Originally Posted by
Blackout
Missed the point of your statement?! You couldn't have found the point with a scanning electron microscope because you didn't make a statement, you posted two links that were entirely unrelated to your original contention that the introduction of a vaccine passport was against the Australian Constitution.
Now you've tossed another link at the wall, presumably hoping something will stick. Craig Kelly's private member's bill, no less.
The only references to the Australian Constitution in Kelly's bill are to various sub-sections of
s 51, the Section dealing with the Federal Parliament's legislative powers. He references
s 51(v) postal, telegraphic, telephonic, and other like services;
s 51(xiv) insurance, other than State insurance; also State insurance extending beyond the limits of the State concerned; and
s 51 (xx) foreign corporations, and trading or financial corporations formed within the limits of the Commonwealth. Care to join the dots on any of that?
Of course, Craig Kelly being Craig Kelly, in Section 3 Definitions, he ensures that the term 'vaccination' includes hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin, and vitamin D and zinc.
If you do want to take exception with actions that are 'against the Australian Constitution', then Section 8 of Kelly's bill should give you grounds for concern. That's the part of the bill where Kelly proposes that the Commonwealth override the States' constitutional right to legislate on health matters.
Separately, there's Section 10, Kelly's swag of prohibitions on businesses and voluntary organisations, including to a bizarre level of specificity a 'chess club or knitting group' (but interestingly not a 'bridge club or sewing group'). That Section would prohibit any business, say a private hospital, and any voluntary organisation, say a cancer care group, from restricting entry to their premises to any person who was not vaccinated. That's not troubling at all?