Extreme Covid measures in Australia

[Innocent Warrior]

Interesting development re. ICAC and Gladys resignation. Clive Palmer said during one of his press conferences that she had an ICAC investigation pending and a lobbyist with Pfizer and AZ clients, who controls the Sydney Libs, directed her to push the double injections to protect her from the ICAC.

I’d be interested to see what Clive Palmer has to say about this, nothing yet as far as I can see. Craig Kelly seems pleased (head of Clive’s political party). Hmm, what is going on here, exactly? Anyone else have some insight on what’s going on backchannel here?

* * *

A nurse from a Melbourne hospital called into the 3AW radio station and reported that 20 people per hour are arriving at emergency with chest pains after receiving a COVID injection.

Tweet with audio clip of the nurse’s call: https://twitter.com/AussieVal10/stat...31265367498754

Radio show, call at 18 mins: https://omny.fm/shows/afternoons-wit...re&style=cover

[Arcturian108]

Posted by BMJ (here)
Some Damning Findings On The Jab & Mandatory Job Related Vaccination

The first take away is violence is not the solution instead using the law and applying the letter of the law is, against state policy's (mandatory bla bla etc etc).

Secondly, the back wheel on the little red tricycle the Gladys has been pedalling around is starting to fall off, and so to other Premiers & SCOMO.

On facebook by Tanya Davies MP 29 September 2021

Complete version below

Source: https://www.facebook.com/tanyadavies...07241924053438

The relevant appeal below.

[2021] FWCFB 6015
FAIR WORK COMMISSION DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009 s.604 - Appeal of decisions

Jennifer Kimber v Sapphire Coast Community Aged Care Ltd (C2021/2676)

Link: https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/dec...LoO2DyUylKqaSg

Some final conclusions in the Fair Work Commission report are worth showing here:

Final Comments

[179] Research in the context of COVID-19 has shown that many who are ‘vaccine-hesitant’ are well educated, work in the health care industry and have questions about how effective the vaccines are in stopping transmission, whether they are safe to take during pregnancy, or if they affect fertility. 37 A far safer and more democratic approach to addressing vaccine hesitancy, and therefore increasing voluntary vaccination uptake, lies in better education, addressing specific and often legitimate concerns that people may hold, and promoting genuine informed consent. It does not lie in censoring differing opinions or removing rights and civil liberties that are fundamental in a democratic nation. It certainly does not lie in the use of highly coercive, undemocratic and unethical mandates.

[180] The statements by politicians that those who are not vaccinated are a threat to public health and should be “locked out of society” and denied the ability to work are not measures to protect public health. They are not about public health and not justified because they do not address the actual risk of COVID. These measures can only be about punishing those who choose not to be vaccinated. If the purpose of the PHOs is genuinely to reduce the spread of COVID, there is no basis for locking out people who do not have COVID, which is easily established by a rapid antigen test. Conversely, a vaccinated person who contracts COVID should be required to isolate until such time as they have recovered.

[181] Blanket rules, such as mandating vaccinations for everyone across a whole profession or industry regardless of the actual risk, fail the tests of proportionality, necessity and reasonableness. It is more than the absolute minimum necessary to combat the crisis and cannot be justified on health grounds. It is a lazy and fundamentally flawed approach to risk management and should be soundly rejected by courts when challenged.

[182] All Australians should vigorously oppose the introduction of a system of medical apartheid and segregation in Australia. It is an abhorrent concept and is morally and ethically wrong, and the antihesis of our democratic way of life and everything we value.

[183] Australians should also vigorously oppose the ongoing censorship of any views that question the current policies regarding COVID. Science is no longer science if it a person is not allowed to question it.

[184] Finally, all Australians, including those who hold or are suspected of holding “anti-vaccination sentiments”, are entitled to the protection of our laws, including the protections afforded by the Fair Work Act. In this regard, one can only hope that the Majority Decision is recognised as an anomaly and not followed by others.

Read the full document here: https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/dec...Yj3HIV7wgl1Xxs

[BMJ]

The Way Forward Is The The Application Of The Law Which Will Defeat These Illegal Mandates

Victoria Police officer suspended over video of violent Flinders Street arrest

Reignite Democracy Australia
29 September 2021

Victoria Police has suspended an officer who was filmed during an arrest where he appeared to grab a man from behind and swing him to the ground.

• Police say the acting sergeant has been suspended while the incident is investigated
• They have called for witnesses, including the person who filmed the arrest, to come forward
• Leading Victorian lawyers have spoken out against the officer’s behaviour

Link: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-...e=abc_news_web

[BMJ]

Why the “Police Lockdown Powers” are Unlawful (In NSW)


Since 26 June 2021, New South Wales has been subject to the longest and harshest lockdown the State has experienced since the start of the Pandemic.

While the restrictions and conditions have increased substantially with time, surprisingly, so have the powers that have purportedly been given to the NSW Police Force.

Never before has the State of New South Wales, experienced such a large and unchecked increase in police powers. Unsurprisingly, many now referring to it as a “police state” with the Premier at the whims and desires of the Police Commissioner.

While some may not see the concern that such overarching police powers have, the reality is that such powers can and will be exploited and often they are exploited against the most marginalised members of the community.

According to the latest Public Health Order, police have purportedly been given the power to:

Stop and ask any person for their identity without any suspicion that the person has done something wrong.
Ask a person for their medical documents including vaccination status, covid test results, and mask exemptions.
Ask a person for proof of their employment.
Request a person to go home.
The question however remains, are these powers lawful?

Our interpretation of the law is that many of the police powers under the current Public Health Order are unlawful and legally invalid.

We equally believe that many of the fines (in regards to mandates) that have been issued by the NSW Police can be subject to challenge in court.

While this may all sound good, unlike many, we did not want to make bold assertions about the law without explaining the fundamental legal basis and logic behind why we have come to hold these views. We have therefore set out a detailed explanation of our interpretation of the law.

To be clear, this article is not intended as legal advice and we are not encouraging people to rely on this article as legal advice. This article is the opinion of the writer as to the interpretation of the law. This interpretation might not necessarily be accepted by a court, however we think many of these issues require ventilation before a court.

As a final constraint to this article, we do not in any way recommend or encourage that people breach the Public Health Orders. The Orders are in place for the safety of the community. This article is not concerned with validity or the necessity of those Orders. Covid-19 is a serious public health risk and should be considered as such.

This article is solely concerned with the validity of police powers under the Public Health Order and the implications that might arise if our interpretation of the law surrounding those powers is accepted.

How does the Public Health Order work

To properly understand the legalities, it is important to first understand how the Public Health Orders work.

The Public Health Order is not an Act of Parliament, it is not legislation, nor is it a regulation. The Public Health Order is an instrument that is made by the Health Minister (Brad Hazzard) under the powers provided under Section 7 of the Public Health Act (The Act).

So, the starting point is to consider the scope of the power given to the Health Minister under the Public Health Act to make Orders.

Under Section 7 of the Public Health Act if the Minister considers on reasonable grounds that Covid-19 is a risk, or is likely to be a risk, to public health, the Minister can take such action and by order give such direction that the Minister considers necessary to deal with the risk and its possible consequences.

It is undisputable that the Minister has a wide power under Section 7 to make orders and give directions to deal with the public health risk. However, does that power also include enforcement power.

Our view is that it does not. We will explain why.



What is the offence of breaching the Public Health Order?

The starting point is to identify the legal source for the offence in order to then consider how it might be enforced.

Despite common misconception, the Health Minister does not have power to create offences. The offence is not contained in the Public Health Order itself. Rather, the offence is contained in Section 10 of the Public Health Act.

For relevant purposes, section 10 of the Public Health Act states that a person who is subject to a direction under Section 7 and fails to comply with the direction without a reasonable excuse is guilty of an offence.

Therefore, if a person fails to comply with the Public Health Order they are committing an offence under Section 10 of the Public Health Act. They are not committing an offence under the Public Health Order.



What are the enforcement powers?

Part 8 of the Public Health Act is titled “Enforcement of Act”. That is that it contains all the sections enacted by Parliament that deal with Enforcement of the Public Health Act.

It is important at this stage to note that the offence provision, being Section 10 of the Act, is subject to these enforcement provisions. That is that Part 8 of the Act gives the powers to enable the enforcement of Section 10.

So, what are the actual enforcement powers under the Act?

Well interestingly, the only power given to the police under Part 8 to enforce the Act is under Section 112 of the Public Health Act.

The power in Section 112 allows a police officer to request that a person state their name and residential address if they suspect that the person has breached the Public Health Order.

It is important to highlight that section 112 uses the word state. There is nothing in Section 112 that requires a person to provide their identification documents to the police.

What is however most important to note is that Section 111 of the Public Health Act, which provides the power to request other information or documents from a person is not a power that has been given to the Police.

Under Section 111 an authorised officer may request information and documents from a person by giving them notice in writing. However, the definition of authorised officer in the Act does not include a police officer.

Unlike Section 112, where police officer has specifically been included into that power in the section, the same has not been done in Section 111. Clearly indicating that Parliament did not intent to give police the power to request documents or information.

Secondly, in regards to the power under Section 111 which allows an authorised officer to request information and documentation, such a request may only be made by notice in writing.

So to conclude, the only power that has been given to the police under the Public Health Act to enforce Section 10 (the offence provision of not complying with the Public Health Order) is Section 112, and that is the power to ask a person to state their name and address but only if the police officer suspects that the person has breached the Order.

The question to turn to now is whether the Minister can provide the police with additional powers that exceed the powers given to the police under the Public Health Act.

Our interpretation of the law suggests that the answer is no.



Interpretation Act

Section 32 of the Interpretation Act provides as follows:

(1) An instrument shall be construed as operating to the full extent of, but so as not to exceed, the power conferred by the Act under which it is made.

(2) If any provision of an instrument, or the application of any such provision to any person, subject-matter or circumstance, would, but for this section, be construed as being in excess of the power conferred by the Act under which it is made:

(a) it shall be a valid provision to the extent to which it is not in excess of that power, and

(b) the remainder of the instrument, and the application of the provision to other persons, subject-matters or circumstances, shall not be affected.

(3) This section applies to an instrument in addition to, and without limiting the effect of, any provision of the instrument or of the Act under which it is made.

The Public Health Order is an instrument that is made under the Public Health Act. Therefore, the enforcement powers given to the police under the Public Health Order cannot exceed the enforcement powers under the Public Health Act.

The only enforcement power given to the police under the Act is under Section 112 and that is to ask a person to state their name and address if they suspect that the person is in breach of the Public Health Order.

Accordingly, any enforcement power that is given to the police that exceeds the power under Section 112 in our view is unlawful and invalid.



Which police powers under the Public Health Order are unlawful

Basically, any power that exceeds Section 112 is unlawful in our view. This includes the following powers purported to be given to the police under the Public Health Order:

1) The power to ask for a person’s name and address to determine if they are from a Local Government Area of Concern or if they are exercising outside of their relevant radius,

2) The power to ask a person for their medical documents including vaccination status, covid test results, and mask exemptions.

3) The power to ask a person for proof of their employment.

4) The power to request a person to go home.



What happens if a police officer asks me for this information

There is nothing in the law that stops a police officer asking a person these questions. The question is what happens if a person does not comply with answering them.

There is nothing that a police officer can do compel a person to answer question outside of the power under Section 112. However, the police officer might then decide to fine the person.

Just because a police officer issues a person with a fine does not mean that the fine is valid. A person is entitled to challenge the fine at Court.

What is important to note that it at all times it is for the New South Wales Police to prove that a person is guilty of an offence. There is nothing in our reading of the Order that reverses the onus of proof so that a person must prove that they are not guilty.

Take for example a situation where a person refuses to provide a police officer with their vaccination status. The police officer fines that person for breaching Section 10.

The person elects to go to Court, it will be incumbent on the police to prove that the person was not vaccinated at the time. The police will need to place that evidence before the Court. In doing so, the police will not be able to rely on the powers given to them under the Order if they are deemed invalid.

In our view, it really is a house of cards for the prosecution. Yet it only get worse when considered in light of the right against self-incrimination and right to silence that we discuss below.



The right against self-incrimination and right to silence

This is the most important aspect of the operation of the Public Health Order that needs to be understood.

The right against self-incrimination and the right to silence are the most fundamental common law rights that all Australians have.

This is not only recognised by a plethora of cases in Higher Courts, most important is the fact that it is recognised and protected in Part 8 (The Enforcement Part) of the Public Health Act.

The way that this works in the Public Health Act is as follows:

1) Section 114(2) of the Public Health Act removes a person’s right to silence if they are given a direction Part 8 of the Public Health Act. For our purposes such a direction will be under section 112 where a police officer asks a person for their name and address if they suspect that they have breached the Public Health Order. A person must provide this information once directed.

2) However, this removal of a persons right to silence is subject to the very stringent protections against self-incrimination in Section 114(3) of the Public Health Act which provides:

Any information furnished or answer given by a natural person in compliance with a direction under this Part is not admissible in evidence against the person in criminal proceedings (except proceedings for an offence under section 113(2)) if–

(a) the person objected at the time to doing so on the ground that it might incriminate the person, or

(b) the person was not warned on that occasion that the person may object to furnishing the information or giving the answer on the ground that it might incriminate the person.

Therefore, even in a circumstance where a police officer suspects that a person has breached the Order and requests their information, if the person objects to answering the question or if the police officer does not warn them that they can object to answering the question, then any information obtained from that person is inadmissible in criminal proceedings.

It is important to note that the section 114(3) is not discretionary in its terms, Section 114(3) states clearly that the evidence is inadmissible in criminal proceedings.

The effect of this is that it essentially makes most fines that have been issued by the police subject to possible legal challenge.

Essentially, the only enforceable fines under the Act are those where the police have investigated through other means, other than by questioning the person and gathered enough evidence to determine that the person is in breach of the Public Health Order. If that is the case, then the police officer can ask the person for their identity however this request can only be made for the purpose of issuing the person with a fine or court attendance notice and not to investigate or attempt to prove the offence against the person.

That is the inherent power under Section 99 of The Law (Enforcement Powers and Responsibilities) Act to request a person’s identity for the purpose of initiating proceeding against them. However, the High Court has made it clear that the powers in Section 99 cannot be used for investigative purposes.



A summary of the Public Health Order

To summarise how the Public Health Orders work:

1) Section 7 of the Public Health Act gives the Health Minister the power to make the Order.

2) The Health Minister issues an instrument pursuant to the power in Section 7 of the Public Health Act which contains the directions and orders.

3) Section 10 of the Public Health Act makes it a criminal offence not to comply with a direction that is made pursuant to an instrument under Section 7 of the Public Health Act.

4) Part 8 of the Public Health Act gives Powers for Enforcement of the Act (including enforcement of Section 10.

5) The only power given to police under Part 8 of the Act is under Section 112, and that is to ask a person to state his or her name and residential address if they suspect that the person is in breach of the Order.

6) However, under Section 114(3) if the person objects to providing their name and or address or they are not informed that they can object, then any answer that they give to the police is inadmissible in criminal proceedings.

What to do if you have been fined for breached the Public Health Order
You can elect to have your fine determined in Court where the Court will need to determine your matter according to law. The application of the law is not discretionary, and the Court must apply the law even if the end result does not align with the views of the decision maker.

Link: https://www.acfl.com.au/police-lockd...wers-unlawful/

[BMJ]

Report From Hold the Line protest at NSW and QLD border great success 1/10/21

From facebook account Informed Medical Options Party - IMOP 1/10/21

By Michael O'Neil, his takeaway is that there where 5,000 plus protestors and police where friendly and supportive of the protest.

Link: https://fb.watch/8n1PaS9Na9/

[leavesoftrees]

Life in Victoria under Daniel Andrews is getting worse

"More than 1 million Victorian workers – including faith leaders, MPs, judges and personal trainers – will be forced to prove they have had at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccination within a fortnight or be banned from workplaces, under new rules being enforced by the state government.

The vaccine mandate, believed to be one of the strictest in the world, has been welcomed by business groups but questioned by some health experts. It will mean that by late November only those who can prove they have been double vaccinated will be allowed to work on-site across a wide range of industries.

The mandate will affect up to 1.25 million workers who are authorised to leave home during lockdowns, including lawyers, journalists, professional athletes, Uber drivers and real estate agents.

Victorian Farmers Federation president Emma Germano said farmers already faced pressure with ongoing labour shortages caused by the pandemic as well as hurdles accessing the vaccine in regional areas. She said the mandate could exacerbate labour issues and cause “food shortages on the shelves”. ....



https://www.theage.com.au/politics/v...01-p58wgu.html

[Arcturian108]

More levity:
https://babylonbee.com/news/trump-le...rate-australia

[BMJ]

Posted by Innocent Warrior (here)
Interesting development re. ICAC and Gladys resignation. Clive Palmer said during one of his press conferences that she had an ICAC investigation pending and a lobbyist with Pfizer and AZ clients, who controls the Sydney Libs, directed her to push the double injections to protect her from the ICAC.

I’d be interested to see what Clive Palmer has to say about this, nothing yet as far as I can see. Craig Kelly seems pleased (head of Clive’s political party). Hmm, what is going on here, exactly? Anyone else have some insight on what’s going on backchannel here?

* * *

A nurse from a Melbourne hospital called into the 3AW radio station and reported that 20 people per hour are arriving at emergency with chest pains after receiving a COVID injection.

Tweet with audio clip of the nurse’s call: https://twitter.com/AussieVal10/stat...31265367498754

Radio show, call at 18 mins: https://omny.fm/shows/afternoons-wit...re&style=cover

More corruption, what an evil web they have woven, my o my.

DR. AH KAHN SYED: Docs from the court filings in the NSW Supreme Court case on mandatory vaccination

The lead vaccine researchers driving all government policy in Australia received $65,330,038 in government grants covering 2020-2021.

Grants of this size are unprecedented

[Innocent Warrior]

Direct link: https://twitter.com/reignitedemaust/...75550637576197

Monica is right and I’ll add to that a critical observation. IIRC it was NSW police commissioner that said the police will not be enforcing the mandate of having to be vaccinated to enter businesses, but that they will assist business owners who do. This will be a global approach, it’s been seen in the US already. I saw US police arrest a woman at what looked like a hockey ring and they were careful to add that they were there at the request of the owner, the woman was charged with trespassing. This is always their approach, they get other parties to do the dirty work so they don’t get their hands dirty.

They’re not enforcing it because they can’t.

Call their bluff.

Boycott any businesses who require information about your vaccination status.

[Mike Gorman]

Monica is absolutely right-throughout the world there are way more people declining this V.A.X than is being reported, they want us to think it is a stubborn minority, it isn't at all.
That is why they are so anxious, why they are all striving to get people to accept this.

[Arcturian108]

Australia's younger brother is mimicking Australia in most of the usual ways, including silly lockdowns and now protests:
https://www.theepochtimes.com/thousa...n_4028467.html

[BMJ]

Posted by Innocent Warrior (here)
Boycott any businesses who require information about your vaccination status.

This website is still under construction.

Businesses Unite Australia

About

Businesses Unite Australia was founded late August of 2021 by Kim Lea, wife, mother, and Nonna (grandmother) from New South Wales. She had started the Facebook group in the hopes to find businesses in her local area that would continue to serve the community without discrimination.

What started as a small facebook group quickly grew to a staggering 150,000 members in just a matter of days. Soon the requests for an online directory away from Facebook were starting to flood in, and so the process of bringing the vision to life began - her sole purpose to help make a difference.

Link: https://www.businessesuniteaustralia.com/

P.S. In regards to the business denying access to the premises based on whether you are vaccinated or not, wouldn't that be a form of discrimination no different than any other form of discrimination ?

[Ankle Biter]

Bruz: I'm resigning.

Oz: Don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=P2CoZAgae_Y

[DaveToo]

Posted by Ankle Biter (here)
Bruz: I'm resigning.

Oz: Don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=P2CoZAgae_Y

Perhaps they feel that if they can resign before they have been prosecuted they will be immune from any such future litigation?
Kind of like Covid immunity?

[Gemma13]

Was thinking the same thing. Job done. Get out now. Live the rest of their lives in luxury thanks to their handlers.
Fingers crossed on newbies.

[Innocent Warrior]

NSW Police Commissioner says officers won't force businesses to comply with vaccine passport

NSW Police Commissioner Mick Fuller said that officers under his command will not force private businesses to comply with any measures that the government plans to impose on unvaccinated citizens.

As Victoria Premier Daniel Andrews prepares to institute a vaccine mandate for all authorized workers, another Australian state is refusing to enforce the state’s vaccine passport mandate.

Earlier this week, the police commissioner of New South Wales refused to enforce the state’s vaccine passport mandate, stating that officers will not check anyone’s vaccination status in public venues. The move appears to go against efforts by the government to pass a mandate that would ban all unvaccinated people from gaining entry to restaurants and other public spaces until at least early December.
In recent weeks Australia has come under increasing scrutiny for its brutal enforcement of pandemic-related lockdowns and masking policies, as extensively reported by Rebel News.

NSW Police Commissioner Mick Fuller said that officers under his command will not force private businesses to comply with any measures that the government plans to impose on unvaccinated citizens.

“The role of police in terms of vaccine passports, we will not be walking through restaurants, cafes and pubs checking if people are double vaccinated,” he said, the Guardian reported.

Speaking on Sydney radio, the police chief said, “the police will assist restaurant owners and shop owners if they are refusing entry to someone — we’ll certainly respond to assist those people.”

However, Fuller’s remarks were later contradicted by NSW Health Minister Brad Hazzard, who remarked that “If the law says you have to be double vaccinated, then, of course, the police will enforce that, they have no choice but to enforce that.”

Hazzard also stated that businesses would not face fines if they allowed the entry of an unvaccinated person. When pressed on why businesses would even bother to enforce the vaccine passport mandate if they don’t face any consequences for refusing to enforce it, Hazzard fired back at the media for obsessing over the details.

Much like France, not too many Australian businesses are too keen on implementing the heavy-handed requirement on their customers, with many businesses waiting to see the exact details of the forthcoming public health orders expected to drop in the coming weeks.

Despite efforts to resist vaccine mandates, some companies like national airline Qantas, have announced a ban on unvaccinated persons on international flights.
“What needs to be remembered is that there are many, many businesses who will actually make it very clear that as at 1 December, if you haven’t been vaccinated, you won’t be welcome and I think the airlines have made that very clear,” said Hazzard. “There are a lot of other businesses saying the same thing and I think people need to understand that a balancing act had to be struck.”

See report for links: https://www.rebelnews.com/nsw_police...cine_passports

Ignore the contradictions, know your rights. A critical time coming. I implore all to remember this is a spiritual war and our minds are the battle ground.

[lunaflare]

This is a well known yoga studio in Byron Bay (said to be the yoga "hub"). I am dismayed but sadly hardly surprised to see this message sent via their online newsletter.

Makes me wonder whether small businesses receive sizeable subsidies for such (illegal/hazardous) decisions? Or is the mind control truly this strong?

Yoga teachers wearing masks has to be seen to be believed.



Hello, beautiful Creatures!

We are excited to practice together again! We are committed to holding space for our community while operating within the conditions set for yoga studios in NSW. NSW Health requires full vaccination of teachers and students in order for us to reopen. In the words of Dr Robert Svoboda, one of our wise mentors: first and foremost, please remain calm.

We have changed our opening date to Monday 11 October and will have a modified timetable that will build progressively as our teachers receive their second dose. Read below for information on memberships.

We respect everyone's choice regarding their health

We recognise that everyone has the right to make individual decisions on how they manage their own personal health, and that your decisions are valid and justifiable. We ask in return that you respect our decisions about how we manage the studio. We care deeply about the wellbeing of our teachers and students, and we wish to reopen in a safe and stress-free manner. Please do not turn up to practice without proof of double vaccination - this will be very stressful for our teachers to manage as they sign in class.

Masks are required upon entry and exit; please bring your own mask (we have a limited supply of masks for sale at the studio for $2). You must wear a mask in and around the studio unless you have written evidence of an exemption, but as per NSW government rules, you do not need to wear a face mask when you are doing strenuous exercise.



Membership

We know that some of you aren’t ready or yet able to rejoin us in studio. At this stage, we’ll keep all memberships and passes on hold until 1 December 2021, unless you tell us otherwise.

If you are ready to rejoin us on the mat in the studio, please bring proof of double vaccination, and come early to the studio or send us an email at info@creatureyoga.com.au so we can reactivate your membership.



Creature Online

We’ll continue to film new online-only and studio classes for those of you wanting to roll out your mats at home. Our online community is vibrant and we love helping you develop a home practice - join here: https://www.creatureyoga.com.au/online-timetable/

[Innocent Warrior]

See page 2 under the changes on Dec 1 heading: https://www.nsw.gov.au/sites/default...CT%20SHEET.pdf

[Innocent Warrior]

Reignite Democracy Australia: https://www.reignitedemocracyaustralia.com.au/about/

See their resources tab also, you will find medical doctors, lawyers, real media and other Australian human rights groups.

No fear. You’re incredible, truly outstanding human beings.

With love. xo

[leavesoftrees]

So pretty much from 1-12-21 all NSW citizens are treated equally regardless of vaccine status. I doubt that Daniel Andrews will follow suit, but we will see

Posted by Innocent Warrior (here)
See page 2 under the changes on Dec 1 heading: https://www.nsw.gov.au/sites/default...CT%20SHEET.pdf