In Part One of a 6-part series of interviews with Darren Dixon for the ‘GLOSSA channel’ he explains the good news for Australians. The highest court in the land, the High Court of Australia has already ruled that under law, Australians can refuse all government ‘mandatory’ vaccinations as well as any government medical services.
Transcript (by Marian Calcroft) below:
Rob: Hello everyone, and welcome back to the Glossa Channel. I am here today to speak to Darren Dixon here in Melbourne, Australia regarding something called a Constitutional Guarantee. Welcome to the program Darren. How are you doing today?
Darren: Good, thanks Rob! Finally great to meet you.
Rob: Yes, we’ve spoken on the telephone long-distance from time to time, but it’s good to be here in person. Can you explain to us what this Constitutional Guarantee is? You’ve told me in our private conversations a bit about it, but I believe the listeners and viewers would be greatly interested by this topic.
Darren: Well – in this current time of what’s going on, in Australia, and all around the world, in regards to medical services, a lot of people are feeling that they are being forced to accept certain medical services, we’ll call them medical services, and they relate to any medical service that can be provided, whether it be general or preventative it’s irrelevant, it covers all medical services. And, what it is, in the Commonwealth Constitution, it’s a very unique guarantee that we have, compared to every other country in the world.
And what it actually says is that the Parliament has power to make laws for the good, for the peace, order and good government in respect to medical and dental services but so as to NOT impose any form of Civil Conscription.
Now what does that mean exactly? Well, it’s in regards to medical and dental services, that’s the subject matter, but there’s another part which says “NOT to impose any form of CIVIL Conscription”.
What’s Civil Conscription? Well, we know what military conscription is. That’s when you’re forced to provide military services to the government. Well, this is to NOT impose any form of Civil Conscription, so a Civilian Conscription, and NOT to impose any form of it.
So, basically, I’ll go back to how this was created. And how that was created, is in 1946 Australia had a Referendum, and the people in 1946 voted for this to be inserted into the Constitution. And it provides a medical protection, that I know a lot of people are looking for and are a bit bewildered at a lot of the, a lot of the State news that’s coming out at the moment in regards to being… having certain medical procedures forced upon them.
Now the High Court has actually spoken on this, and they’ve interpreted this “NO form of Civil Conscription”, over 60 years in much settled Case Law. There’s been 38 High Court Judges involved, and they’ve actually interpreted that part of Civil Conscription to which I was speaking about. And what they’ve actually interpreted it to be is the fact that, in regards to medical procedures, there is a thing called the doctor-patient relationship.
And the doctor-patient relationship cannot be penetrated. It’s voluntary, it’s by your consent, and then no third party can get involved in this particular relationship, it’s just you and the doctor.
Not even the Government can get involved in the doctor-patient relationship. So having said that, what actually the High Court have defined and interpreted, is that the Government cannot provide any legal or practical compulsion for you to accept any medical procedure. It’s totally voluntary, and it’s by your consent, and if the consent is forced, or the consent is withdrawn during the medical procedure, it’s actually assault.
So, this guarantee that we have, is something that can be relied upon in respect of any encroachment of any government compulsion, so as to force a medical procedure upon you. And once again, Rob, this isn’t me saying this, this is the High Court. And this is backed up by the People of Australia in the 1946 Referendum. It’s not me, I’m just the vessel delivering the message.
It’s a long-forgotten part of our Constitutional History, and ever since then there’s been multiple cases that have called for an interpretation of that particular provision of the Act, and I think the People of Australia need to know that they can rely on Section 51.23a, that no form of any medical procedure can be forced upon you, without your consent and without your WILL.
And there’s actually a case, which is the Medical Practitioner’s Case, where it says the Commonwealth, the High Court said this, that the Commonwealth cannot write any laws so as to impose immunisation or vaccination upon the People of Australia. So that’s been settled Case Law, and we’ve actually got some letters from the current Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, which backs this up.
So, now there’s concerns about some State Laws for example in Western Australia there’s a State Health Act (Public Health Act 2016), where they say they can do the opposite of that. That they can actually impose some sort of a medical procedure upon you, without your consent. This is in breach of the Constitutional Guarantee. It needs to be challenged in courts.
There needs to be a challenge in regards to the invalidity of that State Act, which is governed by Section 109 of the Constitution, when a Law of the State is inconsistent with a Law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail and the former shall be inconsistent to the point of the invalidity, or in… and not in harmony with the Commonwealth Law, that Law is INVALID.
It doesn’t have to be decided; it’s invalid from the beginning. Although people would like a Court to proclaim it, that is the fact. It cannot be inconsistent with the Commonwealth Law, and that’s another thing you can rely on.
But these things are soon to be played out in the High Court. I’m aware of multiple people taking multiple challenges to the High Court, in respect of the Constitutional Guarantee found at Section 51.23a and these are in respect of some protesting rights that have been happening in Victoria, and forced medical services in respect of wearing masks and other like subject matter. So, there’s some interesting times that are coming towards us, that we should see some interesting decisions happening from the Courts themselves.
Rob: So you would suggest that if there are any State Laws that are in conflict with, or contradictory to the Constitution, then the Constitution prevails over any State Laws?
Darren: 100 percent. And there’s a Clause in the Constitution, Clause 5, which says that the Constitution is binding on all the Courts, Judges and People of every State and every part of the Commonwealth regardless of what the State Laws say.
So not only is there The Constitutional Guarantee, it has a binding effect as well.
There’s also something that was brought to my attention recently. In Queensland, they are just about to bring out a COVID App, that they’re imposing. The Government is imposing businesses to enforce that people cannot enter your premises without logging in with the COVID app through their Smartphone.
Now that right there is an encroachment of Political Liberties. Number one, it’s forcing me to carry a mobile phone, which is not Law. Secondly, it’s asking the business to impose it on the customer. So it’s an over extension of the Government’s Laws realistically. Also the Privacy Act, Section 94h of the Privacy Act says, that you cannot force someone to download the COVID safe App, the Commonwealth one. Nor can you reject them or deny them any service.
So this is once again a Law of the State that’s inconsistent with The Privacy Act which says that you cannot deny people service because they don’t have the App, and you cannot force people to download the App itself. So this, is what we see a lot, that people are unaware of these guarantees that we have that stops this over enforcement of the State Governments. One just needs to look to the Commonwealth Law for remedy, and usually you’ll find something either in the Privacy Act, the Constitution…. and there’s also another Act called the Australian Consumer Law Act which is the Competition and Consumer Act and that provides many protections within that Act, for Australian consumers, and any discrimination in regards to the providing of services.
Read the following also.
Subsection 51(xxiiiA) contains an express prohibition on the use of the medical services power ‘to authorize any form of civil conscription’.
The submission of Catholic Health Australia provided a helpful description of the events that led to the inclusion of subsection 51(xxiiiA) in 1946, which included the explanation that the prohibition on civil conscription was inserted to allay fears that ‘the proposed amendment would grant the Commonwealth the power to nationalise medical and dental services’.
The prohibition on civil conscription has been described as referring to:
…any sort of compulsion to engage in practice as a doctor or a dentist or to perform particular medical or dental services. However, in its natural meaning it does not refer to compulsion to do, in a particular way, some act in the course of carrying on practice or performing a service, when there is no compulsion to carry on the practice or perform the service.
Importantly, the prohibition on civil conscription only applies to the provision of ‘medical and dental services’ and not to the other elements of subsection 51(xxiiiA).
Additional information on the AustLII website: Devaluation of a Constitutional Guarantee: The History of Section 51(XXIIIA) of the Commonwealth Constitution
- Submission 36, attachment, pp. 13–15.
- Submission 36, attachment, p. 13.
- General Practitioners Society in Australia v Commonwealth (1980) 145 CLR 532, 557.
- Federal Council of the British Medical Association in Australia v Commonwealth (1949) 79 CLR 201, 254-255, 261, 281-282, 286-287.
Comments welcome below.
Join me on Telegram.com: @GideonHartnett https://t.me/gideonhartnett
If you want to be notified by email each time I add a new post click the “Email” button below and add you email address.