A judge has dismissed two legal challenges to health orders requiring COVID-19 vaccinations for workers in NSW.
The cases, heard in the NSW Supreme Court, involved 10 plaintiffs including workers in health, aged care, construction and education.
The ABC reports that all said their employment had been impacted by orders requiring vaccination to continue working, while some were in declared areas of concern as travel restrictions were imposed.
Each unvaccinated worker cited similar concerns about insufficient long-term data on COVID-19 vaccine safety and side effects.
The cases used various arguments to attack the validity of the health orders but contained common threads.
They contended that the orders violated rights to bodily integrity and privacy, implemented civil conscription, represented a breach of natural justice and were made by Health Minister Brad Hazzard without clear legislative authority.
Justice Robert Beech-Jones ruled that all grounds had failed.
He said any consideration about the reasonableness of orders should be undertaken by reference to the objects of the public health act, which were "directed exclusively at public safety".
The judge found that if an order was made interfering with freedom of movement and differentiating on "arbitrary grounds" unrelated to public health risks, such as race or gender, it would be at "severe risk" of being found to be invalid.
However, Justice Beech-Jones wrote in his judgment that the differential treatment of people according to their vaccination status is not arbitrary.
He says instead, it applies a discrimen, namely vaccination status, that on the evidence and the approach taken by the minister is very much consistent with the objects of the Public Health Act.
The judge further rejected a constitutional argument about civil conscription and an asserted inconsistency with the immunisation register act.
[Source: ABC]
Stay tuned for the latest news on our radio stations
