Mission Statement
The primary aim of this class action is to hold authority to account. The state parliament enacted legislation that was and is unconstitutional, and delegated authority where the power to delegate such an authority did not and cannot exist in law.
The secondary aim of this court action is to empower a grass roots collective powerful enough to challenge Government overreach. In Queensland alone, there are approximately 2.8 million people in the workforce. We will naturally want to reach the 4-10% of people that were terminated/laid off/suspended/stood down, equating to (conservatively) more than 100k people.
Anyone working in Queensland however, has ‘standing’ in this court action because the Government overreach had operation on them too. We can aim for very large court action that is unprecedented, because the overreach was unprecedented, and the overreach has not ceased and nor should we expect it to cease anytime soon.
We must challenge the notion that the parliament may pass any legislation it chooses, without going through firstly the checks and balances that have served the Commonwealth and its states since the Commonwealth’s inception, namely through the Governor as part of the executive branch of Queensland who’s express duty it is to interrogate any and all legislation for Constitutionality, if not morality and ethics. Secondly, the parliament may not pass any legislation it chooses, and laws must reflect the wants and needs of its constituents and the Constitution and the principles contained not just in its text and structure, but in its ideology.
Without checks and balances, what we have is parliamentary supremacy, the destruction of the rule of law, and tyranny. As Dixon J said in Shrimpton v Commonwealth ( 1945 HCA) :
“[C]omplete freedom from legal control , is a quality which cannot … be given under our Constitution to a discretion , if, as would be the case , it is capable of being exercised for purposes, or given an operation , which would or might go outside the power from which the law or regulation conferring the discretion derives its force”
In Sharp v Wakefield, it was said that when something is to be done within the discretion of an authority, it is to be done “according to law “. It is to be legal and regular, not arbitrary, vague or fanciful. The discretion must be “exercised within the limit, to which an honest man competent to the discharge of his office ought to confine himself”
Click here to read more about Legal Action in effect
Practicalities of the Legal Action
Goal: Court Action either by way of:
1. Appeal of an administrative decision (appellate jurisdiction)
2. Original jurisdiction via Originating Motion