ACT - Public Health Amendment Bill 2021

20th January 2022
On 14 January 2022, the Informed Medical Options Party formally responded to the Legislative Assembly for the Australian Capital Territory regarding a proposed amendment to its Public Health Act 1997.  Having reviewed the draft amendment, we are of the view that this Bill has the potential to become the ‘thin edge’ of a nationwide ‘political wedge’ designed to bifurcate Australian society into disparate communities of vaccinated and unvaccinated people: with the further intention of removing from the latter group all of the human rights and civil liberties that have formed the very foundation of modern Australian.
The IMO Party is gravely concerned that other jurisdictions may adopt analogous provisions to this proposed legislation as part of a coordinated push for uniform national vaccine mandate legislation. The following document contains a précis of both the proposed legislation and our response to it.
1. Specific Criticisms of the Proposed Legislation   
No Requirement
IMOP’s principal objection to this Bill is that it is unnecessary. We note that the measures sought through this Bill by the ACT government to manage the overblown and already waning COVID-19 pandemic are not at all directed towards public health. Rather they are a transparent power grab by the executive arm of government which should be exposed for what it is and resisted accordingly. Ample legislation already exists for the ACT government to manage any health emergency including the current pandemic. The existing Public Health Act 1997 (ACT) and the Biosecurity Act 2015 (Commonwealth) provide sufficient legislative powers for the ACT government to manage any public health emergency in a proportionate way; i.e. in a way that respects human rights, economic rights, democratic rule of law and traditional Australian values around freedom and self-determination. The Biosecurity Act 2015 (Commonwealth) envisages that legitimate biosecurity hazards may be contained or managed through specific segregation of individuals in the short term to contain the emergence or spread of disease [1].  The nature and complexion of this Bill are entirely different. This is a Bill for the arbitrary detention and ongoing persecution of individuals whose only crime is a desire to maintain sovereignty over their own bodies. Such a desire should not constitute the basis of deliberate, state-orchestrated discrimination or criminalisation.
Division 6C1 Objects:
The stated objectives of this amendment read quite well on their own. If the detail of this Bill aligned with these objectives, it is likely that IMOP would have no objection to this legislation, however, such is not the case. In its current form, the Bill makes no serious attempt to achieve its own objectives. In fact, contrary to its stated objectives, this Bill comprehensively fails to include any provisions that limit executive power in favour of the human rights of ACT citizens.
Rather than establishing a “regulatory framework for protecting the public from risks to public health presented by COVID-19,” this Bill prescribes a single intervention to achieve its putative objective, i.e. ‘vaccination’ – without any nuance or flexibility. Such a dogmatic approach to managing public health is the reason why this legislation fails to meet its own objectives. It outlines an approach to public health which is authoritarian and unscientific.
A genuinely scientific approach to public health would not limit itself to a single instrument, ‘vaccination’, to achieve its goals but would consider all aspects of wellbeing as part of a risk management strategy that included a range of prophylactic and treatment therapies. A democratic approach to public health would properly balance the costs and benefits of any public health measures against the broader social and economic interests of society. This proposed legislation does neither of these things.
Division 6C2 COVID-19 Management Declaration:
This section makes provision for the imposition of all measures contemplated under the Act in the absence of any material threat. That’s right. According to the proposed legislation, an imagined or perceived threat is enough to justify all of the executive actions contemplated by this Bill. Critically, there is no review or appeal process specified that would allow individuals or groups affected to appeal or challenge such directions. Nor is there any scope for truly independent review of the validity of any threat assessment, or of the proportionality of any imposed directions or mandates to be externally examined.
The Bill enables the executive arm of government to make vaccine directions that restrict access to workplaces, types of work, business activities and physical locations – without creating any avenues for independent review or assessment. It also enables the use of digital track and trace technologies to geo-fence or location-control all persons within the Territory, according to their biological and medication status. The exercise of such powers by an executive can never be justified on the basis of a phantom or unproven threat.
This section also addresses the government’s obligations with regard to public consultation. Sadly, no meaningful consultation process is contemplated under this amendment. This section sets out a process whereby the Minister for Health asks the Chief Health Officer (CHO), an executive appointee, for an opinion on the appropriateness of any proposed COVID-19 management declarations. The parties confer and a decision is made. This cannot possibly count as consultation in any genuine or realistic way. Real public consultation includes transparent public engagement where, for example, the content of any conferring  between the CHO and the government is open to public scrutiny and the facts and evidence supporting any emergency declaration are publicly available and open to independent assessment and review.
Division 6C3 Ministerial Directions:
This section is of particular concern to IMOP as the provisions contained in it completely fail to account for the possibility that these powers could be abused to create an authoritarian form of governance by executive decree – one that could continue almost interminably based on Sec. 118P. IMOP strongly objects to the vesting of such powers in the executive branch of government without some form of regular, ongoing citizen review via a representative public committee. Under this proposed legislation, a minister’s belief or opinion regarding a possible health risk is sufficient for him/her to make any direction he or she wants regarding the conduct of activities, business or undertakings in the Territory. This section contains almost no limitation on the content of any ministerial direction, which is a level of authority that virtually invites abuses of power.
Further, in order for this section to be compatible with s28 of the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT), some evidence of the proportionality of health directives is required. For instance, before any directives are issued under this Act, there is an obligation to consider:
  • evidence that any direction is proportional to the risk;
  • evidence that the risk is real, and genuinely grave, having regard to actual hospitalisations and not case numbers;
  • evidence that the impact on society and the economy has been considered;
  • evidence that other less restrictive means of addressing the risk have been exhaustively considered and found to be inadequate;
  • mechanisms for challenge and revocation have been put in place
The powers conferred in this section of the Bill are fundamentally at odds with longstanding traditions of Australian public law, which ordinarily require not only a temporal restraint on emergency powers, but also that executive powers be limited to deciding the minutiae of matters already established by the legislature, with all of their attendant safeguards on democracy. It is not good practice to confer powers on an executive arm that enable it to make up rules as it goes along; especially rules that may have a ruinous impact on individuals’ lives. It is, however, the basic template for dictatorships.
Division 6C4 Chief Health Officer Directions:
As in the previous section, this part of the Bill delegates significant powers to the CHO (an unelected executive officer) without any mechanism for direct public oversight or challenge, other than a costly judicial review. Of particular concern to IMOP is the power ascribed to the CHO, a non-judicial bureaucrat, to incarcerate individuals (in 900-day blocks) for extended periods of time. This power is conferred without explicit parliamentary or independent public oversight. Under this proposed amendment, there is real potential for instances of arbitrary detention to be lawfully implemented in the ACT.
We note that the only oversight of the CHO’s executive authority offered in s118X is a requirement for him/her to confer with the health minister every 30 days. Even that requirement carries no sanction if such consultation does not occur. This is far from adequate. We note that bureaucratic appointees have a reputation (even an obligation) for cooperating with ministers and therefore, there is a real chance of collusion between elected and executive actors such that favourable advice may be tendered to the government by biased executive officers, which is used to justify and legitimise draconian directives without any public oversight. IMOP believes the public consultation and notice provisions of s118Y offer the public no security as no genuine consultation is even contemplated. It seems these provisions are designed to give a semblance of responsible, transparent governance, where none exists at all.
The powers conferred on an executive bureaucrat in this section are out of step with those that should apply in a liberal democracy. Instead, they are reminiscent of the powers exercised by bureaucrats in theocratic states or absolute monarchies.
Division 6C5 Vaccination Directions:
This section goes to the very heart of IMOP’s objections to this legislation. In this section of the Bill, an extraordinary scope of powers is invested in the executive function of government to require vaccination in order to:
  1. engage in particular work;
  2. work at a particular workplace;
  3. engage in a particular activity;
  4. access a particular place
without any countervailing protections or constraints. Normally in legislation that bestows such wide powers on ministers and executive appointees, there are extensive provisions limiting the use of those powers, as well as exhaustive processes for review and appeal. It is not enough that this Act may include such provisions in any subordinate regulations. Such measures need to be included in the legislation in accordance with longstanding principles of public law and good governance.  
Of particular concern to IMOP is the absence of any specificity as to the ‘vaccinations’ or treatments that may be brought within the scope of this Bill. If any medical treatment is to be imposed upon the public, some specificity as to the nature of the treatment, including its contents, its function, its efficacy, its safety, the integrity of its manufacturers, and mechanisms for mitigating the risks of any side effects associated with it, or damages available for harm caused by it, need to be spelt out in the legislation.
As mentioned above, IMOP is concerned that this proposed legislation comprehensively fails to achieve its objective to respect the dignity and human rights of people affected by it. There is no requirement in this proposed Act for either the Minister for Health or the CHO to consult with the medical community about actions they may take under this legislation. There is no facility for medical doctors to have any say in the scope, intent or application of this legislation. Nor is there any scope for individual doctors representing specific patients to appeal the application of the Act and its provisions.
The executive arm of the ACT Legislative Assembly is in no position to make orders mandating medications without examining any individual’s circumstances and taking them all into account. The prescription of any medical intervention should be considered on a case-by-case basis, with an emphasis on minimally intrusive interventions sufficient to achieve the objectives of personal and public health and the efficient functioning of society – anything else is unscientific and unethical.
IMOP can only conclude that the intention of this legislation is something other than what is claimed in the Objectives. This legislation has a singular focus on vaccination, not Public Health. In section after section of this Bill, it is clear that this is a mandatory vaccination Act and nothing more. There is no intent to protect the public from risks to their health, because there is no mechanism for balancing the risk of vaccination against the threat of disease. There is no mention of vaccine damage or side effects, or even vaccine efficacy in the context of public health. The very terms public health and risks to public health are not even defined.
2. General Criticisms of the Proposed Legislation   
Breach of Medical Rights
The Bill allows for the imposition of arbitrary, ongoing transgressions of human and civil rights on a scale hitherto unimagined in modern Australia. It provides for the forced segregation, isolation, medication and exclusion from public life of individuals, and even the criminalisation of people who fail to comply with executive health directions that may be unnecessary, dangerous, experimental or disproportionate. Incredibly, such directions can be based on nothing more than fear and conjecture, including perceived risks of biological threats arising from computer modelling or other such speculative and fallible mechanisms.
It is the view of the IMO Party that the decision to take a medical treatment or not should vest exclusively with the individual in question and their doctor. Personal medical treatments are not a matter in which governments should have any say, whatsoever. Government bureaucrats should never enjoy what is effectively a ‘power of medical attorney’ over an entire jurisdiction. 
To suggest, as this Bill does, that the government should be ‘the third wheel’ in a person’s relationship with their doctor, is absolutely unacceptable. We maintain that doctors should be free to provide individualised medical advice to their patients without fear of penalty; and individuals should be free to pursue all aspects of civic life without a condition precedent that they accept into their bodies treatments that may or may not be safe, that they may or may not want, but that government ministers and public bureaucrats have decreed on the basis of backroom deals with pharmaceutical companies that lack any transparency and accountability.
Breach of Human Rights
There are numerous rights affected by the directions set out in Sec 6C5, such as the right to free and informed consent, and the right to refuse experimental medical treatment. The Bill would also breach the provisions of various human rights instruments in force in Australia because it seeks to impose a medical procedure on one person for the sake of another. But the most important right affected by ‘vaccine’ mandates may be said to be the right to life. The right to life may be directly affected by any form of adverse reaction resulting from forced medication; but it is also limited by a requirement to be vaccinated in order to work. By preventing a person from working, or only allowing them to work on the condition that they take a prescribed ‘vaccination’, the right to earn a livelihood (and therefore, to live) is severely attenuated.
The right to work has been acknowledged under Commonwealth law, as an important aspect of the right to life. In the case: Olga Tellis vs Bombay Municipal Corporation (1986) AIR 180, the Indian Supreme Court found that the ‘right to livelihood’ is borne out of the ‘right to life’ as no person can live without the means of living, that is, the means of livelihood. The court stated that: “… a right to life does not mean, merely that life cannot be extinguished ... That is but one aspect of the right to life. An equally important facet of the right to life is the right to livelihood because no person can live without the means of livelihood.”
Unfortunately, this Bill speaks cynically about respecting human rights while explicitly providing for the exclusion of unvaccinated people from every aspect of society so as to reduce them to a condition of perdition, eligible for nothing more than basic food and medical care. It seeks to degrade every aspect of the happiness, wellbeing, economic security, family life and civic participation of any person who refuses government mandated medical interventions. By intent, this legislation is fundamentally inhumane.
As well as being fundamentally inhumane, the Bill is also coercive, insofar as it imposes economic pressure on unvaccinated individuals to accept medical treatments or lose their business or employment. This constitutes coercion and practical compulsion that subverts legally valid consent. Legally valid consent can occur only “in the absence of undue pressure, coercion or manipulation”. It is for this reason that coercion is recognised as a crime in many states of Australia. With the prospect of being unable to work, operate a business or even move about in society hanging over a person’s head, any choice a person may make with regard to ‘vaccine’ compliance can hardly be considered free and informed.
Lastly, there is a real prospect that this legislation is in breach of Section 51 (xxiiiA) of the Australian Constitution, which forbids civil conscription in relation to the provision of medical and dental services. This Bill creates a form of practical compulsion (which will, as we understand it, be facilitated by Commonwealth agencies) that is contrary to this proscription. That is, the Bill establishes a regime in which economic pressure is applied in order to coerce individuals to perform an otherwise involuntary service.
A Repeat of Past Crimes
This Bill seeks to give a permanent authority to the executive arm of the ACT government to interfere with individuals’ rights to bodily integrity and medical freedom. It creates a framework for future governments to leverage potential biological threats as a means of imposing more lockdowns and emergency rule by executive decree, i.e. dictatorship. The prospect of near permanent states of emergency and rule by executive decree presents a very disturbing threat to liberal democratic traditions that characterise modern Australia and for which our previous legislators and civilians alike have fought.
We note that this Bill closely resembles the now infamous colonial legislation: “the Protection of Aboriginals and Restriction on the Sale of Opium Act 1897 (QLD).” For over 70 years that Act legalised the internment and separation of First Australian families in Queensland, ostensibly for reasons of health and ‘the greater good.’ It stripped them of their bodily sovereignty and rights to full citizenship, amongst other things. This same Act formed the basis of South Africa’s apartheid regime and gave rise to what we now know as the Stolen Generation in Australia. 
As Australia Day 2022 approaches, we find it an intolerable irony that our politicians will join in united chorus to express their ‘profound regret’ and ‘sorrow’ over what was done to our indigenous brethren, while at the very same time reimposing laws enabling exactly the same biological discrimination, segregation, invasive government control and interference with a family life that defined the abuse of First Australians that they are now so sorry for.
Sorry Means You Don’t Do it Again
What happened to the First Australians is an appalling stain on our nation’s history, for which we have sought atonement with a National Apology and annual statements from parliaments around the country recognising the harms done to Aboriginal people under the guise of protecting them. How can the ACT government be so blind to history that it is prepared to repeat the very same atrocities in 2022 that have benighted our history since the beginning of white settlement? A failure to recognise the historical analogy between this proposed legislation and the laws of our colonial past demonstrates a complete lack of empathy, remorse or understanding of what was done to our First Nations people.
When one considers the many civil rights achievements of our various legislatures, from the inclusion of so many ‘attributes’ in equality of opportunity legislation, to the introduction of human rights protections in the ACT, Queensland and Victoria, it is astounding that the persecution contemplated under this Bill even merits consideration by our lawmakers. Should this Bill pass, we envisage that it too will form the basis of a future apology, with those who support it being held accountable for the damage they will have caused to children and families.
The National Apology offered to all Aboriginal Australians by Kevin Rudd in 2007 admitted that division and segregation of any people is wrong; stripping human beings of their right to participate in civic life is wrong; as is interfering with their right to bodily autonomy, freedom of movement, pursuit of vocation and participation in family life. By repeating the legislative crimes of the past, this Bill undermines the sincerity of the National Apology offered to indigenous Australians and sets us up as a nation to repeat a past we could should? all move beyond – if we choose to.
It is the view of the IMO Party that this Bill represents a very insincere attempt to regulate the health and wellbeing of ACT residents. It has very little to do with managing the waning SARS-CoV-2 outbreak. Instead, it appears to be a brazen attempt by the current ACT government to secure an ongoing system of undemocratic executive rule.
Colonisation of the Human Body
Despite the low levels of hospitalisation and mortality associated with COVID-19, governments continue to press on with mass injection and booster programs. Could this be because they are contractually committed to rolling out a defined number of jabs, irrespective of any disease trajectory in Australia? We can only guess the answer since the relevant contracts are not publicly available [2].
This raises an important point about corporate capture regulatory bodies and executive reliance on industry-linked expert advice. Currently there are over 200 COVID-19 vaccines under development using a variety of technologies from traditional adenoviruses and inactivated cellular vaccines, to particle-based vaccines that use protein subunits and nano-particulate adjuvants to stimulate an immune response, as well as synthetic RNA and DNA vaccines that code various cellular components to produce specific proteins and amino acids.
In the Pfizer Comirnaty vaccine, messenger RNA is used to instruct cellular cytoplasm to produce the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. In DNA-based vaccines, mRNA can be used to reprogram cellular DNA to express a wide range of proteins and amino acids using reverse transcriptase enzymes (retroviruses). Right now, there is extensive research and investment being ploughed into such treatments because they offer drug companies the possibility of securing intellectual property protection for the biological effects of their products, post treatment, including the development patentable technologies and processes. For example, certain recombinant RNA and DNA vaccines currently under development will allow for the creation of complementary DNA (cDNA) in the body.
According to determination handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2012 in the case, Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics Inc., complementary DNA is patentable technology. A similar position appears to have been taken by the Australian High Court in the 2015 case, D'Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc. We note that by characterising such treatments as ‘vaccines,’ the pharmaceutical industry can market them with full liability protection against any negative consequences while still capturing all of the profits from IP protection.
An uncritical acceptance of these technologies and mandated deployment of them in states and territories leaves open the possibility of foreign commercial organisations, in partnership with foreign state actors including Chinese, U.S. and European governments, to assume proprietary ownership of various biological processes occurring in the bodies of Australian citizens.
In the future, ownership of these processes could limit the rights of Australians to access alternative medical technologies or treatments in line with the intellectual property rights and licensing agreements associated with these technologies. The idea that such technologies would be forced onto otherwise healthy Australians because of a perceived threat of disease promoted by industry-aligned ‘expert advisors’ and complicit public health officials is nothing short of abhorrent.
3. Summary of the Proposed Legislation  
Australian Capital Territory Public Health Amendment Act 2021 – a synopsis:
Objects—Part 6C
The objects of this part are:
  (a)     to establish a regulatory framework for protecting the public from risks to public health presented by COVID-19, which may not present a public health emergency; and
  (b)     to ensure that directions or guidelines made under this part
      (i) recognise and respect the rights, inherent dignity and needs of people affected by decisions or actions made under the directions or guidelines; and
      (ii) are consistent with human rights, while still achieving the object set out in paragraph (a), and subject only to reasonable limits that are demonstrably justified in accordance with the Human Rights Act 2004, section 28.
Division 6C.2
COVID-19 management declaration—general
           (1)   The Executive may make a COVID-19 management declaration if they have reasonable grounds for believing that COVID-19 presents a serious risk to public health.
           (3)   For the purposes of the Act …. it does not matter that the rate of community transmission of COVID-19 in the ACT is low or that there have been no cases of COVID-19 in the ACT, either at all or for a period of time [a declaration may still be made].
           (4)   Nothing in this part prevents the Minister for Health (the minister) from taking any other action under this Act in relation to COVID-19.
118P          COVID-19 management declaration—duration
           (1)   A COVID-19 management declaration:
                   (a)    comes into force immediately and
                   (b)    remains in force for up to six months.
           (2)   The Executive may extend a COVID-19 management declaration [indefinitely] for periods of six months at a time.
118Q         COVID-19 management declaration—consultation and public notice
           (1)   In making or extending a COVID-19 management declaration, the Executive must ask for advice from the Chief Health Officer about the proposed declaration and take into account any advice given.
           (2)   The Executive must, within seven days of making a COVID-19 management declaration, notify the public of any advice given under subsection (1).
Division 6C.3
Ministerial directions—general
           (1)   While a COVID-19 management declaration is in force, the minister may make directions including:
                   (a)    preventing or limiting entry into the ACT or an area in the ACT;
                   (b)    regulating gatherings, whether public or private;
                   (c)    requiring the use of personal protective equipment;
                   (d)    regulating the carrying on of activities, businesses or undertakings;
                   (e)    requiring the provision of information (including information about the identity of a person), or the production or keeping of documents.
118S          Ministerial directions—duration
           (1)   A ministerial direction takes effect immediately and may remain in force for up to 90 days
           (2)   The minister may extend the period for which a ministerial direction is to remain in force for 90 days at a time [indefinitely].
118T          Ministerial directions—consultation and public notice
           (1)   In making or extending a ministerial direction, the minister must:
                   (a)    ask for advice from the Chief Health Officer
                   (b)    consult the Chief Minister; and
                   (c)    consult the Human Rights Commissioner.
           (2)   However, if it is an emergency, the minister:
                   (a)    need not consult the commissioner under subsection (1) (c); but
                   (b)    instead consult with him/her later about how the direction or extension is consistent with human rights.
           (7)   A failure by the minister to comply with subsection (2) (b), (3) or (6) does not affect the validity of the ministerial direction.
Division 6C.4
Chief Health Officer directions—general
           (1)   While a COVID-19 management declaration is in force, the Chief Health Officer may make directions in relation to the following:
                   (a)    a requirement for the medical examination or testing of a person;
                   (b)    the segregation or isolation of a person (a segregation or isolation direction);
                   (c)    a requirement for the provision of information (including information about the identity of a person), or the production or keeping of documents.
118V          Chief Health Officer directions—additional matters for segregation or isolation directions
           (1)   A segregation or isolation direction can require a person to be segregated or isolated for up to 14 days on each occasion the direction applies to the person.
           (2)   However, a segregation or isolation direction may require a person to be segregated or isolated for longer than 14 days if the person:
                   (a)    tests positive to COVID-19; or
                   (b)    has not been tested for COVID-19 as required under the direction; or
                   (c)    has not returned a negative result for COVID-19 when tested as required under the direction.
118W         Chief Health Officer directions—duration
A Chief Health Officer direction can last for up to 90 days and may be extended [indefinitely] for periods of 90 days at a time.
118X          Chief Health Officer directions—review         
           (2)   Each direction the Chief Health Officer makes must be reviewed by the minister each 30 days to ensure it is still justified.
           (4)   A failure by the Chief Health Officer to comply with subsection (2) does not affect the validity of the Chief Health Officer direction.
118Y          Chief Health Officer directions—consultation and public notice
           (2)   In making directions, the Chief Health Officer must consult the Human Rights Commissioner about whether the direction is consistent with human rights.
           (3)   However, if the direction is urgent, the Chief Health Officer:
                   (a)    need not consult the Human Rights Commissioner at the time of making the direction and instead consult him/her as soon as practicable after it is made.
           (8)   A failure by the Chief Health Officer to comply with requirement does not affect the validity of the Chief Health Officer direction.
Division 6C.5
Vaccination directions—general
           (1)   While a COVID-19 management declaration is in force, the Executive may make a direction (a vaccination direction) in relation to 1 or more of the following:
                   (a)    a requirement for a person to be vaccinated against COVID‑19 to do any of the following:
                             (i)    engage in particular work;
                            (ii)    work at a particular workplace;
                            (iii)    engage in a particular activity;
                           (iv)    access a particular place.
                   (b)    a requirement for a person to prevent or restrict another person who is not vaccinated against COVID-19 from doing a thing mentioned in paragraph (a);
                   (c)    a requirement for the provision of information (including information about the identity of a person), or the production or keeping of documents.
Note:     Power to make a vaccination direction includes power to make different provisions in relation to different matters or different classes of matters, and to make a direction that applies differently by reference to stated exceptions or factors (see Legislation Act, s 48).
           (5)   A vaccination direction must not prevent or limit a person from being able to obtain an essential good or service such as access to food and medical treatment
Division 6C.7  
Miscellaneous Offence—failure to comply with direction
           (1)   A person commits an offence if:
                   (a)    a direction made under this part is in force; and
                   (b)    the person fails to comply with the direction.
           (2)   Strict liability applies to subsection (1) (a).
           (3)   Exemptions apply where there is a conflict between directions under this Act and the Criminal Code.
118ZP        Compensation — Part 6C
Compensation is not payable by the Territory in relation to any loss or damage suffered by a person as a result of anything done in the exercise of a function under this part.
4. Conclusion
This Bill is a very dishonest attempt by the ACT government to put into place a piece of legislation that is beyond anything ever contemplated by a government in Australia in terms of its disregard for human and civil rights. The proposed Act is profoundly undemocratic and out of step with our values and traditions. It represents an existential threat to the future of Australia as a free country.
Whatever this Bill represents, it is not what our ANZACs fought for.

Join our Party

Authorised by M. O'Neill, Health Environment Accountability Rights Transparency (HEART) Party, Nulla Nulla Creek Rd, Bellbrook NSW 2440
© 2024 HEART Party |  Built by
{{ item.message }}