Australian Government claims it does not owe duty of care to the whole Australian people

Covid Vaccine Class Action - government response denying that they have a case to answer.

It is not for kings, O Lemuel,
it is not for kings to drink wine,
or for rulers to crave strong drink,
lest they drink and forget what is decreed,
depriving all the oppressed of justice.
...
Open your mouth for those with no voice,
for the cause of all the dispossessed.
Open your mouth, judge righteously,
and defend the cause of the poor and needy.
Proverbs 31:4-5,8-9

With great power comes great responsibility - Spider-Man

A group of vaccine injured people, led by Melissa McCann, is suing the Australian Government and the decision makers responsible for the Covid mRNA experimental injections: Brendan Murphy, formerly Secretary of Health and Aged Care, John Skerrit, formerly head of the TGA now chair of a Pharmaceutical industry body, Paul Kelly formerly the Chief Medical Offical, and the Federal Health Minister GregHunt, are being sued for causing the vaccine injuries, for which the government has provided very little support.

The whole adult Australian population was coerced to take these experimental medications, under the duress of job mandates and life mandates prohibiting entry to bottle shops, cafes, and other places. It was indeed a Nuremberg level coercion event: all you need to have to breach part one of the the Nuremberg code is coercion and a medical experiment.

The Government has denied it is responsible, and is trying to get the case thrown out of court. Their main argument is as follows:

First, the class of persons to whom the duty would be owed could not be confined within reasonable limits. It would amount to an indeterminate duty to the whole Australian population. It is well established that “difficulty of confining the class of persons to whom a duty may be owed within reasonable limits” is a reason against imposing a duty of care. The spectre of “liability in an indeterminate amount for an indeterminate time to an indeterminate class” should be avoided. In the personal injury context, indeterminacy is “an important control mechanism or salient feature”.

It is quite obvious that the heads of these organisations have as their responsibility the entire population of Australia; the whole population is in their hands, so to speak, and that is the very definition of their duty of care.

This definition of their duty of care is certainly not indeterminate or boundless, or beyond reasonable limits: if the applicants in the court case were people from Zogistan claiming that because the vaccines were given in Australia first, and that because the Zogistanese government followed the example of the TGA that the TGA was therefore responsible for Zogistanese vaccine injuries and not the ZDA (the Zogistanese Drug Authority obviously), that would certainly be outside of reasonable limits.

But the TGA is demonstrably responsible for drug authorisation for the whole of Australia. If they deny a drug (such as ivermectin, a perfectly good treatment for Covid) no one in Australia is allowed to use it and no Doctor is allowed to prescribe it and no chemist in Australia is allowed to fulfil the prescription if a Doctor does decide.

And the Health Department and the other bodies are responsible for Federal Health — i.e. the whole of Australia, all the people of all the States and Territories. That obviously means these organisations owe a duty of care to the whole of Australia.

If this is found by the judge presiding the case not to be so, then these organisations have abrogated their authority and should be henceforth ignored as irrelevant, harmful, and compromised. Because if they owe no duty of care, therefore they have no authority. Their authority is directly proportional to their duty of care: their very existence depends on the idea that they are allowed to limit or recommend the use of certain medications or treatments because it is (hypothetically) for the good of the whole Australian population.

I wonder if a lawsuit denying the authority of the TGA, the Federal Health Minister, the Department of Health and Aged Care might follow if this Vaccine Injury case is denied for the spurious reason that they owe no duty of care to the whole Australian populace?

If the Government (and the leaders of the Government) owe no duty of care, then they have admitted they have no authority, and are due no obedience nor respect from the Australian people, and are in effect contravening the constitution by existing: because medical conscription is not allowed (section 51(xxiiiA) of the Australian Constitution).

If they have no duty of care, they have essentially admitted that they are neither useful, safe, nor effective.

It would indeed be a diabolical result if their duty of care is denied, and I believe that it will ultimately mean the end of Federal Health in Australia: a captain of a ship owes a duty of care to everyone on board that ship. A driver of a car owes a duty of care to everyone in the car. A principal of a school owes a duty of care to every student and teacher at that school. A person who makes and sells bottles of olive oil owes a duty of care to everyone who buys and eats that olive oil. No one will buy the olive oil ever again, ultimately, if someone eats it and dies, and then the manufacturer denies responsibility. This can certainly happen to governments, and has in the past, and will in the future.

If these bodies have no duty of care to every single person in Australia, the very people they in another breath claim to have a right to decide on behalf of, then they no longer have any legitimacy at all. The social contract is completely broken, even by their claim in this court case to have no duty of care.

Indeed, the very legitimacy of the whole Australian health system is called into question simply by this legal argument: it is not just words on a page that are being manipulated here. The heart of the issue is that a government that does not build on justice, does not have a right to rule, and will ultimately be brought down by the will of the people.

Ultimately God’s justice will decree that the houses of those who build on sand will come crashing down. Eventually, those leaders who build their houses on sand will be able to deny responsibility no longer, and everything they have built will be destroyed, for they didn’t build on the foundation of God’s justice, but decided to further their own selfish advantage and rejoiced in power instead of serving those they were called to serve.

That is, the whole Australian population.

https://www.covidvaxclassaction.com.au/covid-vaccine-class-action-3

Covid vaccine injured face tense wait over vital decision on whether their class action can proceed

Photo by Tingey Injury Law Firm on Unsplash