Legal “information” is general or public knowledge of (how to do) something by category.
Legal “advice” is information on what you can specifically do in a specific situation.
Most government public officers act totally clueless about the difference is between "information" and "advice"
they treat information as advice so they don't need to give you the information you need to do what you need to do.
I've only studied law, I'm not fully qualified according to a specific set of requirements as set out by my government of often misguided and always imperfect people, so I'm legally not allowed to give you legal “advice” as your parents may, but like your great aunt, I'm allowed to give you the information you need to tackle the (usually) extensively covert criminal mindset in the people of your community. Knowledge is freedom and power.
Why aren't Australia's parliaments and lawyers acting to protect Australians on low incomes? The only obvious answer is they're all happy (with various motives that always entail “a” benefit) for Australia to be overseen by a “terrorist cell”.
FYI: certain conspiracies are illegal in Australia, eg:
Conspiracy to defraud.
Conspiracy to injure.
Conspiracy is an agreement by two or more people to;
A- “to carry out an unlawful act” (action); or
B - “to carry out a lawful act (action) by unlawful means”.
LexixNexis Dictionary 5th Ed link - https://www.amazon.com.au/Concise-Australian-Legal-Dictionary-Finkelstein/dp/0409338443
An example of “A” would be when 2004 New South Wales police stormed my house with pistols drawn to arrest me with no arrest warrant, because I reported police crime to them earlier that day, then they strip searched me after I was arrested and held in the Goulburn NSW police cells, debating on whether or not they'd pull out my tampon to see what was in it.
An example of “B” would be when 2014 South Australia police assisted their health department illegally held and forcible drugged under State Mental Health Act because they knew I intended to sue an Australian Government.
In Australia your friends and family who support political terrorism don't want to be identified as terrorists and neither do the political parties they support. To address political terrorism in Australia anti-terrorists need to have a community newspaper where it constitution forbids it to be run by a corporation or persons previously associated with politics or existing news outlets. When you lake your "legal actions" in a State or Federal Court or make a complaint to an entity that's been ignored, you can print them in your unencumbered legally free speech Community News. So the regular non-aligned people can know what's really going on behind their non-transparent, transparent public officials closed doors.
Like everything else in Australian politics / government, "government transparency" is still a concept yet to be realised by the general public in Australia and elsewhere. The ones who say they "believe" in it are the ones who covertly participate in blocking its implementation.
Australian Consumer Law (ACL) is hidden in the Schedule of the federal “Competition and Consumer Act” (CCA). The Act proper has a provision that effectively outlaws cartels. You don't need to know the members of a cartel for it to be illegal.
The CCA and ACL acts as an umbrella over State law, as do all federal laws cited as Commonwealth Acts. No State law (Act) can nullify a federal law, despite what any State Judiciary Government public officer or Executive Government public officer (Crown Solicitor) falsely claim in court. The federal “Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act” (ADJRA) deems that any body formed under any Act is a “Commonwealth Authority” which naturally includes every State authority and includes (but not limited to) all local councils formed under any State “Local Government Act”.
Under (pursuant to) the ADJRA every Commonwealth Authority can be subject to scrutiny in the Australian Federal Court and the level of expertise on an applicant does not need to be a trained lawyer pursuant to section 11(9) Strict compliance (with Federal Court Rules) ... is not required. If you're time limit has lapsed you can “seek leave to apply to the court for an extension of time in the interests of the justice of the case”. Providing you can prove a personal consumer transaction occurred (ie health service) you can sue under ACL.
However section 18 (ACL) allows an interested party to sue where (you can prove on balance of probability) that a supplier of goods or services has acted with “misleading or deceptive conduct” you don't need to have had a consumer transaction.
Where the services or goods supplier or manufacturer is a “Pty Ltd” company, despite the normal protections to the directors of this structure of company, the directors can be help “personally liable to pay damages” where you can prove they had “reasonable knowledge” of the unlawful issue in your case.
If you're a 'big shot' lawyer / solicitor / barrister and disagree with the above, drop me an email so I can post your response below.
If you can't see my "contact" page on your desktop, reduce the size of your page press (CTRL + -)