"The company will require all staff to be fully vaccinated by the end of
November to gain entry to any company location, citing “the health and
well-being of all staff and the broader community” as the reason for the
decision."
https://7news.com.au/lifestyle/health-wellbeing/spc-becomes-first-australian-company-to-make-covid-19-vaccine-mandatory-for-employees-c-3598663

Other mandates have been made by the Government but this is the 1st in
Aus by a company for COVID. It will be interesting what SPCs legal
liability if an employee suffers an adverse reaction or if it is
actually legal at all.

On 05-Aug-21 7:45 am, Dechucka wrote:
> "The company will require all staff to be fully vaccinated by the end of
> November to gain entry to any company location, citing “the health and
> well-being of all staff and the broader community” as the reason for the
> decision."
> https://7news.com.au/lifestyle/health-wellbeing/spc-becomes-first-australian-company-to-make-covid-19-vaccine-mandatory-for-employees-c-3598663
>
>
> Other mandates have been made by the Government but this is the 1st in
> Aus by a company for COVID. It will be interesting what SPCs legal
> liability if an employee suffers an adverse reaction or if it is
> actually legal at all.

In Victoria, employers and employees are subject to the Occupational
Health and Safety Act 2004.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdb/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ohasa2004273/

Part 3 discusses the general duties relating to health and safety.

I think the company would have a strong argument that it is required to
ensure, as far as practicable, that people entering its establishments
are not exposing others to Covid-19.

Opponents of vaccination requirements like to characterise this as an
issue relating to freedom of choice, but the other side of that coin is
the freedom of other people not to be exposed to preventable illness. In
this regard, it should be noted that vaccinations do not always take,
and a vaccinated person may still be vulnerable to illness.

It would not surprise me if there end up being some court cases over this.

Sylvia

Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote
> Dechucka wrote

>> "The company will require all staff to be fully vaccinated by the end of
>> November to gain entry to any company location, citing “the health and
>> well-being of all staff and the broader community” as the reason for the
>> decision."
>> https://7news.com.au/lifestyle/health-wellbeing/spc-becomes-first-australian-company-to-make-covid-19-vaccine-mandatory-for-employees-c-3598663
>> Other mandates have been made by the Government but this is the 1st in
>> Aus by a company for COVID. It will be interesting what SPCs legal
>> liability if an employee suffers an adverse reaction or if it is actually
>> legal at all.
>
> In Victoria, employers and employees are subject to the Occupational
> Health and Safety Act 2004.
>
> http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdb/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ohasa2004273/
>
> Part 3 discusses the general duties relating to health and safety.
>
> I think the company would have a strong argument that it is required to
> ensure, as far as practicable, that people entering its establishments are
> not exposing others to Covid-19.
>
> Opponents of vaccination requirements like to characterise this as an
> issue relating to freedom of choice, but the other side of that coin is
> the freedom of other people not to be exposed to preventable illness. In
> this regard, it should be noted that vaccinations do not always take, and
> a vaccinated person may still be vulnerable to illness.

And we have had quarantine laws for centurys.

> It would not surprise me if there end up being some court cases over this.

Yep, there will always be vexatious litigant fools like you and your ilk.

On 5/08/2021 10:31 am, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 05-Aug-21 7:45 am, Dechucka wrote:
>> "The company will require all staff to be fully vaccinated by the end
>> of November to gain entry to any company location, citing “the health
>> and well-being of all staff and the broader community” as the reason
>> for the decision."
>> https://7news.com.au/lifestyle/health-wellbeing/spc-becomes-first-australian-company-to-make-covid-19-vaccine-mandatory-for-employees-c-3598663
>>
>>
>> Other mandates have been made by the Government but this is the 1st in
>> Aus by a company for COVID. It will be interesting what SPCs legal
>> liability if an employee suffers an adverse reaction or if it is
>> actually legal at all.
>
> In Victoria, employers and employees are subject to the Occupational
> Health and Safety Act 2004.
>
> http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdb/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ohasa2004273/
>
>
> Part 3 discusses the general duties relating to health and safety.
>
> I think the company would have a strong argument that it is required to
> ensure, as far as practicable, that people entering its establishments
> are not exposing others to Covid-19.

I agree that Companies under WHS have responsibilities but if there are
adverse reactions are they also responsible. The flippant argument would
be that if the employees don't like it they can quit but that seems
fundamentally unfair to me as there is a power discrepancy.
If it is allowed should flu vaccines also be compulsory?
>
> Opponents of vaccination requirements like to characterise this as an
> issue relating to freedom of choice, but the other side of that coin is
> the freedom of other people not to be exposed to preventable illness. In
> this regard, it should be noted that vaccinations do not always take,
> and a vaccinated person may still be vulnerable to illness.

That of course is another problem in that having a 'vaccinated
work-site' may mean that complacency sets in and actions that we know
work like personal hygiene, mask wearing, not going to work when you
have symptoms etc aren't adhered to as strictly
>
> It would not surprise me if there end up being some court cases over this.

I think it will

snip
>> Opponents of vaccination requirements like to characterise this as an
>> issue relating to freedom of choice, but the other side of that coin
>> is the freedom of other people not to be exposed to preventable
>> illness. In this regard, it should be noted that vaccinations do not
>> always take, and a vaccinated person may still be vulnerable to illness.
>
> And we have had quarantine laws for centurys.

Those are governmental laws based on constitutional law not a Company
putting in conditions.

>
>> It would not surprise me if there end up being some court cases over
>> this.
>
> Yep, there will always be vexatious litigant fools like you and your ilk.

You feel that forced vaccination is morally right? I don't.
IF something goes wrong with the vaccination who has responsibility?
Will the conditions also apply to the workers families?

On 05-Aug-21 11:10 am, Dechucka wrote:

>
> I agree that Companies under WHS have responsibilities but if there are
> adverse reactions are they also responsible

I don't believe so. One can always find situations in which a reasonable
health and safety requirement has an unintended consequence.

For example, people are required to wear hard-hats on building sites,
but doing so makes them slightly taller. An object that might have
missed them completely otherwise could impact the top of the hat,
imparting a lateral force to the head the breaks the neck. In such a
situation, of course, the employer would probably be liable anyway, but
not specifically because the accident would have been avoided if the hat
had not been worn as required.

Sylvia.

Defucka puked:
=============
>
> > I think the company would have a strong argument that it is required to
> > ensure, as far as practicable, that people entering its establishments
> > are not exposing others to Covid-19.
>
> I agree that Companies under WHS have responsibilities but if there are
> adverse reactions are they also responsible.

** No way.
Vaccination is strongly *govt recommended* and carried out by folk *not* in the employ of SPC.
No vicarious liability exists.

FYI
When a small boy, my family lived right next to that Shepparton factory.
186 Knight Street.
Saw steam trains chugging past every day.
Dined on surplus apricots bough from the place.

....... Phil

On 5/08/2021 11:24 am, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 05-Aug-21 11:10 am, Dechucka wrote:
>
>>
>> I agree that Companies under WHS have responsibilities but if there
>> are adverse reactions are they also responsible
>
>
> I don't believe so. One can always find situations in which a reasonable
> health and safety requirement has an unintended consequence.
>
>
> For example, people are required to wear hard-hats on building sites,
> but doing so makes them slightly taller. An object that might have
> missed them completely otherwise could impact the top of the hat,
> imparting a lateral force to the head the breaks the neck. In such a
> situation, of course, the employer would probably be liable anyway, but
> not specifically because the accident would have been avoided if the hat
> had not been worn as required.

You're pushing it. An adverse reaction to a vaccine is a DIRECT
consequence of the Companies decision to make it compulsory.
I can see lawyers getting rich from this even though the Union has given
in principle agreement depending on the fine print.

Defucka wrote:
=============
>
> > I don't believe so. One can always find situations in which a reasonable
> > health and safety requirement has an unintended consequence.
>>
> >
> > For example, people are required to wear hard-hats on building sites,
> > but doing so makes them slightly taller. An object that might have
> > missed them completely otherwise could impact the top of the hat,
> > imparting a lateral force to the head the breaks the neck. In such a
> > situation, of course, the employer would probably be liable anyway, but
> > not specifically because the accident would have been avoided if the hat
> > had not been worn as required.
>
> You're pushing it. An adverse reaction to a vaccine is a DIRECT
> consequence of the Companies decision to make it compulsory.

** Fucking bullshit.

It is an acceptable * inherent* and unrelated ( to SPC ) risk.

...... Phil

On 05-Aug-21 11:29 am, Dechucka wrote:
> On 5/08/2021 11:24 am, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 05-Aug-21 11:10 am, Dechucka wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I agree that Companies under WHS have responsibilities but if there
>>> are adverse reactions are they also responsible
>>
>>
>> I don't believe so. One can always find situations in which a
>> reasonable health and safety requirement has an unintended consequence.
>>
>>
>> For example, people are required to wear hard-hats on building sites,
>> but doing so makes them slightly taller. An object that might have
>> missed them completely otherwise could impact the top of the hat,
>> imparting a lateral force to the head the breaks the neck. In such a
>> situation, of course, the employer would probably be liable anyway,
>> but not specifically because the accident would have been avoided if
>> the hat had not been worn as required.
>
> You're pushing it. An adverse reaction to a vaccine is a DIRECT
> consequence of the Companies decision to make it compulsory.
> I can see lawyers getting rich from this even though the Union has given
> in principle agreement depending on the fine print.
>

As far as I'm aware, we do not yet know why a small proportion of people
have a reaction.

It could be a genetic factor, but it could equally be something
environmental, or a combination of both. Perhaps one needs a particular
genetic makeup, together with exposure to something particular from the
environment.

In my building site example, there is a genetic factor contributing to
the person's height, together with an environmental factor, being the
moving object. A shorter person would survive not withstanding the
requirement to wear a hard hat.

Sylvia.

On 5/08/2021 11:39 am, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 05-Aug-21 11:29 am, Dechucka wrote:
>> On 5/08/2021 11:24 am, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> On 05-Aug-21 11:10 am, Dechucka wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I agree that Companies under WHS have responsibilities but if there
>>>> are adverse reactions are they also responsible
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't believe so. One can always find situations in which a
>>> reasonable health and safety requirement has an unintended consequence.
>>>
>>>
>>> For example, people are required to wear hard-hats on building sites,
>>> but doing so makes them slightly taller. An object that might have
>>> missed them completely otherwise could impact the top of the hat,
>>> imparting a lateral force to the head the breaks the neck. In such a
>>> situation, of course, the employer would probably be liable anyway,
>>> but not specifically because the accident would have been avoided if
>>> the hat had not been worn as required.
>>
>> You're pushing it. An adverse reaction to a vaccine is a DIRECT
>> consequence of the Companies decision to make it compulsory.
>> I can see lawyers getting rich from this even though the Union has
>> given in principle agreement depending on the fine print.
>>
>
> As far as I'm aware, we do not yet know why a small proportion of people
> have a reaction.

The AZ reaction can occur in people with thrombocytopenia. Myocarditis
and pericarditis can occur with the mRNA vaccines but afaik this isn't
linked to an underlying condition

>
> It could be a genetic factor, but it could equally be something
> environmental, or a combination of both. Perhaps one needs a particular
> genetic makeup, together with exposure to something particular from the
> environment.

Maybe but so what
>
> In my building site example, there is a genetic factor contributing to
> the person's height, together with an environmental factor, being the
> moving object. A shorter person would survive not withstanding the
> requirement to wear a hard hat.

> As far as I'm aware, we do not yet know why a small proportion of people
> have a reaction.

I saw mention of a study where the injection itself was being considered
as a reason for the clots - specifically, the injection was not deep
enough to reach the muscle mass and the vaccine therefore seeped into
subcutaneous tissue.

Peter

On 5/08/2021 12:41 pm, Pete wrote:
>> As far as I'm aware, we do not yet know why a small proportion of
>> people have a reaction.
>
> I saw mention of a study where the injection itself was being considered
> as a reason for the clots - specifically, the injection was not deep
> enough to reach the muscle mass and the vaccine therefore seeped into
> subcutaneous tissue.

There was some thought that systemic capillary leak syndrome could be
linked to the clots but I believe that has now been discounted.

Dechucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote

>>> Opponents of vaccination requirements like to characterise this as an
>>> issue relating to freedom of choice, but the other side of that coin is
>>> the freedom of other people not to be exposed to preventable illness. In
>>> this regard, it should be noted that vaccinations do not always take,
>>> and a vaccinated person may still be vulnerable to illness.

>> And we have had quarantine laws for centurys.

> Those are governmental laws based on constitutional law

Not before federation.

> not a Company putting in conditions.

Commercial entitys did quarantine too.

>>> It would not surprise me if there end up being some court cases over
>>> this.

>> Yep, there will always be vexatious litigant fools like you and your ilk.

> You feel that forced vaccination is morally right?

It isn't forced, you are free to not have anything to do with SPC.

> I don't.

Your problem.

> IF something goes wrong with the vaccination who has responsibility?

No one given that the govt is encouraging it and has
provided a legal letout for the vaccine producers.

> Will the conditions also apply to the workers families?

Unlikely.

On 5/08/2021 2:37 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> Dechucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote
>
>>>> Opponents of vaccination requirements like to characterise this as
>>>> an issue relating to freedom of choice, but the other side of that
>>>> coin is the freedom of other people not to be exposed to preventable
>>>> illness. In this regard, it should be noted that vaccinations do not
>>>> always take, and a vaccinated person may still be vulnerable to
>>>> illness.
>
>>> And we have had quarantine laws for centurys.
>
>> Those are governmental laws based on constitutional law
>
> Not before federation.

We've moved on from 1900
>
>> not a Company putting in conditions.
>
> Commercial entitys did quarantine too.
When?
>
>>>> It would not surprise me if there end up being some court cases over
>>>> this.
>
>>> Yep, there will always be vexatious litigant fools like you and your
>>> ilk.
>
>> You feel that forced vaccination is morally right?
>
> It isn't forced, you are free to not have anything to do with SPC.

As I stated earlier "The flippant argument would be that if the
employees don't like it they can quit but that seems fundamentally
unfair to me as there is a power discrepancy.
If it is allowed should flu vaccines also be compulsory? "
>
>> I don't.
>
> Your problem.
>
>> IF something goes wrong with the vaccination who has responsibility?
>
> No one given that the govt is encouraging it and has
> provided a legal letout for the vaccine producers.

However SPC is trying to make it compulsory
>
>> Will the conditions also apply to the workers families?
>
> Unlikely.

Dechucka wrote:
=============> >
> >> IF something goes wrong with the vaccination who has responsibility?
> >
> > No one given that the govt is encouraging it and has
> > provided a legal letout for the vaccine producers.
>
> However SPC is trying to make it compulsory
> >

** When I was 18 and about to sit the HSC exam, the headmaster at my high school ( Kogarah Marist Bros) was not fond of my longish hair. He told me I had won the "science prize" based on the trial exam results - but not to attend the prize giving ceremony at a local town hall unless I had a hair cut.

So I didn't.

...... Phil

Dechucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Dechucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote

>>>>> Opponents of vaccination requirements like to characterise this as an
>>>>> issue relating to freedom of choice, but the other side of that coin
>>>>> is the freedom of other people not to be exposed to preventable
>>>>> illness. In this regard, it should be noted that vaccinations do not
>>>>> always take, and a vaccinated person may still be vulnerable to
>>>>> illness.
>>
>>>> And we have had quarantine laws for centurys.
>>
>>> Those are governmental laws based on constitutional law
>>
>> Not before federation.
>
> We've moved on from 1900

Not with quarantine we haven't. Or the legal basis for it either.

>>> not a Company putting in conditions.
>>
>> Commercial entitys did quarantine too.

> When?

Pre federation.

>>>>> It would not surprise me if there end up being some court cases over
>>>>> this.
>>
>>>> Yep, there will always be vexatious litigant fools like you and your
>>>> ilk.
>>
>>> You feel that forced vaccination is morally right?
>>
>> It isn't forced, you are free to not have anything to do with SPC.
>
> As I stated earlier "The flippant argument

Nothing flippant about it, it’s the fact.

> would be that if the employees don't like it they can quit but that seems
> fundamentally unfair to me as there is a power discrepancy.

Your problem, as always.

> If it is allowed should flu vaccines also be compulsory? "

Nope, because we don’t have a flu pandemic
that is producing massive lockdowns.

>>> I don't.
>>
>> Your problem.
>>
>>> IF something goes wrong with the vaccination who has responsibility?
>>
>> No one given that the govt is encouraging it and has
>> provided a legal letout for the vaccine producers.
>
> However SPC is trying to make it compulsory

Nope, just saying that if you want to work there, that’s what you
have to do. Same with other H&S stuff and showing up on time etc.

>>> Will the conditions also apply to the workers families?

>> Unlikely.

On 5/08/2021 4:35 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> Dechucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Dechucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote
>
>>>>>> Opponents of vaccination requirements like to characterise this as
>>>>>> an issue relating to freedom of choice, but the other side of that
>>>>>> coin is the freedom of other people not to be exposed to
>>>>>> preventable illness. In this regard, it should be noted that
>>>>>> vaccinations do not always take, and a vaccinated person may still
>>>>>> be vulnerable to illness.
>>>
>>>>> And we have had quarantine laws for centurys.
>>>
>>>> Those are governmental laws based on constitutional law
>>>
>>> Not before federation.
>>
>> We've moved on from 1900
>
> Not with quarantine we haven't. Or the legal basis for it either.

The legal basis for quarantines is not the same as they were, we were
under British law after Federation are under our own
>
>>>> not a Company putting in conditions.
>>>
>>> Commercial entitys did quarantine too.
>
>> When?
>
> Pre federation.

Irrelevant. We are our own country now
>
>>>>>> It would not surprise me if there end up being some court cases
>>>>>> over this.
>>>
>>>>> Yep, there will always be vexatious litigant fools like you and
>>>>> your ilk.
>>>
>>>> You feel that forced vaccination is morally right?
>>>
>>> It isn't forced, you are free to not have anything to do with SPC.
>>
>> As I stated earlier "The flippant argument
>
> Nothing flippant about it, it’s the fact.

We'll see after the lawyers get involved
>
>> would be that if the employees don't like it they can quit but that
>> seems fundamentally unfair to me as there is a power discrepancy.
>
> Your problem, as always.
>
>> If it is allowed should flu vaccines also be compulsory? "
>
> Nope, because we don’t have a flu pandemic
> that is producing massive lockdowns.
>
>>>> I don't.
>>>
>>> Your problem.
>>>
>>>> IF something goes wrong with the vaccination who has responsibility?
>>>
>>> No one given that the govt is encouraging it and has
>>> provided a legal letout for the vaccine producers.
>>
>> However SPC is trying to make it compulsory
>
> Nope, just saying that if you want to work there, that’s what you
> have to do. Same with other H&S stuff and showing up on time etc.

If you can't see the difference so be it

Dechucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Dechucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Dechucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> wrote

>>>>>>> Opponents of vaccination requirements like to characterise this as
>>>>>>> an issue relating to freedom of choice, but the other side of that
>>>>>>> coin is the freedom of other people not to be exposed to preventable
>>>>>>> illness. In this regard, it should be noted that vaccinations do not
>>>>>>> always take, and a vaccinated person may still be vulnerable to
>>>>>>> illness.
>>>>
>>>>>> And we have had quarantine laws for centurys.
>>>>
>>>>> Those are governmental laws based on constitutional law
>>>>
>>>> Not before federation.
>>>
>>> We've moved on from 1900
>>
>> Not with quarantine we haven't. Or the legal basis for it either.

> The legal basis for quarantines is not the same as they were,

Wrong, as always.

> we were under British law

Wrong, as always.

> after Federation are under our own

Wrong, as always.

>>>>> not a Company putting in conditions.
>>>>
>>>> Commercial entitys did quarantine too.
>>
>>> When?
>>
>> Pre federation.
>
> Irrelevant. We are our own country now

Wrong, as always.

>>>>>>> It would not surprise me if there end up being some court cases over
>>>>>>> this.
>>>>
>>>>>> Yep, there will always be vexatious litigant fools like you and your
>>>>>> ilk.
>>>>
>>>>> You feel that forced vaccination is morally right?
>>>>
>>>> It isn't forced, you are free to not have anything to do with SPC.
>>>
>>> As I stated earlier "The flippant argument
>>
>> Nothing flippant about it, it’s the fact.
>
> We'll see after the lawyers get involved

Wrong, as always.

>>> would be that if the employees don't like it they can quit but that
>>> seems fundamentally unfair to me as there is a power discrepancy.
>>
>> Your problem, as always.
>>
>>> If it is allowed should flu vaccines also be compulsory? "
>>
>> Nope, because we don’t have a flu pandemic
>> that is producing massive lockdowns.
>>
>>>>> I don't.
>>>>
>>>> Your problem.
>>>>
>>>>> IF something goes wrong with the vaccination who has responsibility?
>>>>
>>>> No one given that the govt is encouraging it and has
>>>> provided a legal letout for the vaccine producers.
>>>
>>> However SPC is trying to make it compulsory
>>
>> Nope, just saying that if you want to work there, that’s what you
>> have to do. Same with other H&S stuff and showing up on time etc.
>
> If you can't see the difference so be it

Pathetic, as always with your trollshit.

snip

>> Irrelevant. We are our own country now
>
> Wrong, as always.
Oh no you've gone pez, we are our own country and our Constitution and
laws are our rules

snip

Some gutless fuckwit desperately cowering behind
Dechucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com> spewed the
trollshit it always ends up with when its got done
like a fucking dinner, as it always is.

On Thu, 5 Aug 2021 21:29:57 +1000, Dechucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>snip
>
>>> Irrelevant. We are our own country now
>>
>> Wrong, as always.
>
>Oh no you've gone pez, we are our own country and our Constitution and
>laws are our rules
>
>snip
Wrong as always
--
Petzl
We know the Dumb3 are lying,
they know they are lying,
they know we know they are lying,
we know they know we know they are lying,
but they are still lying. Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn

On 8/08/2021 9:25 am, Petzl wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Aug 2021 21:29:57 +1000, Dechucka <Dechucka1@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> snip
>>
>>>> Irrelevant. We are our own country now
>>>
>>> Wrong, as always.
>>
>> Oh no you've gone pez, we are our own country and our Constitution and
>> laws are our rules
>>
>> snip
> Wrong as always

You're not going all sovereign citizen on the ng are you

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-06/canberra-woman-refused-to-check-in-claims-to-be-sovereign-state/100357410

Woman who refused to check in at Canberra store says she is exempt from
COVID-19 rules because she is a 'sovereign state'

"Ms Shagabuddinova then asked a series of questions, including asking
Chief Magistrate Lorraine Walker to provide her credentials.
"Does the judge represent someone who is alive or the state?" Ms
Shagabuddinova asked.
"I represent the territory," Chief Magistrate Walker replied.
s Shagabuddinova questioned whether the court was sovereign and if the
court had "unlimited financial liability."

On 5/08/2021 9:29 pm, Dechucka wrote:
> snip
>
>>> Irrelevant. We are our own country now
>>
>> Wrong, as always.
> Oh no you've gone pez, we are our own country and our Constitution and
> laws are our rules
>

Australia is a actually still dominion of the British monarch.

On 8/08/2021 10:22 am, Max wrote:
> On 5/08/2021 9:29 pm, Dechucka wrote:
>> snip
>>
>>>> Irrelevant. We are our own country now
>>>
>>> Wrong, as always.
>> Oh no you've gone pez, we are our own country and our Constitution and
>> laws are our rules
>>
>
> Australia is a actually still dominion of the British monarch.

No it isn't since Gough, in 1973 she became "Elizabeth the Second, by
the Grace of God Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and
Territories, Head of the Commonwealth" The Australia Act confirmed that
Britain was a foreign country and this was confirmed by the High Court
in Sue v Hill.