In June 1998, the Howard administration appeared to be facing serious problems. Despite returning the budget to the black in just two years, introducing serious labor relations reforms, and undertaking the Australian radical maritime union, all intentions as if Howard was just the second prime minister in history. I saw it for the purpose. In the midst of the Great Depression, the 1931 trade union James Scullin took office for his first term.
Following the Port Arthur massacre, many conservative bases were still angry with gun control reforms. The Australian countryside was still in a difficult situation.
Wik’s decision by the High Court, stating that idyllic reese does not necessarily extinguish indigenous titles, made the Howard government’s life even more difficult. His attempt to amend the Native Title Act to overcome the decision was thwarted in the Senate, and the Left shouted racism.
In addition, the Australian Labor Party (ALP) comfortably won the Queensland elections that year, with many former coalition voters going to one country.
But as we know, John Howard was a convicted politician and decided to make history for the right reason. He needed something to inspire the conservatives.
He ran for the 1998 election and proposed introducing the Goods and Services Tax (GST) just five years after John Hughson was defeated by the Labor Party’s full-scale anti-GST horror campaign.
He knew there was another massive horror campaign, but that didn’t discourage him. Contrary to odds and polls, the coalition was returned and John Howard became our second longest prime minister.
The Morrison administration is now aware that it is in a similar position, lagging behind polls and losing its conservative foundation.
For this reason, Scott Morrison really only blames himself. He has to do something to rejuvenate that foundation, and if he has the will he can.
He must listen to the growing voice around Australia and intervene to overturn state law on mandatory vaccination.
As this correspondent and others claim, the international treaty ratified by Australia is non-delegated, even in alleged “emergency” situations, including the right to informed consent for vaccination. Deletion of rights is prohibited.
This prohibition includes any form of coercion that imposes mandatory medical or pharmaceutical services on an individual, including vaccination. Among these treaties is the 1947 Nuremberg Code, which is often quoted.
More recently, for example, Article 6 (1) of the UNESCO Universal Declaration of Life Ethics and Human Rights (2005) stipulates:
Prophylactic, diagnostic, and therapeutic medical interventions are informed and performed only if there is prior free informed consent of the party concerned. Consent must be expressly given as necessary and may be revoked at any time by interested parties for any reason without any disadvantage or prejudice.
Over the years, the federal government has successfully relied on diplomatic power under Article 51 of the Constitution to support the enactment of numerous legislation. The ban on the construction of Franklin Dam is one such example.
Therefore, the Morrison Government can enact legislation banning forced vaccines in accordance with Australia’s ratification of several international legal documents, thereby enforcing these documents.
NS Professor Gabriel Moens and Professor August Zimmermann argue:
By ratifying an international agreement, the federal government can enact domestic legislation to incorporate compulsory ban vaccination under foreign rights. The law must meet the requirements for specificity and suitability. However, all that is required to meet this requirement is Australia to conclude an international agreement. In the Tasmanian Dam case and subsequent cases, the High Court said:[t]The existence of an international character or international concern is established by Australia’s participation in a treaty or treaty. “
In other words, the fact that Australia has ratified the treaty itself is sufficient to meet the requirements of an “international character”.
As Moens and Zimmermann argue, “more Judge Haydon, Federal Tax Secretary Pape v, said:[t]A treaty or commitment does not have to have the precision needed to establish a legally enforceable agreement in common law, but it does need to avoid undue generality.
In addition, Article 109 of the Constitution provides that federal law must supersede state law to the extent of contradiction. State law is considered invalid to the extent of such inconsistencies.
In this regard, Moens and Zimmermann quoted Sir Harry Gibbs, the former Chief Justice of the High Court, explaining the potential for diplomatic power, along with the normal operation of the Constitution’s s109. To annihilate the state’s legislative power in virtually every respect.
Therefore, the Morrison Government has the authority to revoke the state’s “health orders” that require vaccination, following the long-accepted approach of the High Court.
To be constitutionally valid, such bills must rely on diplomatic power in accordance with Australia’s accession to international treaties, thereby giving them effect.
This reliance on international law should be evident in the preamble to the bill, which overturns the state’s ability to create “health orders” that impose these vaccine obligations.
John Howard once said that right is better than popularity. Many people voted for him just for this belief, even if they didn’t agree with them about everything.
The similarities between 1998 and the present are amazing. Morrison has the tools at his disposal to regain a conservative foundation, but all these obstacles are Morrison himself.
If he really believes that the vaccine shouldn’t be obligatory, he should do something about it.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.