The Fight of Our Times: Dr Beverley Peers, the Constitution & the Case That Could Change Everything
Quietly, an 80-year-old doctor is doing what no court, politician, or regulator has yet managed to do — challenge the constitutional legality of Australia’s COVID-era mandates in the highest court of the land.
Dr Beverley Peers could be enjoying retirement, instead, this deeply principled doctor — alongside her equally formidable twin sister, Dr Valerie Peers — is standing alone in the legal arena, demanding accountability from the system that punished her (and so many Australians) for refusing to violate her conscience.
Suspended from her medical role at Eastern Health in Victoria for declining the COVID-19 vaccination, Dr Beverley has launched a legal challenge that may become one of the most consequential High Court cases in Australian history.
This is a real constitutional test that cuts to the heart of federal versus state power, civil conscription, and the limits of government control over personal medical choices. And she’s doing it without legal representation.
⚖️ Why This Case Matters
Dr Peers’ High Court challenge is based on Section 109 of the Australian Constitution — the part that states when a state law is inconsistent with federal law, the federal law must prevail.
At the centre of her case is the Fair Work Act 2009, a Commonwealth law that explicitly overrides state and territory industrial laws, including public health mandates that impacted employment.
In practical terms? Dr Peers is arguing that no state government had the legal power to enforce medical mandates as a condition of employment, because employment law falls under federal jurisdiction.
Even more powerfully, she is asking:
“If state laws cannot override federal laws, how can corporate policies?”
This goes beyond COVID. If successful, it could invalidate not only past mandates, but future attempts to enforce health-related conditions of employment through government or corporate policy. That makes it a landmark case for medical freedom, workplace rights, and constitutional clarity.
A Legal Challenge Rooted in the Constitution
Dr Peers' High Court case is being launched on constitutional grounds. Specifically, she argues that state-level public health orders mandating vaccination unlawfully interfered with federally protected workplace rights. Her case hinges on:
Section 26 of the Fair Work Act, which gives the Commonwealth exclusive power over industrial relations;
Section 109 of the Australian Constitution, which says that when a state law is inconsistent with a federal law, the federal law prevails;
Section 51(xxiiiA) of the Constitution, added after WWII via referendum, which protects the right to a private medical relationship between doctor and patient, forbidding any form of “medical conscription.”
Peers argues that by mandating vaccines as a condition of employment, state governments (and compliant hospitals) created a form of indirect medical conscription that violates these protections.
"I included in [my letter] the provisions of the Fair Work Act and the Commonwealth Constitution… the hospital was seeking my vaccination record, but that is a private matter between a doctor and their patient," she said.
She is preparing and filing her High Court submission as a self-represented litigant—an extraordinary undertaking that underscores her resolve.
👩⚕️ Who Are the Peers Sisters?
Dr Beverley and Dr Valerie Peers are 80-year-old twin sisters from Moe, Victoria. Staunch, principled, and relentless in their pursuit of justice, both have been viciously targeted by AHPRA and the Medical Board - Valerie for issuing lawful medical exemptions during the pandemic and Beverley for refusing the mandates.
Dr Valerie has faced over 40 court cases, bravely documenting the systemic disregard for constitutional protections across multiple levels of the legal system.
Now, the focus shifts to her sister.
Dr Beverley’s case — filed without lawyers and entirely driven by constitutional argument — has made it to the High Court of Australia. This alone is historic. Never before has a constitutional challenge of this magnitude been launched without legal representation — and never by an individual citizen.
🔥 What's at Stake
Can state public health acts override federal employment protections?
Can corporate vaccine mandates circumvent constitutional rights?
Should any Australian lose their livelihood for declining a medical procedure — especially under coercion?
These are the real questions now before the High Court.
Her case doesn't just seek individual remedy — it asks the court to invalidate sections of the Victorian Public Health and Wellbeing Act, and challenge its constitutional legality.
If successful, it would set a nationwide precedent — one that could dismantle the legal foundation for employer-enforced mandates and reassert the Constitution as the supreme law of the land.
🚨 Why the Time Is Now
Despite media silence, this case is moving. A directions hearing was held on April 9, and although certain formal elements were referred to a lower court, the constitutional questions and remedies sought can only be determined by the High Court’s full bench.
Justice Beech-Jones, who presided over the directions hearing, is the same judge who not only presided over the Kazam Henry v State of New South Wales but also publicly praised mRNA technology.
🙌 How You Can Support
This case could affect every Australian — worker and employer — yet it’s being fought by one self representing doctor.
To remove the financial burden and enable her to keep going, an event has been organised to raise funds for the ongoing costs of the legal battle. If you believe in medical freedom, bodily autonomy, or constitutional law, this is the moment to act.
🗓 Event Details & Support Link: Freedom Unites Convoy from Cairns to Canberra (FU-CCP) which starts tomorrow Thursday 26th June and finishes on Saturday 5th July 2025.
📬 You can also write to the High Court — detailing how mandates affected you or your workplace. Letters from citizens nationwide may help underline the public significance of this case.
🧭 A Turning Point
Dr Beverley Peers may not have set out to become a national figure. But her case — and her courage — may be remembered as the moment ordinary Australians reclaimed the Constitution from corporate and political overreach.
Her voice represents thousands who lost jobs, careers, or health under duress.
Let’s make sure she’s not standing alone.
You can find out more via these two interviews:
Graham and John Speak to Jacquie Dundee - May 2025
Graham and John Speak to Dr Beverley Peers - June 2024
This is absolutely INCREDIBLE! Brave warriors!
I don't think we are a Constitution any more. More like a Corporation in NWO. God Bless You Ladies🙏🏾🙏🏾🙏🏾