Act 2015, which expressly disables parliamentary control of regulations when the Governor-General declares a human biosecurity emergency, enabling health regulations to operate “despite any provision of any other Australian law”. The only check on this power is that regulations cease to apply when the human biosecurity emergency period ends, which is three months after the Governor-General declares the emergency, unless extended. A similar situation exists with State emergency declarations, for example, the COVID-19 Legislation Amendment (Emergency Measures) Act 2020 No 1 (NSW) provides in Part 5, under Division 5, section 32: “Relationship of Part with this Act and other legislation” states in subsection (1): “This Part applies despite anything to the contrary in this Act, the regulations, the Tribunal rules, enabling legislation or any other legislation.” Statutory provisions like these are commonly referred to as “Henry VIII clauses,” after the sixteenth century English King who had broad powers to legislate by proclamation. A Henry VIII clause is a provision in a primary Act which gives the power for secondary legislation (regulations) to include provisions which amend, repeal or are inconsistent with the primary legislation. The effect of a Henry VIII clause is that whoever who makes the regulations has been delegated legislative power by the Parliament. In other words, the executive arm of government would have the power to make regulations which can modify the application of the primary statute. The Commonwealth Parliament’s power of delegation was well settled. In Capital Duplicators Pty Ltd v Australian Capital Territory [No 1] [1992] HCA 51 (at 280, per Brennan, Deanne and Toohey JJ). the High Court held: “Although the Legislative Power of the Commonwealth is confined to the Parliament by s 1 of the Constitution, it has been accepted doctrine, at least since Victorian Stevedoring and General Contracting Co Pty Ltd and Meakes v Dignan [1931] HCA 34, that the separation of the powers does not restrain the power of the Parliament to make a law ‘conferring upon the executive a power to legislate upon some matter contained within one of the subjects of the Legislative Power of the Parliament.”

@@auspseudolaw it surely leaves ample room for abuse like we saw during the pandemic.

"No Confidence" measures should rest in the hands of the constituents under direct democracy.

Timing. The Ruby Priness was a screw up that I think n9 9e denies... As I recalll Border Force blamed NSW Health but the upshot was Airport Quarrantine and Quarrantine generally was administered by the states. Sydney Airport where a lot of incoming passengers disembarked was a NSW Police Operation.

You are spreading misinformation or at least not telling the whole truth of that incident. I wonder why.

Also what about the Asian students who came in droves to Australia as I was told by my former doctor in Qld? He retired a few years ago now! But everytime he had to go into a QLD hospital? He said: what about Covid???

Being from the regional areas and small towns, I also miss the "locals" thing, especially with police officers being complete strangers now days. Back when I was a kid, my fear wasn't getting in trouble with the sarge, but if he'd tell my dad. He'd deliberately take the town troublemakers into the cane paddocks and give them a good lecture, rather than process them with the risk of criminal records affecting their life.

As far as "Bring back common law and get rid of statute law." that is based in a misconception. Without statute law, there is no common law. After all, "the common law" is merely the authoritative decisions of the courts, which is itself the interpretation of statute, and it was a statute of the king that allowed the early common law courts in England to exist in the first place. The supremacy of parliament is itself a doctrine of the common law. It isn't some separate or parallel system of law, but part of one whole system of law. See for example, Durham Holdings Pty Ltd v New South Wales (2001) HCA 7: (at 30) "There is little point in searching for additional expositions of, or foundations for, the principle that courts will presume that legislation does not overrule the common law in the absence of clear and express terms, given that it is so clear and that it was not really contested by the State. In English legal history the principle can be traced back for at least 300 years and probably further. (at 48) "Secondly, the applicant invoked Sir Owen Dixon's reminder that the principle of parliamentary supremacy is itself a doctrine of the common law." What pseudolaw adherents refer to as "common law" is more realistically a form of natural law, not the common law as it is actually defined, as stated by Rookes ACJ in Meads v Meads ABQB 571 (Canada): "It is helpful at this point to make a few comments on the manner in which OPCA litigants often use the term “common law”. OPCA litigants often draw an arbitrary line between “statutes” and “common law”, and say they are subject to “common law”, but not legislation. Of course, the opposite is in fact true, the “common law” is law developed incrementally by courts, and which is subordinate to legislation: statutes and regulations passed by the national and provincial governments. The Constitution Act provides the rules and principles that restrict the scope and nature of legislation, both by jurisdiction and on the basis of rights (ie. the Charter). Persons who claim to only be subject to the “common law” also do not appear to mean the current common law, but typically instead reference some historic, typically medieval, form of English law, quite often the Magna Carta, which, as I have previously observed, is generally irrelevant.”

⁠@@auspseudolaw: I am a mere novice when it comes to law. Yet I’m trying to find a better understanding of our lawful rights as a natural living human being when Tyranny Becomes Law. I would like to have a better understand of when you say that the Magna Carta is “irrelevant,”? If it is irrelevant, then what can we lawfully do in this day and age when Tyranny “has” become Law as the Magna Carta states. “When tyranny becomes law, we the people have a lawful right to rebel. Magna Carta (61) Common Law.” What Lawful rights do we now have under statute/maritime ect laws in regards to the above ⬆️ Apologies for my grammar & lack of knowledge of this matter. Humble regards Rusty. W

@@RustyWoodpecker There ARE no "lawful rights as a natural living human being". There is no difference between a "natural living human being" and their "legal personality" as the strawman duality theory claims. There is no difference between "lawful" and "legal" as the theory claims. There is no such law as "maritime admiralty law", and statute has nothing to do with this imaginary system of law. These things are pure fantasy, a phenomenon that has been rejected by every level of court in every country in the world since the Posse Comitatus first invented to concepts over 40 years ago. You have, like I did 12 years ago, bought a false hope. I took these matters before the courts, and failed, so I learned better. As far as Magna Carta, if you notice, it is not ME saying it, but the Associate Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench in the Meads v Meads decision. The Magna Carta has mostly been repealed, so yes, it is irrelevant. Only Article 29 exists in Australian law, and even that open to "affectation and modification" by ordinary legislation enacted by any state parliament. In Essenberg v The Queen [2000] HCATrans 297, McHugh J. said: “"I understand that and persons who have not had full legal training often think of Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights as fundamental documents which control governments, but they do not. Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights are not documents binding on Australian legislatures in the way that the Constitution is binding on them. Any legislature acting within the powers allotted to it by the Constitution can legislate in disregard of Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights. At the highest, those two documents express a political ideal, but they do not legally bind the legislatures of this country or, for that matter, the United Kingdom. Nor do they limit the powers of the legislatures of Australia or the United Kingdom." You are actually quoting an obsolete provision which has not existed for 800 years. Again, I will quote ACJ Rooke, this time in AVI v MHVB, 2020 ABQB 790: "Article 61 of the 1215 Magna Carta has nothing to do with the rights of individual persons, but instead only granted a counsel of 25 barons the authority to seize King John’s castles, lands, and possessions in the event of a dispute between the barons and the king. Worse, when King John died in 1216, so did the provision of the 1215 Magna Carta that MCLR adherents claim creates their extraordinary status. These modern Magna Carta rebels have therefore mustered over 800 years too late."

@@auspseudolaw Is that why the Law Schools barely teach Natural Law, if at all? I've been wondering why we are running a "Criminal Justice" system rather than a Justice system. It would seem that the objective is to criminalise rather than serve Justice. Police prosecutions demonstrate this every day, and MANY people in this country have been criminalised unjustly. Resting legislation against natural law is the instrument by which legislation can be adjusted or dismissed - but for some reason Natural Law seems to have been all but abandoned.

The problems with your assertion regarding the Australian Immunisation Act, is that for one, absolutely nobody was forced to have a vaccine, but did so by their own choice, so consent is not relevant here. I certainly didn't, I simply bore the consequences of my decision, which for me was not being able to go to the pub for about 3 weeks. Sure some may have considered the mandates as coercive regarding their employment, but as stated in the Kassam decision, the choice was ultimately their own. Secondly, you misunderstand the purpose of section 109, and where inconsistency can apply. It relates to the concurrent powers, those legislative powers where both the Commonwealth and States have power to make laws. It cannot apply to the exclusive powers of the Commonwealth, because the states have no power to make laws in this sphere, and cannot apply to the residual powers of the states because the Commonwealth has no powers to make laws in this sphere. If either did, it would be ultra vires, not inconsistent, a "pretended law" made without authority, as Latham CJ put it in the 1942 Tax Case. The states have plenary power, and health is a matter within the residual sphere. If they wanted to pass a law that the whole population of their state be forcibly vaccinated against their will, then they have that power. (See for example the "blue-eyed baby principle") But they didn't do that, they left that decision to the individual.

@@auspseudolawif you are threatened with losing your job which may mean losing all security and income, that is obviously coercion

@@endofscene I could probably consider it to be if it happened to me, but even those who were affected that way are a tiny minority, and it was only for a very limited period of time. But as said by Leeming JA in Kassam v Hazzard [2021] NSWCA 299 (at 170): “…free choice” is a label which disguises the fact that many choices commonly made by people are influenced by incentives and burdens, which are not uncommonly put in place for the express purpose of altering behaviour.” Bell P said (at 95-97): "The Orders recognised that not all workers may choose to be vaccinated, and that choice was respected. Vaccination was not a requirement under the Orders; rather, it was an element of the conditions by reference to which a worker would be permitted to take advantage of an exemption, namely to leave a particular area (in the case of Order (No 2)) or to enter a particular place, under the Aged Care and Education Orders. Nothing in any of those Orders required, still less coerced, aged care workers or educational professionals, authorised workers or workers in the construction industry, to be vaccinated. … Nothing in the Orders forced them to do so and the Orders contained no sanction for exercising what each of the Plaintiffs in the Henry Proceedings described on oath as the exercise of their own free will in deciding not to be vaccinated.”

@@auspseudolaw It fits the definition of ‘coerce’ perfectly (refer to any dictionary), and everyone knows it was coercion. It is also coercion and unethical because no one was given truly informed consent. This is true of all vaccinations but especially true of covid vaccines. Your repeated reference to a court ruling suggests you are quite out of touch. Courts and judges are arbiters of truth, especially with regards to highly politicised matters that most people (including most judges) are brainwashed on. The fact is there was no need for mandates or lockdowns, and both were damaging-probably to most people.

@@endofscene My reference to legal decisions highlights the purpose of this channel, which is education on how the law actually sees things, not how some people would like to see them. For example, your use of "informed consent" in regard to vaccines, is using a legal term or principle incorrectly, a principle that is determined by Australian law, not a dictionary. If you researched the point, you'd of read well-known authorities such as Rogers v Whitaker [1992] HCA 58, and the extensive litigation surrounding what is called "the Bolam principle" established in Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957]. In Sidaway v. Governors of Bethlem Royal Hospital [1985], Lord Scarman stated the Bolam principle in these terms: "The Bolam principle may be formulated as a rule that a doctor is not negligent if he acts in accordance with a practice accepted at the time as proper by a responsible body of medical opinion even though other doctors adopt a different practice. In short, the law imposes the duty of care: but the standard of care is a matter of medical judgment." My personal opinions about the response do not really come into consideration here, as I'm aware of how the law sees things. I did however support political activism in challenges, followed the litigation closely, and compiled all the cases in my encyclopedia. I'm also very aware that "brainwashing" of judges has nothing to do with it, as they determine matters of law, not of public health policy.

I spent a lot of time with the man who’s cousin was part of the writing of the constitution. As we know people‘s perception is only a direct reflection of them. Unfortunately the more I listen to this lady I recognise that it is her perception of what she views as “constitutional.” I can assure you that the man I spent many hours with clearly showed me where our government has been unconstitutional and so I no longer respect this channel. Continuously making the Australians feel like they are powerless is actually disturbing. It’s been four years since people have been jabbed and died businesses collapsing suicide and we’re still waiting for justice. And I blame people like this lady who translate the Constitution to keep Australians in a place & disempower the people. Double speak at its finest….

@@Whoknows19769 Congratulations on your upcoming 150th birthday mate! You sure it wasn't your mates cousins next-door neighbor?

@@auspseudolaw such an intellectual response. Gratefully my ability to not be moved by the lowest wit of sarcasm and my strong sense of worth that stems from integrity and honesty. I find your comment hilarious and so we can laugh together at each other. I love that about freedom; the highest is the freedom to think for ourselves…

@@Whoknows19769 That which is ridiculous is deserving of ridicule by definition, great great great grandad. I'm happy to engage on the actual points of law, with fully referenced responses I've already compiled in my encyclopedia, if you are also so capable.

@@auspseudolaw he came with the receipts & photos and all other evidence. A man in his late 80’s. He has no need to lie to anyone. Whether it was his cousin or great cousin…i have no idea. That wasnt the focus of our conversation. I will be seeing him again. You still do not move me into shame. Nice try though. The above book was one he recommended.

Legislative power is divided between the States and the Commonwealth by the Constitution. The Constitution only delegates certain specific and limited powers to the Commonwealth Parliament, and the States retain plenary power regarding anything else, granted by Imperial enactments from when they were colonies with their own parliaments prior to Federation. Imagine two circles that overlap slightly in the middle. One circle is the subjects under the "Exclusive powers" which only the Commonwealth can legislate regarding, and the other circle is the subjects under the "Residual powers" which are retained by the States. In the overlap in the middle, is the subjects under the "Concurrent powers" which both the Commonwealth and the States can legislate regarding, but which in the case of inconsistencies between them, Commonwealth laws are superior. This is the basic structure of a Federation. These are called "spheres" of legislative power, with each having sovereignty over their own sphere. The Commonwealth has no source of power to legislate regarding the subjects under the "Residual powers" and the States have no source of power to legislate regarding the subjects under the "Exclusive powers".

South Australia v The Commonwealth [1942] HCA 14: "The Constitution says that the Commonwealth Parliament shall have power to make laws with respect to certain subjects (e.g., sec. 51 and other sections such as secs. 73, 77, 78, 79, 96, 122), that it shall have exclusive power to make laws with respect to certain other subjects (secs. 52 and 90), and that it shall not make certain laws at all (e.g., the limitations expressed in secs. 51 (ii.) and (iii.), 92, 99, 114, 116, 117). The Constitution of each State continues, subject to the Commonwealth Constitution (sec. 106), and the State Parliaments continue to possess all their powers not exclusively given to the Commonwealth Parliament by the Constitution or withdrawn from them by the Constitution (sec. 107)." In McGinty v Western Australia [1996] HCA 48 (at 56): "Section 106 does not effect a blanket importation of the Australian Constitution into State constitutions. To interpret s 106 in this way unduly subjects State constitutions to the Australian Constitution at the price of the other stated aims of the section. Its primary aim is to guarantee the continuation of State constitutions after federation, though subject to the Constitution." As explained in Glew v Shire of Greenough [2006] WASCA 260 (at 9): "In relation to Western Australia, s 2 of the Constitution Act 1889 (WA) empowers the State to make laws for the "peace, order and good government of Western Australia". That is a very extensive grant of legislative power. The words "peace, order and good government" are to be understood as conferring ample and plenary power on the States to legislate for any matter having a connection with the State (Union Steamship Co of Australia Pty Ltd v King (1988) 166 CLR 1). The State can make any "fact, circumstance, occurrence or thing" in or connected with the State a subject of legislation (Broken Hill South Ltd (Public Officer) v The Commissioner of Taxation (New South Wales) (1937) 56 CLR 337, at 375 per Dixon J).” As Robert Garran makes clear on page 346 of The annotated constitution of the Australian Commonwealth: "What is not so granted to the parliament of the Commonwealth is denied. What is not so granted is either reserved to the States, as expressed in their respective constitutions, or remains vested by dormant in the people of the Commonwealth." On page 381 he states that the Residual legislative powers as defined by their respective State constitutions are: "...confirmed and continued by sections 106, 107 and 108 of the supreme Constitution." On page 415 he states that the Constitution "not only recognised the existence of State governments, but perpetuated them..." and that the general government was one of "limited and circumscribed powers" while "...the States were to possess the Residual powers." On page 448, he states that: "...the federal government is only one part of the duel system of government, and that the other parts of the duel system are the State governments, charged with the duty of exercising the Residual powers..." On page 794 he states that: “The Constitution draws a line between the enumerated powers assigned to the Federal Government and the residue of powers reserved to the State Governments. Both sets of Governments are limited in their sphere of action, but within their several spheres they are supreme.” On the same page, there is a note, “See ss 160, The Plenary Nature of the Powers.” this section on page 509, highlights the plenary or absolute nature of the powers within these spheres, when made by their respective parliaments. They are, as Robert Garran notes, as plenary as the Imperial Parliament itself. On page 928, he states: “…that in the Constitution there is a division of that delegated sovereignty into two spheres or areas, one being assigned to the Federal Government, and the other to the State Governments ; that each Government is separate and distinct from the rest; that the Federal Government cannot encroach on the sphere or area of the State Governments, and that the State Governments cannot encroach on the sphere or area of the Federal Government; that the sphere or area of the Federal jurisdiction can only be modified, enlarged or diminished by an alteration of the Constitution ; that the sphere or area of the State jurisdictions can only be modified, enlarged, and diminished by a similar alteration. This dual system of government is said to be one of the essential features of a Federation." He even lists some of the matters that fall under the sphere of Residual Legislative Powers on page 935.

Glad it was helpful!

boom

The voters have the power to create a society like that, but they don't want it. Bad luck.

You are pretty much born close to dead and enslaved ... There are two birth certificates and both have different dates of birth ... the key is to figure out which one you are or want to be.

I assume you mean vaccinations. This is not a constitutional issue (despite some misguided assertions about the application of s 51(xxiiiA) of the Commonwealth Constitution). There has been quite a lot of litigation about vaccinations - much of which concerns the application of industrial relations laws, which are not my area of expertise, so I won't comment on it.

I followed most of the cases as they progressed through various tribunals such as the Fair Work Commission and the Industrial Relations Commissions. I found them interesting as I didn't intend to take the vaccine myself, and still haven't. After the decision in Kassam v Hazzard, many of the tribunal decisions referred to the Kassam decision regarding various points. As Anne Twomey mentioned regarding the true application of section 51(xxiiiA) of the Commonwealth Constitution regarding "civil conscription", it was a point addressed in the decision. It also covered a range of other contentions, such as Bodily integrity, Coercion, Right to work, Privacy, Privilege against self-incrimination, and several other relevant matters relating to vaccine mandates for workers, and lockdown restrictions in NSW. I highly recommend reading the decision. Beech-Jones CJ at CL rejected the arguments relating to bodily integrity and coercion, and said (at 63): ‘It can be accepted that there is room for debate at the boundaries of what external factors might vitiate a consent to medical treatment so as to render the treatment a battery and a violation of a person’s right to bodily integrity. … People may choose to be vaccinated or undertake some other form of medical procedure in response to various forms of societal pressure including a law or a rule, an employment condition or to avoid familial or social resentment, even scorn. However, if they do so, that does not mean their consent is vitiated or make the doctor who performed the vaccination liable for assault. So far as this case is concerned, a consent to a vaccination is not vitiated and a person’s right to bodily integrity is not violated just because a person agrees to be vaccinated to avoid a general prohibition on movement or to obtain entry onto a construction site. Clauses 4.3 and 5.8 of [Public Health (COVID-19 Additional Restrictions for Delta Outbreak) Order (No. 2) 2021 (NSW)] do not violate any person’s right to bodily integrity any more than a provision requiring a person undergo a medical examination before commencing employment does.” In upholding that decision on appeal in Kassam v Hazzard [2021] NSWCA 299, Bell P said (at 95-97): “The primary judge held that the common law recognised a right to bodily integrity, and so much may be accepted. Such a right is supported by Secretary, Department of Health and Community Services v JWB and SMB [1992] HCA 15 and, as was observed in the joint judgment in that case at 253, it is a right which “underscores the principles of assault” in both civil law (the tort of battery) and criminal law. As already noted, however, the primary judge held at [9] that this right was not infringed or impaired by any of the Impugned Orders. None of those Orders mandated vaccinations nor compelled citizens to be vaccinated, and none of the Plaintiffs in either set of proceedings had been vaccinated. The Impugned Orders proceed on the basis that there will be citizens who choose not to be vaccinated. Under Order (No 2), if such a worker was an authorised worker, he or she was unable to leave his or her local government area unless vaccinated to the extent specified in cll 4.3 and 5.8. So, too, under the Aged Care Order and the Education Order, a relevantly qualified worker was not able to enter particular facilities or schools unless vaccinated to the level specified in each of those Orders. As explained above, this was (and could only be) a temporary measure as each of the Orders had a maximum 90‑day life pursuant to s 7(5) of the Public Health Act. The Orders recognised that not all workers may choose to be vaccinated, and that choice was respected. Vaccination was not a requirement under the Orders; rather, it was an element of the conditions by reference to which a worker would be permitted to take advantage of an exemption, namely to leave a particular area (in the case of Order (No 2)) or to enter a particular place, under the Aged Care and Education Orders. Nothing in any of those Orders required, still less coerced, aged care workers or educational professionals, authorised workers or workers in the construction industry, to be vaccinated. … Nothing in the Orders forced them to do so and the Orders contained no sanction for exercising what each of the Plaintiffs in the Henry Proceedings described on oath as the exercise of their own free will in deciding not to be vaccinated.” Leeming JA said (at 170): “…free choice” is a label which disguises the fact that many choices commonly made by people are influenced by incentives and burdens, which are not uncommonly put in place for the express purpose of altering behaviour.”

No scientist knew 100% the benefits against the risk outcome of the vaccines. So it was unconstitutional

No - that's not how law works. Decisions have to be made on the basis of the evidence put before the court. Given the uncertainty, that is why a precautionary approach was applied.

Sigh. I can only shake my head in bewilderment.

Why?

You want a private healthcare system like America's?

@@sophitsa79 I said, healthcare shouldn’t be viewed as a right. Nor anything that requires taking resources from other people. Now, as bad as the US system is, I would have access to much, much better healthcare under the US system than the Australian one and at a lower cost to me.

Someone on an income of $130,000/year pays about $12,000 a year to healthcare (via taxes). That’s on par with the US but you only get public-level healthcare here. That is, long wait times and poor access, it’s even worse if you’re rural. To get the US equivalent here in Australia, I’d have to spend another $3,000-$5,000 in private health insurance, bringing my yearly spend to well over $15,000. The US system may have its faults, but so does the Australian one.

@@Pat.Mustard that's grossly incorrect. According to this calculator you'd pay around $2000, assuming you earn $130,000 before tax.

@@Pat.Mustard I also know that because my earnings are not much less than that and I just did my taxes

That's specifically what mask exemptions were for.

@@auspseudolaw no the respiratory illness was CANCER.... the danger was to the patient because masks initiate illnesses which would put the wearer at great risk. Secondly there is absolutely no evidence that masks control infection from viruses.

This is a right to life issue

@@auspseudolaw sorry I misread.. " exemptions"

@@siobhancallahan5279 Yes, exemptions. Every state had them for people who had medical reasons, or even anxiety.

Magistrates err in law all the time, that's why the appeals process exists. Not only defendants, but also the prosecution, regularly appeal decisions.

That's why we have a system of precedent, where lower courts are obliged to obey higher precedents, to ensure that the law is applied fairly and consistently. We also have appeals, to overturn errors. Finally, if there is a genuine issue of corruption, most jurisdictions have mechanisms for making complaints and having it investigated and dealt with.

Will see what happens in SNACC

Thanks. I'm glad they're useful.

I agree, this channel is fantastic

Laws are not interpreted by courts on a whim. There are detailed rules of statutory interpretation, and precedents which all lower courts must follow. If a judge doesn't follow them, their judgment can be overturned on appeal. Judges are very constrained in what they can decide.

You seem to be confusing and conflating three different things here. First, there is the issue of what is the law. The courts apply the law and if a statute is inconsistent with a human right, then as long as the statute is clear about altering or reducing the application of that right, and the statute has been validly enacted, then a court has to apply it. It has no choice and the views of the judge are irrelevant. Second, the courts can also undertake judicial review of administrative action. This is about ensuring that decisions made by government officials have been made by a fair process - eg without bias or taking into account irrelevant considerations, and consistent with the rules of natural justice. Third, you refer to the views of the UN HRC. These are relevant in international law, but are not binding within Australia as part of our domestic law. Some Governments take the view that they should give effect to these views and others do not.

@@constitutionalclarion1901 Thanks for for explaining your point of view. My experience of trying to get the courts to uphold my statutory rights which had been suppressed had a different result. One application in 2018 for judicial review of a govt department decisions suppressing a Charter right - though the Supreme Court registry staf acknowledged receipt of the appication and promised a decision on filing it soon. I am still waiting for a respons six years later. The prothonotary put it to one side and ignored it. I have learned the hard way, that there is no guarantee a judge, even a superior court judge will apply the law correctly. I agree the UN HRC views are not enforceable, and it seems I did not express myself properly.

I'm not terribly keen on the 'structured proportionality' test, but the reality is that a court needs to apply some kind of test when dealing with conflicting interests. Better to have precedents and a test that can be applied, than just making up an answer.

Perhaps you could cite the case you're referring to, to enable others to read it ourselves, as opposed to taking the word of someone in a RU-vid comment attempting demagoguery. After all, I'm an avid reader of High Court decisions, and know they never try to pretend the pages of the Law Reports are blank, but consistently cite prior jurisprudence for each assertion.

@@auspseudolaw Don’t use derogation of persons you don’t agree with. I’m being careful in order to avoid legal repercussions. You cannot be well informed if you are unaware of the High Courts redefinition of the word “ corrupt”. It was a stunning demonstration of how meaningless words are when their very dictionary meaning can be traduced.

@@auspseudolaw www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/researchpapers/Documents/icac-v-cunneen-the-power-to-investigate-corrupt-/ICAC%20v%20Cunneen.pdf

@@alfredopampanga9356 Being recent, I thought you must be talking about Crime and Corruption Commission v Carne [2023] HCA 28, which is very similar, focusing on the definition of "corrupt conduct" defined in section 15 of the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 (Queensland). But identically with NSW, Independent Commission Against Corruption v Cunneen [2015] HCA 14 was regarding the definition of "corrupt conduct" in section 8(2) of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988 (NSW). You stated, quote: "the Australian High Court redefined the word “ corrupt“ discarding the dictionary definition, in order to render a judgement that coincided with their personal beliefs." unquote. So I was correct regarding the premise of your comment, which had nothing to do with any "redefinition" or "dictionary definition" or any "personal beliefs". As stated in paragraph 77: "The operative provisions of the ICAC Act do not use the word "corruption". They use the term "corrupt conduct". That term is the subject of elaborate definition in ss 7, 8 and 9 of the ICAC Act. In construing that definition, as in construing any other statutory definition, it is "of fundamental importance" that the language of the definition is accorded its "natural and ordinary meaning unless some other course is clearly required", and that "limitations and qualifications are not read into" the definition unless "clearly required by its terms or its context" [1]. That is not to "make a fortress out of the dictionary" [2]. It is not to underplay the significance of context. It is rather to recognise that a statutory definition is ordinarily framed in language chosen for the grammatical meaning it conveys. The definition of a term is the creation of the most basic building block of a statutory structure." If you notice, in support of both of these assertions in statutory construction, the Court refers not to the "personal beliefs" of the present justices, but to actual prior jurisprudence in: [1] PMT Partners Pty Ltd (In liq) v Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service [1995] HCA 36 (at 310) and [2] Residual Assco Group Ltd v Spalvins [2000] HCA 33; (at 644) quoting Cabell v Markham (1945) 148 F.2d 737 (at 739). Secondly, paragraphs 76 and 77 were the only time in the decision even mentioned a dictionary, as it was not relevant, but the actual definition provided by section 8(2) of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988 (NSW). And the Court held by majority (French CJ, Hayne, Kiefel and Nettle JJ; Gageler J dissenting) that the ICAC did not have the power to investigate the alleged conduct, because the alleged conduct was not "corrupt conduct" within the meaning of s 8(2) of the ICAC Act and ICAC has no power to conduct the inquiry." So again, your misinterpretation of the case, whether intentional or accidental, in order to solicit an emotional response as opposed to a logical response, is the very definition of demagoguery.

Personally, I think the majority reasoning in the Cunneen case was wrong, but I do not agree that this is because the majority judges ruled to suit their personal opinions. Try reading the judgments here: www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/2015/14.html. You will see that it wasn't about redefining words and discarding dictionary definitions (and in any case, dictionaries do not determine the meaning of words in statutes). The case was actually about the meaning of section 8 of the Act which had itself defined 'corrupt conduct' in a particular way. Before making allegations, based on someone else's garbled version, you should really read the original judgment so you can give an informed view.

If you watch the video, it explains the various cases and why they were decided as they were. It also explains that the rights that people fantasise about being protected in our Constitution, are not there. Some people seem to think that anything they don't like is 'unconstitutional' and that constitutional lawyers can just make up arguments to have it struck down in court. This might work on American television shows, where no matter how absurd the issue, the Constitution can always be used to secure the rights of the downtrodden maverick. But it has no relationship with reality. So no, there isn't a choice to be 'creative' and make up stuff to strike down laws, and the history of the litigation involved shows this to be the case.

Even without looking at the pandemic, there are approximately 500 statutes in NSW which explicitly infringe on three basic fundamental rights, the right against self incrimination, the right to remain silent, and the presumption of innocence. I can cite each and link to them. I don't think there is competent oversight from the Legislation Review Committee and the Law Reform Commission. I recall outgoing Chief Justice Bathurst warning about this 8 years ago, and yet it has continued.

@@constitutionalclarion1901 worth considering also that constitutional law also applies to member of parliament, they are not immune from the guidance it provided.

@@auspseudolaw not sure 'we' have the right of presumption of innocence ... otherwise wouldn't we be taken to / called before the court as the accused, whereas are not we taken to / entering court with charges being laid prior?

@@melindatanner5853 Charges aren't convictions. Presumption of innocence applies to being presumed innocent before conviction. Lost count how many times I've put my hands out for handcuffs and said "well charge me then, if you've got the evidence to prove it beyond reasonable doubt, if not, then piss off."

The British Parliament repealed most of Magna Carta between 1863 and 1969 because its terms were either obsolete as they dealt with medieval circumstances that had passed into history, or because some of the problems had been addressed in later statutes. As noted in the UK statute book, only three articles remain, the rest have been repealed. The only article that holds any real relevance outside of the UK is article 29, (which is in regard to a fair trial and due process) which at best serves only to reinforce what is a settled principle which finds expression in more specific statutes. Hence the Imperial Acts Application Acts of Australian States, (for example, 6(b) of the Imperial Acts Application Act 1969 (NSW) declares article 29 to remain in force in NSW "except so far as affected by any State Acts from time to time in force in New South Wales". In the High Court in Essenberg v The Queen [2000] HCATrans 297, McHugh J. said: "I understand that and persons who have not had full legal training often think of Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights as fundamental documents which control governments, but they do not. .. Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights are not documents binding on Australian legislatures in the way that the Constitution is binding on them. Any legislature acting within the powers allotted to it by the Constitution can legislate in disregard of Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights. At the highest, those two documents express a political ideal, but they do not legally bind the legislatures of this country or, for that matter, the United Kingdom. Nor do they limit the powers of the legislatures of Australia or the United Kingdom.“ The "Lawful Rebellion" theme has become popular in pseudolaw constructs in various countries, for example here in Australia, Wayne Glew often cites article 61 of the Magna Carta as some justification, as did a group of British peers who urged the Queen in 2001 to block the UK’s signing of the Treaty of Nice, and recent years Canadian Jacqueline Robinson (aka Jacquie Phoenix) claimed article 61 puts her outside the courts authority. Graesser J addressed her assertions in AVI v MHVB, 2020 ABQB 489 and on the same basis in AVI v MHVB, 2020 ABQB 790: "Article 61 of the 1215 Magna Carta has nothing to do with the rights of individual persons, but instead only granted a counsel of 25 barons the authority to seize King John’s castles, lands, and possessions in the event of a dispute between the barons and the king. Worse, when King John died in 1216, so did the provision of the 1215 Magna Carta that "Magna Carta Lawful Rebellion" adherents claim creates their extraordinary status. These modern Magna Carta rebels have therefore mustered over 800 years too late."

Magna Carta is just a statute. It is not constitutionally entrenched. It can be overridden by any later statute - and it has been - both in the United Kingdom and Australia. (And thanks again to @auspseudolaw for the longer explanation.)

@@constitutionalclarion1901 After reading Dawson J's reference to Sir Edward Coke in Kable where he "contemplated the enactment of bills of attainder without trial and statutes contrary to Magna Carta without any suggestion of their invalidity" I went off searching for his "The Fourth Part of the Institutes of the Law of England" to read it myself. It has to be OCD or something lol.

Voting is another subject upon which I'll do some videos one day. The short answer is that the High Court has held in recent times that a right to vote can only be excluded for a substantial, non-arbitrary, reason. It can no longer be excluded on the basis of race or sex, for example. But it can be excluded on the grounds of capacity (eg children and people with dementia) or community membership (eg non-citizens, and in certain cases, prisoners).

The emergency laws - which are general laws to deal with a range of different kinds of emergency - would all remain valid laws unless for some reason they breached the Constitution. So far, no court has yet found that they breach the Constitution.

Ok, so is the National cabinet a legitimate entity under the constitution and what was the head of power used to create it?

The National Cabinet was not established by a law. Indeed, if you look at what I have written, you will see that I've been very critical of arguments that it attracts 'Cabinet' status. But regardless of what it was called, it did not do anything that had any legal status. All laws still had to be enacted by relevant Parliaments, or be made as subordinate legislation under existing laws by the relevant government. National Cabinet as just a talking shop - nothing more. People may have believed that it actually 'did' things that had legal effects, but that is not the case.

Funny how they made such a fuss about it in the news as if it was such. Just like Covid 🤷‍♂️

@@kimwiffen1064 It's an unfortunate reflection of the fact that most Australian people don't understand the system of government, and therefore cannot tell the difference between what is law and what is publicity.

Isn't it?

By water do you mean piss? The advice we received was almost entirely wrong Get a grip.

What water would that be?

@@endofscene Things that have no evidence. Mask wearing , lockdowns, social distancing. Total absence of evidence. Still

Leaks are becoming evident daily Hope you can swim

Legislative power is divided between the States and the Commonwealth by the Constitution. The Constitution only delegates certain specific and limited powers to the Commonwealth Parliament, and the States retain plenary power regarding anything else, granted by Imperial enactments from when they were colonies with their own parliaments prior to Federation. Imagine two circles that overlap slightly in the middle. One circle is the subjects under the "Exclusive powers" which only the Commonwealth can legislate regarding, and the other circle is the subjects under the "Residual powers" which are retained by the States. In the overlap in the middle, is the subjects under the "Concurrent powers" which both the Commonwealth and the States can legislate regarding, but which in the case of inconsistencies between them, Commonwealth laws are superior. This is the basic structure of a Federation. These are called "spheres" of legislative power, with each having sovereignty over their own sphere. The Commonwealth has no source of power to legislate regarding the subjects under the "Residual powers" and the States have no source of power to legislate regarding the subjects under the "Exclusive powers". I hope that helps.

It should also be noted that the Commonwealth has extended its reach into the State sphere through its power to provide funding to the States - paying them to do things the Commonwealth wants done but lacks the power to do directly (e.g. Commonwealth funding of hospitals and universities means the C’w now makes the rules in this area) - as well as persuading the States to refer some of their powers (e.g. industrial relations) to the Commonwealth to permit uniform national law. And in other areas (e.g. motor vehicle registration), co-operative arrangements between State and C’w have been developed. Government is far more complex than just the formal division of powers between the C’w and States in the Constitution might suggest.

@@glennsimpson7659 Very true, especially in regard to the Residual subject matter of Health. I explained this in an article several years ago titled "Pandemic Arguments" where some were claiming that the vaccine mandates and lockdown restrictions imposed by the States Health Acts are subordinate to the Biosecurity Act 2015 in terms of legislating regarding health issues, pursuant to section 109 inconsistency. The Commonwealth can impact Health through entitlements such as Medicare, (Sickness benefits power, (section 51(xxiiiA) such as in the 2017 childcare and family tax benefit restrictions for the childhood vaccination schedule) External affairs power, (section 51(xxix)) and Corporations power, (section 51(xx)) and through its monopoly of major taxation sources, it has power to make financial arrangements that can tie dependent states into specific policies (including public health policies) as a condition of the Commonwealth grants made to them. But ultimately, health remains a responsibility of the States, as explained in the paper "Public health and the Australian Constitution" (Christopher Reynolds). The constitutional sources of power for the Biosecurity Act 2015 (listed in Division 2) are the Quarantine power, (section 51(ix)) External affairs power, (section 51(xxix)) Trade and commerce power, (section 51(i)) Fisheries power, (section 51(x)) Aliens power, (section 51(xix)) Corporations power, (section 51(xx)) Territories and Commonwealth places power, (section 122) Postal power, (section 51(v)) Sickness benefits power, (section 51(xxiiiA)) and Census and statistics power (section 51(xi)). None of these powers deal directly with the subject matter of health, but primarily quarantine. As Prime Minister Scott Morrison pointed out several times during the pandemic, including in February 2022 regarding the protests in Canberra, only the States can impose vaccine mandates and associated restrictions, and the Commonwealth has no source of power to intervene. He insisted that the protesters should take the issue with those responsible, the States, and not the Commonwealth parliaments.

Thanks to @auspseudolaw and @glennsimpson7659 for their excellent explanations here. I don't have anything to add.

@@auspseudolaw Thanks. Yes. Great visual analogy.

Section 51(xxiiiA) of the Constitution allows the Commonwealth Parliament to legislate with respect to 'medical and dental services (but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription)'. It only applies to Commonwealth laws (not State laws) and it has been held not to support the arguments made during COVID-19 by those opposing vaccine mandates. Re the Bassi case, you can read the judgment for yourself here (www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWCA/2020/109.html), which explains the reasoning. It had nothing to do with free speech, etc - just the application of the relevant statute. It should also be remembered that both the original case and the appeal were heard and dealt with extremely quickly, without the same degree of argument as is usual.

freemandelusion.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Civil-Conscription.pdf

I'm not aware of any cases that said the emergency powers were unlawful (other than some industrial relations issues). But if you have references to any cases, put them in the comments and I will have a look. It may be that I've missed something.

@@constitutionalclarion1901 Thank you for your reply. I wasn’t referring to a said case. In my opinion, the ‘emergency powers’ were unlawful and there is evidence that’s in the public record.

@@86jaims Perhaps you need to use your internet access to expand your vocabulary and find out the meaning of very common terms you use. Your meandering opinions do not make anything "unlawful". The word itself is ridiculously self-explanatory to even a child, it means "not allowed by law". Therefore, the "public record" for something being "unlawful" can only come from a legal decision of a court. Are you playing with your mum's phone or something?

@@auspseudolaw Mate, I don’t believe you could be any more rude and condescending with your reply.. one has to start somewhere to build a legal argument (even if I personally don’t know how) and I believe ‘meandering opinions’ is a pretty good place. Also sending lots of friendly love your way…. I don’t even know you and your personally attacking me…

@@86jaims Oh to the contrary, I could be extremely more rude and condescending if you like, is that a challenge? That which is ridiculous is deserving of ridicule by definition. Want a good place to start? Know the difference between your opinions and reality... that something is not "unlawful" just because you don't personally like it.

I promise, it wasn't my argument! But people do put it to courts from time to time.

Thanks for the question. If Parliament is limiting or taking away fundamental common law rights, it has to be really clear about it, or otherwise a court will assume that it did not intend to do so, and interpret the law that way. This does not mean that all legislation is clear - heaven knows, it is often very hard to understand. Difficult questions about how laws are to be interpreted, where there are conflicts, may also be decided by courts. The point I was making was that if a court decided the conflict one way, and then Parliament took the view that this was not what it intended, it could change the law for the future to remove the conflict or make it clear how it should be resolved.

What they did is remove something defined by the politicians (which was common sense as well) to something will be defined by either the courts or the bureaucracy.

@@constitutionalclarion1901 *Unless the High Court decides to chuck out hundreds of years of common law history and erroneously concludes contrary to almost every commentator on the subject that there was no such thing as spousal privilege. See ACCC v Stoddart. **Unless the High Court by a 3:2 majority decides that a change to the statute of limitations also means there's a change in the standard to the standard of a permanent stay, such that unfair trials will in fact be tolerated as a "new normal" in certain types of litigation. That's so even though there wasn't any express text saying anything about the standard for stays and indeed a preservation of the power to grant stays. Apparently the right to receive a fair trial and the institutional ability of the Court to protect its own processes from abuse just isn't a fundamental right anymore. See GLJ v The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Lismore.

Thanks. One day I'll do a video about it. But the short answer is that when Australia ratifies a treaty, it is bound to comply with it under international law. But the content of the treaty does not affect the law within Australia, unless Parliament legislates to give effect to it.

Hitchen's Razor. Google it, understand it, and then apply it to your comment.

@@auspseudolaw they were locked in a building block without vitamin D, an essential hormone and supplied water that was toxic to the human body, do you have evidence that proves otherwise?

@@shellyaus Again, Hitchen's Razor.

Frank Brennan led a committee which did work on this some time ago, and the Australian Human Rights Commission has also recently done work on it. You might find this speech by Rosalind Croucher useful, as it surveys the history of these various proposals: humanrights.gov.au/about/news/speeches/commissions-model-human-rights-act-australia.

My dad (now in his 80's) was unhappy with some decision years ago and remarked "They should appeal that to the Privy Council!" I had to explain that the right of appeal was removed with the Australia Act 1986, but he didn't believe me. It was even difficult for people in that generation to keep up with subsequent events since they left school, having grown up with "God save the Queen" at assembly every morning, to contemplate concepts such as the "Queen of Australia" being a completely different legal entity to the "Queen of the United Kingdom" with the Royal Styles and Titles Act 1973, and allegiance to the former for British Subjects being abolished after 1986. With constant new regulation these days, it would almost be a full time job keeping up with all the changes.

But the people do say something - by electing their representatives in Parliament. They then make the laws. If the people don't like it, they can vote the government out. That's how a democracy works.

​@@auspseudolaw I have known Australians (particularly older Australians) who believed that the non-resident Queen protected their "rights". Like a kind of royal fairy godmother protecting us from afar. Hopefully younger generations of Australians have a more realistic idea of what the non-resident monarch's role is in countries like Australia.

@@mindi2050 I think there needs to be more clear terminology, because the term "the Crown" has very confusing implications for the layman. Even in Sue v Hill [1999] HCA 30 (from 83) the High Court outlined five different ways the expression “the Crown” is used in constitutional theory. Sure it can be the monarch, but it mostly isn't, it refers to the body politic itself, whether it be the body politic of a particular state or the body politic of Australia. This isn't something new, I mean it's been that way since Isaacson v Durant (1886) 17 QBD 54 when Lord Coleridge CJ overturned Calvin's case and said (at 65-66) that: "...allegiance was due to the King in his politic, and not in his personal, capacity." As said in Re Patterson; ex parte Taylor [2001] HCA 51 (at 224): "The notion of personal allegiance "lay at the very root of the feudal system" but long before federation that state of affairs had ceased to exist." More recently in Love v Commonwealth [2020] HCA 3 (at 107-108): "Before and after federation, in the vestigial language of feudalism taken to be descriptive of the formal legal relationship between a British subject and the Crown ... Australians were understood to have owed allegiance to the Crown and to have been entitled to the protection of the Crown. By federation, the Crown to which such allegiance was owed was understood to be the monarch "in his politic, and not in his personal capacity" and the full feudal dimensions of what might once have been meant by the "protection" of the Crown had been lost in the mists of time. To the extent that the "protection" of the Crown might have been thought to involve a positive duty on the part of the Crown to exercise prerogative power physically to protect a British subject, any such duty of the Crown to provide that protection to a British subject was understood to be one of "imperfect obligation".

@@auspseudolaw True. Which is why I'd love to see anachronistic terms such as 'Crown land' replaced with the term that make sense in 21st Century Australia. e.g. 'public land'.

If you distrust the courts, then a proper bill of rights won't be much good for you, because it is the courts that would interpret it, and if it were constitutionalised, then Parliament could not act to change it to avoid unintended interpretations. And yes, the courts are overwhelmingly guided by the law, because it is their job to apply the law - not how they happen to feel. The rule of law is extremely important, because it protects us all.

Read the relevant judgments to see the reasoning. It's not hard. You can find them on AustLii - www.austlii.edu.au/.

If that shocked you, you should research the "blue-eyed baby" principle, often raised in the High Court over the years. The plenary power of states is very broad indeed.

Decisions can only ever be made based upon the information that the decision-maker has at the time. If a decision-maker were instead to take into account irrelevant information, that could be challenged under administrative law. But information, particularly during a swiftly developing pandemic, will always be imperfect, so decision-makers must do their best with the information provided to them.

@@constitutionalclarion1901 Can decisions be challenged after a ruling has been passed or can a old case be re-tried based on corrected data and or new information.

There is a legal principle called 'res judicata' which prevents matters that have been finally resolved by the courts from being re-litigated. But this would not necessarily stop new litigation where there are different facts and circumstances.

@@constitutionalclarion1901 Clearly the rule of presumption failed the test. Lets hope it doesn't happen again.

What about established pandemic plans that were ignored? Plans that totally excluded the very poor, restrictive and unscientific measures that were embraced

You're most welcome.

That's terrific. Thanks.

The Commonwealth Parliament is actually CREATED by the Constitution, and specific legislative powers delegated to it by the Constitution. (See Chapter One) The Constitution only provides for jury trials for indictable offences, not summary offences. (See section 80)

There is an old saying that democracy is three wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.

There is no remedy to be found in a Bill of Rights if the judiciary is not independent but controlled by the government - the Soviet Union had an excellent Constitution with strong human rights, but everyone in the SU knew it was window dressing, routinely ignored by the security apparatus and People’s Courts. If the judiciary is independent and can apply the common law, then the issue resolves down to the content of legislation and this is best addressed by the political process.

@@glennsimpson7659 There's no reason we can't have a Bill of Rights and an independent judiciary. We currently have an independent judiciary, after all, and it effectively judicates what (relatively few) rights are delineated in the Constitution or are implied by its text. An example of the power of a Bill of Rights with a powerful and independent judiciary can be found in South Africa. Their courts and Bill of Rights is why they have some of the most advanced LGBTQ+ rights in the world. Male homosexuality was criminalized there until 1998, when the Constitutional Court struck it down as inconsistent with the Constitution. At the time public attitudes were largely in favour of this prohibition, but the Constitution's explicit protections provided this minority a protection they would have not have otherwise obtained from their democratic process. Likewise, in 2005 their Constitutional Court ruled it unconstitutional that the law there didn't allow same-sex couples to marry. This made them the 5th country in the entire world and the 1st in Africa to grant couples of the same sex to marry. South Africa obviously has its flaws too, but it does show the power of having an independent judiciary and a bill of rights.

@@williamsutter2152 very interesting. Hasn’t seemed to work that way in Victoria or ACT - or even in the US, where the Supreme Court has been somewhat inconsistent in its decisions. But it still seems to me that a focus on individual rights detracts from its effects on the wider community by way of red tape and overall detriment. Even without a bill of rights, the High Court mandated release of detainees who could not be deported. Great for them but not so great for the wider community. This should have been a political and not a legal decision. But you may be right, especially given the South African examples of which I was unaware. Still, i’m glad same sex marriage happened in Australia as a result of a popular plebiscite rather than as a result of a decision by a court. More democratic.

Thanks. Much appreciated.

To indulge your desires, that would be to repeal the Commonwealth Constitution and State constitutions in their entirety. Of course, that would require a referendum to gain the consent of the rest of Australia to do so. How do you think that referendum would go?

What about health care for example?

@@Cannulae health insurance, free market

Do you wince when you hear the word tax?

@@Cannulae depends on the tax but more to do with what they spend the tax dollars on....

"Does not the court need to ascertain if a law does achieve its goals rather than just accept assertions that it has?" That question invokes a direct quote from the High Court in Union Steamship Co of Australia Pty Ltd v King [1988] HCA 55 (at 16): "...the words "for the peace, order and good government" are not words of limitation. They did not confer on the courts of a colony, just as they do not confer on the courts of a State, jurisdiction to strike down legislation on the ground that, in the opinion of a court, the legislation does not promote or secure the peace, order and good government of the colony. Just as the courts of the United Kingdom cannot invalidate laws made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom on the ground that they do not secure the welfare and the public interest, so the exercise of its legislative power by the Parliament of New South Wales is not susceptible to judicial review on that score."

@@auspseudolaw I am not sure that quotation is completely appropriate? The phrase "for the peace, order and good government" does not summarise the purpose of the legislation in question (unless I am wrong on that). But securing public health was the whole and only purpose of the covid restrictions. Thus if the covid restrictions are not effective (as they were not eg vaccinations) then their reason d'etre is fallacious. Sounds as though the courts serve no useful purpose. What recourse do the people have if courts simply defer to the government? If they can't find recourse in the courts, they will have no choice but to find it elsewhere.

@@billburr5881 I suppose a better way of putting it is the passage cited from Riel v The Queen (1885) 10 App Cas 673, "They have been held to admit of no inquiry by the courts as to whether, as a matter of fact or law, a particular statute is or is not a prudent exercise of the power, or is calculated to attain its particular end or object." as referred to in Bone v Mothershaw [2002] QCA 120 "Those words are the traditional formula, going back to early colonial times, used to confer “the widest legislative powers appropriate to a sovereign”. citing Ibralebbe v The Queen [1964] AC 900, and Union Steamship Co of Australia Pty Ltd v King [1988] HCA 55, or in the words of Dawson J in Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [1996] HCA 24: "Indeed, it is a principle of the common law itself “that a court may not question the validity of a statute but, once having construed it, must give effect to it according to its tenor." It comes down to the common law principle of the supremacy of parliament, as recognised in the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Similarly, the principle of Responsible Government also means the judicial and executive branches of government are responsible to, and answerable to, the legislature. As stated in Kassam v Hazzard [2021] NSWSC 1320: "...it is important to note that it is not the Court’s function to determine the merits of the exercise of the power by the Minister to make the impugned orders, much less for the Court to choose between plausible responses to the risks to the public health posed by the Delta variant. It is also not the Court’s function to conclusively determine the effectiveness of some of the alleged treatments for those infected or the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines especially their capacity to inhibit the spread of the disease. These are all matters of merits, policy and fact for the decision maker and not the Court (see Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332; [2013] HCA 18 at [28], [66] and [108]; Instead, the Court’s only function is to determine the legal validity of the impugned orders which includes considering whether it has been shown that no Minister acting reasonably could have considered them necessary to deal with the identified risk to public health and its possible consequences."

During the COVID-19 pandemic, various treaties in international law such as the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Nuremberg Code were frequently cited iregarding mandatory vaccination. Some saw international law as a “higher law” that governments must obey, and if any domestic law is inconsistent with “United Nations law” then it is invalid. As seen Filla v Independent Community Living Australia [2022] NSWCATAD 108 (at 8-10): “In both written and oral submissions, Mr Filla referred to Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1980 and sought my explanation as to how any NSW law, or, the PHO’s, could override international law. He frequently referred to there being no ‘higher laws’ above United Nations Law and that the Hon Bradley Hazzard MLA, Minister for Health and Medical Research, had no jurisdiction to make valid PHO’s because a PHO order is not a law, only a directive. Therefore, the PHO’s are of no legal effect. Mr Filla cited the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, which protects him from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and that this and other international laws and covenants are apposite in this leave application.” As explained by Mason CJ and Deane J (at 286-287) in Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh (1995) HCA 20: “It is well established that the provisions of an international treaty to which Australia is a party do not form part of Australian law unless those provisions have been validly incorporated into our municipal law by statute. This principle has its foundation in the proposition that in our constitutional system the making and ratification of treaties fall within the province of the Executive in the exercise of its prerogative power whereas the making and the alteration of the law fall within the province of parliament, not the Executive. So, a treaty which has not been incorporated into our municipal law cannot operate as a direct source of individual rights and obligations under that law." Several States and territories have enacted human rights legislation, effectively incorporating human rights treaties into the domestic law of the State or territory. These are the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT), the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic), and more recently the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld). It is important to note that this does not make the actual treaty part of domestic law, but the enactment itself. These are ordinary legislation, which by their very nature are open to modification and limitation by subsequent legislation. For example, section 28 of the ACT Act, section 7 of the Victorian Act, and section 13 of the Queensland Act, all provide that human rights may be limited in certain circumstances, as seen during the pandemic. Even when an international treaty is brought into domestic law through legislation, the High Court has held in Momcilovic v The Queen & Ors [2011] HCA 34 that the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) does not empower the courts to radically re-interpret legislation or subvert the parliaments intent. It was held that the Charter protects fundamental human rights while maintaining parliamentary sovereignty.

@@auspseudolaw Wow, thank you for your reply, it addresses the matter very well. But now has me wondering about the implications, or if our International Trading partners are aware that Australia does not see International Law as applying within its boarders, if I have interpreted things correctly. As this has significant implications on a number of levels. One of which would be the futility of making any International Laws party with Australia, and how it impacts other agreements that Australia might then decide don't need to be complied with. Lots to think about. Thank you.

@@apollo8352 All member states of the United Nations are identical in that regard, it comes down to one of the fundamental principles of international law since the time "Law of Nations" was written by Vattel, and that is the national sovereignty of nations. It is entirely up to sovereign nations to choose what exists within their own domestic framework, and how treaties are implemented. The UN can make recommendations, but that's about it. This is why it's called "the toothless tiger".

@@auspseudolaw Thank you for your time explaining this, I truly appreciate it.

No, not yet. One day...

Yes, there was a lot of discussion about that passage at the time of the border closure. But it doesn't deal with the application of contrary legislation, which would of course override a common law right. Quarantine powers have been used to exclude or delay entry of people to Australia since the 1800s. The issue of whether there was a constitutional right was never run.

@@constitutionalclarion1901 With respect, I agree. I think there is a reasonable argument to be made that there is a minimum content of citizenship that has been constitutionalised. You might be interested in [35-45] of Senator Xenophon's submissions in the High Court in the citizenship case. www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/cases/03-Canberra/c11-2017/Xenophon_Submissions.pdf (I have thereby probably outed myself!)

lucky you to be homeschooled

@@shellyaus Not really homeschooled, dad didn't register me with any school, just like I didn't register my kids. We are autodidacts, self-educated.

G'day @auspseudolaw, I'd say they went to Apple/Android School of Social Media & only attended "No One Can Tell Me What To Do" classes, Passing with the Elite Honors of "I think it's right, so I am right" & "Dunning-Kruger" Thank you for your reply comments where rather than "I spent time with the man who’s cousin was part of the writing of the constitution" you actually cited Legal Arguments Also 🤯Mindblowing how many commenters think they know more about Australia Law than Anne Twomey calling her "Naive" when a simple Google shows Anne has... Studdied Law at Multiple Universities, Practiced Law, Educated others in Law & Written Multiple Books on the subject, Also held the positions of Senior Research Officer at High Court of Australia, researcher in the Law and Government Group for Parliment of Australia & Policy Manager of the Legal Branch for The Cabinet Office of New South Wales, Plus was appointed an Officer of the Order of Australia in the 2021 Queen's Birthday Honours, for "distinguished service to the law, to legal education, and to public education on constitutional matters" "🤷‍♂But hey what would she know"🙄

I'm not a judge - just a Professor. But thanks nonetheless.

I have done two videos on proposed misinformation laws: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-rVi9sEpHSMI.html and ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-DCmMUZ27deI.html.

Yes, my comment was removed further up the line. I rewrote it. If it appears twice from your incognito tab, that's why. Everything I said is verifiable btw.

@@forbearancemp5283 Yeah a comment about informed consent appears twice, about 3 hours apart.

@@auspseudolaw I figured that.

@@forbearancemp5283 Google Freeman Delusion. I have published 800 individual articles on various pseudolaw concepts and RU-vid won't allow me to post links to my website, or even to a RU-vid video on my account. The subject articles are accessible through the Index.

Yes, there are certainly issues about the quality of the candidates that we elect. In general, voters do need to pay more attention to the actual candidates and to policies, rather than voting simply by party habit. But I would object to your suggestion that the electoral system is corrupted. In my experience, it is absolutely free and fair, and it should not be denigrated and undermined. As for those politicians who act in their own interests and not the public interest, one can hope they get caught by anti-corruption bodies and dealt with appropriately. It does not mean, however, that we should say the laws don't apply, because anarchy is not the better course.

Legislation is actually the highest form of law below the constitution, see for example the principle of the supremacy of parliament. There are constitutional restraints on both federal and state legislation, and specific spheres of legislative power, the exclusive, concurrent and residual. What exactly are you referring to? See for example, South Australia v The Commonwealth [1942] HCA 14 (at page 408 per Latham CJ): "The Constitution says that the Commonwealth Parliament shall have power to make laws with respect to certain subjects (e.g., sec. 51 and other sections such as secs. 73, 77, 78, 79, 96, 122), that it shall have exclusive power to make laws with respect to certain other subjects (secs. 52 and 90), and that it shall not make certain laws at all (e.g., the limitations expressed in secs. 51 (ii.) and (iii.), 92, 99, 114, 116, 117). The Constitution of each State continues, subject to the Commonwealth Constitution (sec. 106), and the State Parliaments continue to possess all their powers not exclusively given to the Commonwealth Parliament by the Constitution or withdrawn from them by the Constitution (sec. 107). If either the Commonwealth Parliament or a State Parliament attempts to make a law which is not within its powers, the attempt fails, because the alleged law is unauthorized and is not a law at all. When both the Commonwealth Parliament and a State Parliament have power to make laws then, in case of inconsistency, the Commonwealth law prevails and the State law, to the extent of the inconsistency, is invalid (sec. 109)."

@@auspseudolaw Thank you for your considered response - and fast... hahaha - My following questions will, unfortunately, take some extra time as I will need to look at the cases you have sighted, and my reading on this subject is painfully slow (I'm into Botany and Ecology primarily, so as reading up on Court decisions is not my second language, I hope you can be patient. Seriously - thank you for engaging on this subject

@@frogmatt33 Best off starting with the supremacy of parliament, for example, Dawson J in Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [1996] HCA 24: "Indeed, it is a principle of the common law itself “that a court may not question the validity of a statute but, once having construed it, must give effect to it according to its tenor.". ​ ​Similarly, the principle of Responsible Government also means the judicial and executive branches of government are responsible to, and answerable to, the legislature. Pickin v British Railways Board (1974) AC 765 is often cited: "When an enactment is passed there is finality unless and until it is amended or repealed by Parliament. In the Courts there may be argument as to the correct interpretation of the enactment: there must be none as to whether it should be on the statute book at all. In earlier times many learned lawyers seemed to have believed that an Act of Parliament could be disregarded in so far as it was contrary to the law of God or the law of nature or natural justice, but since the supremacy of Parliament was finally demonstrated by the Revolution of 1688 any such idea has become obsolete. The idea that a court is entitled to disregard a provision in an Act of Parliament on any ground must seem strange and startling to anyone with any knowledge of the history and law of our constitution." Union Steamship Co of Australia Pty Ltd v King [1988] HCA 55 (at 16): "...the words "for the peace, order and good government" are not words of limitation. They did not confer on the courts of a colony, just as they do not confer on the courts of a State, jurisdiction to strike down legislation on the ground that, in the opinion of a court, the legislation does not promote or secure the peace, order and good government of the colony. Just as the courts of the United Kingdom cannot invalidate laws made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom on the ground that they do not secure the welfare and the public interest, so the exercise of its legislative power by the Parliament of New South Wales is not susceptible to judicial review on that score." A passage cited from Riel v The Queen (1885) 10 App Cas 673, "They have been held to admit of no inquiry by the courts as to whether, as a matter of fact or law, a particular statute is or is not a prudent exercise of the power, or is calculated to attain its particular end or object." as referred to in Bone v Mothershaw [2002] QCA 120 "Those words are the traditional formula, going back to early colonial times, used to confer “the widest legislative powers appropriate to a sovereign”. citing Ibralebbe v The Queen [1964] AC 900. See also Durham Holdings Pty Ltd v New South Wales (2001) HCA 7, Carnes v Essenberg [1999] QCA 339, Essenberg v The Queen [2000] HCATrans 29.) Regarding the pandemic response, as stated in Kassam v Hazzard [2021] NSWSC 1320: "...it is important to note that it is not the Court’s function to determine the merits of the exercise of the power by the Minister to make the impugned orders, much less for the Court to choose between plausible responses to the risks to the public health posed by the Delta variant. It is also not the Court’s function to conclusively determine the effectiveness of some of the alleged treatments for those infected or the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines especially their capacity to inhibit the spread of the disease. These are all matters of merits, policy and fact for the decision maker and not the Court (see Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332; [2013] HCA 18 at [28], [66] and [108]; Instead, the Court’s only function is to determine the legal validity of the impugned orders which includes considering whether it has been shown that no Minister acting reasonably could have considered them necessary to deal with the identified risk to public health and its possible consequences."

Legislation is the law. It's not separate from the law. A proposed Australian law starts as a bill debated in parliament. Then if it's passed by both houses of parliament, it's given 'royal assent' by the GG. Then it becomes law i.e. legislation.

@@mindi2050 The general theory of many pseudolaw constructs is that there's a parallel system of law in place today, one being what they call "COMMON LAW" and the other "STATUTE LAW" or legislation. They believe that this so-called "common law" is "the law of the land" and is superior to legislation. It's very simple they say, encompassed in a "do no harm" philosophy, that consists of three parts, (the only three ways to "break the law") to harm somebody, to harm their property, or to engage in mischief in contracts. Every "crime" requires a "victim" or "injured party". Legislation on the other hand, they believe, is a form of "contract law" often termed "maritime admiralty law" or "the law of the sea". This is allegedly not applicable to anyone without their consent, or "the consent of the governed" thereby giving it the "colour of law". They believe it is not "real law" it is more like the rules or "policies" for the employees of a company, that does not ordinarily apply to those not "contracted" to it. But alas, unscrupulous police and judges are engaged in a conspiracy of sorts trying to gain this consent by using "legalese" and other forms of trickery, such as birth certificates indenture to make you an "employee of the company". So they serve affidavits on the government or particular authority explicitly revoking their "consent" to this fraudulent form of law, so thereafter they have no obligation and it is unenforceable. They believe that "silence is consent" so give notice if the receiver doesn't "rebut" the contents of the affidavit within a certain time period, it is taken as their acceptance of these terms, and a new contract is created by it. As they include "notice to principle is notice to agent" they believe it applies equally to police or "policy enforcers". During traffic stops they invariably make it clear, screaming "I DO NOT CONSENT!" to the police officer, informing them that they have formed contracts with their superiors, so they have no jurisdiction to charge them. Of course, it never actually works, with the officer often smashing the window and arresting them. And when they go to court, they are to make clear that they are not a "PERSON" as the statute describes, but a "living man" bound only by "common law" and not legislation. This is known as the "strawman duality" the belief that their physical flesh and blood person, exists separately to their legal personality or "legal fiction" allegedly created by the government through their birth certificate. It is quite a delusion, none of the concepts actually have any validity, but builds an incredible amount of false hope. It feels like diplomatic immunity, that they are untouchable, and somewhat invincible. Been there, done that, wrote the book on it.

Where does it say otherwise?

This is due to lobbying by those with huge domes of $ who can also capture the media. The ignorance of the voter on how the system actually works (and deliberate policies that filter immigrants) are mostly to blame. Statements like "its age major parties are a red flag

Section 15 - under "Casual vacancies". The words "pollical party" appears 7 times.

Yes, as I explained, that is the law, as explained by the High Court.

@@constitutionalclarion1901 Yes I understand it's the law. The law is what it is. I just find it damning that this is all it is.

Actually inherited way prior to Federation, as Port of Portland Pty Ltd v State of Victoria (2010) 242 CLR 348 considered the force of the principles enunciated in the Imperial Acts Application Act 1980 (Vic) regarding the Bill of Rights 1688, which was brought to Australia as part of English common law from the time of the colonisation of NSW. (see for example McPherson J in Bone v Mothershaw [2003] 2 Qd R 600 noted that the common law received in Australia under the Australian Courts Act 1828 was received as a body of common law and not of enacted law.) Section 3 of the Imperial Acts Application Act 1980 provides that the transcribed enactments "shall continue to have in Victoria … such force and effect, if any, as [it] had at the commencement of this Act". French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Heydon, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ said (at 13) that "...the preferable view is that these provisions in the Victorian statute at best serve only to reinforce what are settled constitutional principles". In Antunovic v Dawson (2010) 30 VR 355, Bell J considered the relevance of the Bill of Rights 1688 in a contemporary context. His Honour said (at 50): "The rights and liberties in the Bill of Rights restricted the powers of the sovereign, specified and confirmed the responsibilities of Parliament and declared certain fundamental freedoms of the people. The focus of these rights and liberties is mainly on the relationship between the sovereign, the Parliament and the people, rather than on the rights of the people as such. The rights are mainly civil and political in character. As said in Living Word Outreach Inc v Deputy Sheriff of Victoria [2014] VSC 454 (from 48): "It follows from what was said in the above cases that the provisions of the Imperial Acts Application Act 1980 are not to be understood as being capable of striking down provisions in other statutes. Rather, the principles there enshrined lay the groundwork of the constitutional framework and find expression in more specific principles."

correct - I couldn't cross the border to put water on a herd of sheep...

You can read that on the words in the 'about' description of this channel. It says: "This channel is about constitutional matters - largely Australian, but sometimes broader international constitutional issues. It is conducted by Anne Twomey, who is a Professor Emerita of the University of Sydney and has both taught and practised in constitutional law and policy for a long time." I speak my views because I have expertise in constitutional law, both as a practitioner (in the High Court, the Commonwealth Parliament and the NSW Cabinet Office) and as an academic for many decades. The purpose of the channel is to educate the public.

Rights conflict, as discussed in the video, and different rights were given priority over others.

Is that your "definition" or something actually referenceable in law? Perhaps you should read some case law, then you'd realise that the supremacy of parliament was established in 1688 with the Glorious Revolution, and subsequently brought here as part of the Westminster system the Constitution was drafted according to.

@@auspseudolaw 1688 bill of rights?

@@shellyaus Yes the 1688 Bill of Rights was a good example of this. In Antunovic v Dawson (2010) 30 VR 355, Bell J considered the relevance of the Bill of Rights 1688 in a contemporary context. His Honour said (at 50): "The rights and liberties in the Bill of Rights restricted the powers of the sovereign, specified and confirmed the responsibilities of Parliament and declared certain fundamental freedoms of the people. The focus of these rights and liberties is mainly on the relationship between the sovereign, the Parliament and the people, rather than on the rights of the people as such. The rights are mainly civil and political in character." In Port of Portland Pty Ltd v State of Victoria (2010) 242 CLR 348, the High Court considered the force of the principles enunciated in the Imperial Acts Application Act 1980. That Act, which is an act of the Victorian parliament, transcribes several Imperial acts, including the Bill of Rights 1688. Section 3 provides that the transcribed enactments ‘shall continue to have in Victoria … such force and effect, if any, as [it] had at the commencement of this Act’. Considering the interpretation of the Imperial Acts Application Act 1980, French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Heydon, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ said (at 13) that "...the preferable view is that these provisions in the Victorian statute at best serve only to reinforce what are settled constitutional principles". It follows from what was said in the above cases that the provisions of the Bill of Rights 1688 are not to be understood as being capable of striking down provisions in other statutes. Rather, the principles there enshrined lay the groundwork of the constitutional framework and find expression in more specific principles.

Funny I concluded the exact opposite given the facts you described

"Sovereign Citizen" is an archaic term, based on one particular US group circa 1992, though briefly first mentioned in William Potter Gale's teachings mid 1970's. It's not suited to the current phenomenon, which has long since expanded, mainly due to the materials of Eldon Warman from Canada, reinventing the US concepts to suit Commonwealth legal systems and broader international perspectives, and aimed at a primarily left-wing population, now known as "pseudolaw". Australia actually has a unique form of pseudolaw argumentation likely outdating the US phenomenon, mainly based in constitutional misconceptions, for example, the 1980's currency arguments brought by Allan Skyring, right through to Aboriginal sovereignty arguments such as in Coe in 1979. It's also important to note the foreign concepts did not contaminate our argumentation until the 2000's, with concepts such as the strawman duality theory. The nomenclature is important, especially since the US "Sovereign Citizen" group was a racist right-wing phenomenon, whereas today the concepts have expanded. Even in Australia, there are opposing groups of ideologies within pseudolaw, Protestant and Catholic, Republican and Monarchist, Conservative and Progressive, etc. They all fall under what is now known as "pseudolaw".

Only if I want to be driven completely mad by the comments!

We have the English Bill of rights, this channel is miss leading people

@@hempourfuture4253 Amen, we do BUT the current frameworks under the Westminster System, leave very little available to the people. The Bill of Rights that was implemented by the Americans has been more robust over time.

We have a legal system But not a justice system

One problem with emergency laws is that they have to be written to accommodate unknown future disasters. For example, you need to have some capacity to deal with an emergency in circumstances where the nature of the emergency prevents Parliament from being able to sit to change the law. The real risk, however, is that emergency laws can be abused if they continue in operation for a long time. Hence, I think it would be good to review our emergency laws so that the initial wide discretion to deal with an emergency immediately, is gradually reduced as time passes and the nature and extent of the emergency becomes known.

Re: costs you should read Prof Gigi Forster and Sanjeev Sabhlock

Thanks - I'm glad it helped and that you are prepared to reconsider things. The best way to approach concerns about bias is to read the transcripts of the arguments before the courts, so you know what was put before them, and then read the judgments. Much of this is freely available online: www.austlii.edu.au/. No one can fairly judge bias unless they actually do the work. Unfortunately, most people who throw around words such as bias, corruption and treason, never actually make the effort to understand what was put before the judge and what the judge actually decided and why.

Thanks. Glad you found it useful.

As far as I know, there was no law that was only directed at anti-covid protests. The laws concerning protests applied generally to all of them. Their operation would have depended upon factors such as where the protest was to take place, how many people were to attend, whether roads were to be blocked, safety, etc, as is the case in relation to all protests. As noted in the video, there was one occasion when a Black Lives Matter protest in Sydney was allowed to go ahead, but that was because of an error made by the police in applying the law when they tried to stop it. It had nothing to do with the content of what was being protested.

Thanks. Yes - the videos are intended simply as public education. Welcome aboard.

Constitution Act 1934 (TAS) Section 8G. Functions of Secretary to Cabinet (1) The Secretary to Cabinet shall have and may perform such functions with respect to the affairs of the State as the Premier may, from time to time, determine in respect of him."

Good question. The power of Premiers (and, indeed, the Prime Minister) come from being appointed as 'Ministers'. A Premier or Prime Minister is one type of Minister.

The Commonwealth Constitution likewise says nothing about the Prime Minister, the Cabinet, responsible government, ministerial responsibility, electing a government, dismissing a government, parliamentary control, what is to be done if the Senate refuses to pass an appropriation Bill (or a supply Bill), and so on. This void is filled-in by well established practices which were inherited from Westminster, referred to as "constitutional conventions". Their existence has been recognised by important cases of the High Court such as the Engineers Case [1920] HCA 54. Something important to note with state constitutions, is that they are not subject to the restrictions on alteration as the Commonwealth Constitution has in section 128. The state parliaments are free to amend or repeal them just like ordinary legislation, save for some states "manner and form" considerations such as entrenched provisions. This came to a head in 1920 with the Privy Council in McCawley v R [1920] AC 691 ruling that they occupy "precisely the same position as a Dog Act or any other Act, however humble its subject matter"

There ARE no "lawful rights as a natural living human being". There is no difference between a "natural living human being" and their "legal personality" as the strawman duality theory claims. There is no difference between "lawful" and "legal" as the theory claims. There is no such law as "maritime admiralty law", and statute has nothing to do with this imaginary system of law. These things are pure fantasy, a phenomenon that has been rejected by every level of court in every country in the world since the Posse Comitatus first invented to concepts over 40 years ago. You have, like I did 12 years ago, bought a false hope. I took these matters before the courts, and failed, so I learned better. As far as Magna Carta, it has mostly been repealed. Only Article 29 exists in Australian law, and even that open to "affectation and modification" by ordinary legislation enacted by any state parliament. In Essenberg v The Queen [2000] HCATrans 297, McHugh J. said: “"I understand that and persons who have not had full legal training often think of Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights as fundamental documents which control governments, but they do not. Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights are not documents binding on Australian legislatures in the way that the Constitution is binding on them. Any legislature acting within the powers allotted to it by the Constitution can legislate in disregard of Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights. At the highest, those two documents express a political ideal, but they do not legally bind the legislatures of this country or, for that matter, the United Kingdom. Nor do they limit the powers of the legislatures of Australia or the United Kingdom." You are actually quoting an obsolete provision which has not existed for 800 years. See AVI v MHVB, 2020 ABQB 790: "Article 61 of the 1215 Magna Carta has nothing to do with the rights of individual persons, but instead only granted a counsel of 25 barons the authority to seize King John’s castles, lands, and possessions in the event of a dispute between the barons and the king. Worse, when King John died in 1216, so did the provision of the 1215 Magna Carta that MCLR adherents claim creates their extraordinary status. These modern Magna Carta rebels have therefore mustered over 800 years too late."

The general theory of many pseudolaw constructs is that there's a parallel system of law in place today, one being what they call "COMMON LAW" and the other "STATUTE LAW" or legislation. They believe that this so-called "common law" is "the law of the land" and is superior to legislation. It's very simple they say, encompassed in a "do no harm" philosophy, that consists of three parts, (the only three ways to "break the law") to harm somebody, to harm their property, or to engage in mischief in contracts. Every "crime" requires a "victim" or "injured party". Legislation on the other hand, they believe, is a form of "contract law" often termed "maritime admiralty law" or "the law of the sea". This is allegedly not applicable to anyone without their consent, or "the consent of the governed" thereby giving it the "colour of law". They believe it is not "real law" it is more like the rules or "policies" for the employees of a company, that does not ordinarily apply to those not "contracted" to it. But alas, unscrupulous police and judges are engaged in a conspiracy of sorts trying to gain this consent by using "legalese" and other forms of trickery, such as birth certificates indenture to make you an "employee of the company". So they serve affidavits on the government or particular authority explicitly revoking their "consent" to this fraudulent form of law, so thereafter they have no obligation and it is unenforceable. They believe that "silence is consent" so give notice if the receiver doesn't "rebut" the contents of the affidavit within a certain time period, it is taken as their acceptance of these terms, and a new contract is created by it. As they include "notice to principle is notice to agent" they believe it applies equally to police or "policy enforcers". During traffic stops they invariably make it clear, screaming "I DO NOT CONSENT!" to the police officer, informing them that they have formed contracts with their superiors, so they have no jurisdiction to charge them. Of course, it never actually works, with the officer often smashing the window and arresting them. And when they go to court, they are to make clear that they are not a "PERSON" as the statute describes, but a "living man" bound only by "common law" and not legislation. This is known as the "strawman duality" the belief that their physical flesh and blood person, exists separately to their legal personality or "legal fiction" allegedly created by the government through their birth certificate. It is quite a delusion, none of the concepts actually have any validity, but builds an incredible amount of false hope. It feels like diplomatic immunity, that they are untouchable, and somewhat invincible. Been there, done that. Wrote the book on it.

@@auspseudolaw Thank you. I appreciate the time you have taken to explain to me the difference’s and possible outcomes of above mentioned laws. It seems to me that common law has a retired foundation, and has no validity anymore. It also tells me that we are considered guilty rather than innocent. In doing so, we have to spend copious amounts of money to prove our innocence. Therefore favouring the system, lawyers ect. To me, it comes across as a corporate business praying on the innocent to extort money to fill the pockets of its share holders. The goal posts placement is variable and not in favour of the little guy. The common theme seems to be, “If you can’t beat them, join them.” Thanks again Regards Rusty🇦🇺

@@RustyWoodpecker It isn't so much that "common law has a retired foundation", but that it never existed in the way pseudolaw adherents think it does to begin with. It isn't anything new, the supremacy of parliament as the supreme law-making body, was recognised in the Glorious Revolution of 1688, long before Australia was colonised. No doubt in some areas the presumption of innocence has been overwritten by some statutes, but it still exists everywhere else as a general rule. I don't really like the system myself, I've been an anarchist for 50 years, and a fringe-dweller, I barely leave the bush to venture into so-called "society". But I do try to look at things realistically. I started my work in pseudolaw over a decade ago to help people sacrificing themselves as pawns to an ideology that leads nowhere. You're welcome. You should have a look at my website.

@@auspseudolaw Ok, I’ll have a look. Cheers Mate🇦🇺👍

It's the division of legislative powers. The Constitution only delegates certain specific and limited powers to the Commonwealth Parliament, the subjects under the Exclusive powers which only it can legislate regarding, and subjects under the Concurrent powers which both the Commonwealth and the States can legislate regarding, (but which in the case of inconsistencies, Commonwealth laws are superior) and whatever is left, are subjects under the Residual powers which are retained by the States. The regulation of firearms is under these Residual powers, and remain a responsibility of the States, the Commonwealth has no power to legislate regarding it, besides the power under section 51(xxxviii), which gives the Commonwealth parliament power to legislate at the request of the State parliaments. Under a federal scheme, each of the States pass identical legislation to make it uniform nationwide.

Thanks. Much appreciated.

The court cases were all triggered by the persons who commenced them and they determined the legal issues that those persons raised in the court.

@@constitutionalclarion1901 And if “Covid” is the triggering event?

@@kimwiffen1064 Then you'd have to take it up with the person, since the court was triggered by the persons who commenced them.

So all newly established cases stand until challenged even if the event was a fallacy?

If covid 19 was that much of a threat why was there a recovery rate of 99% and we didn't see people dying until after the shots This channel is missleading people there are lawful courts being used and it's only a matter of time before the criminals are all rounded up, who are the criminals? All those in the Australia government, all those who call themselves judges, lawyers all the way upto the high court, all those who call themselves police, all those who are in medical eg doctors, nurses etc, all those who pushed a bioweapon and restricted people's inalienable right to breathe oxygen from supervisors all the way upto CEO's I was just following orders has never been an excuse and to this day is still not an excuse just like the Nuremberg trials in Germany when they experimented on people and were bought to trial many people were hung because just following orders is not an excuse