A CALL has gone out to all Australians affected by the Covid restrictions and medical mandates to attend a hearing at the High Court in Canberra on April 9th.
Former senator Rod Culleton is seeking a High Court ruling under Part 5, Section 51 of the Constitution Powers of the Parliament and the legality of states closing borders contrary to Section 92 of the Constitution that states “trade, commerce, and intercourse among the States … shall be absolutely free”.
When the Commonwealth tried to stop Dulcie Johnson crossing state borders to see her fiancé one last time before he headed off to war in World War II, it failed, but when Western Australia closed its border to Clive Palmer during the COVID plandemic, it succeeded, because the High Court ruled WA’s Emergency Management Act “complied with the Constitution”.
“Chief Justice Susan Kiefel said today the court had found the Act complied with the Constitution, and the directions did not raise a constitutional issue,” the ABC reported at the time. So a state’s Act of Parliament that allows the border to be shut down contrary to Section 92 of the superior law, the Constitution, “complies with the Constitution”?
Rod Culleton quite rightly wants this issue clarified. What sort of a precedent does it set if a power-drunk state premier can simply write an Act that defies the Constitution and get away with it?
The High Court of Australia owes it to the people of Australia to at the very least explain their contradictory ruling.
The other case under Section 109 (Inconsistency of laws) is that of Dr Beverley (aka Valerie) Peers who is seeking a ruling on whether states can force vaccination in the workplace, which is inconsistent with the Federal Fair Work Act 2009 which has no such provision. Her Writ of Summons is against Eastern Health and the State of Victoria.
Dr Peers first lodged her Writ with the HCA in July last year, but was asked to amend it. She relodged it in December and again in January after multiple amendments.
Section 109 states: “When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid.”
Both matters will be addressed at a directions hearing of the HCA on April 9, and supporters of the actions are urging people to attend and show their support.
“Every Australian who was affected by the Covid restrictions needs to be out the front of the High court in Canberra on this day so the High Court can see that we the people are on their doorstep – demanding our Constitution and our Constitutional protections are upheld and that the governments must adhere to the restraint of the Constitution on them. They are bound to it under Clause 5,” supporters posted on social media.
For those can’t make it to Canberra, it’s been suggested to attend the High Court in your state, with banners pertaining to Mr Culleton’s and Dr Peers’ matters.
Dr Peers, a general practitioner, had her registration suspended in November 2021 after the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) accused her of providing Covid vaccination exemptions without clinical reason.
She was later charged with seven offences in April 2023 after allegedly continuing to practise medicine out of a Altona North clinic between November 2021 and May 2022.
Dr Peers has taken these matters to the Appeals Court and was also planning to fight for free speech of doctors in the Supreme Court of Victoria, because doctors are precluded by the Medical Board of Australia from freedom of speech. “So this application has the potential to bring relief to doctors and patients Australia wide.” Dr Peers can be supported at givesendgo.
