top of page

Vaccine Mandate Court Case: Should Australia have a Bill of Rights?

Last week, at 4 pm on Friday, a Supreme Court Judge read out his decision on two matters regarding mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations. In this landmark case, two groups of plaintiffs had appealed against the Public Health Orders of the New South Wales (NSW) Health Minister Brad Hazzard, particularly those relating to mandatory coronavirus vaccinations.

To the disappointment of many onlookers, the judge dismissed both appeals and upheld Minister Hazzard’s Public Health Orders.

In essence, as this article will argue, the judge is affirming that NSW citizens have no rights except those that are given to us by parliament (or, even worse, by the arbitrary decision of a minister of parliament as advised by unaccountable and often incompetent bureaucrats).

Importantly, the judge’s decision was reached based on the erroneous legal doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty articulated about a century ago by A.V. Dicey.

This doctrine assumes, among other things, that we are not humans made in the image of God; we are ‘cattle’ to be disposed of at the whim of our leaders.

Hence, the judgement made last week is based upon a flawed non-Christian philosophy.

Do We Have Basic Human Rights in Australia?

Australia’s governmental system is often called a “Westminster democracy”, but a more correct term is a “Constitutional Monarchy”. Therefore, in considering the case at hand, it is instructive to consider the historical development of Australia’s legal system.

Some people today notice concerning decisions being made by governments and, consequently, believe that a Bill of Rights would solve this problem. They argue that our Australian Constitution is deficient because it does not include such a Bill. Nonetheless, few realise that the Constitution is an “Appendix” (literally, a small thing hanging on to a bigger thing); it is not the be-all and end-all. I will explain this at length below.


bottom of page