LAWS against Mandating Vaccines

  • Updated:8 months ago
  • Reading Time:15Minutes
  • Post Words:3702Words
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Research valid as at 30 September 2021

Index of Downloadable Refs:
List of Verifiable References



LAWS against Mandating Vaccines

The stated position of the Australian Government is that the Vaccine is voluntary, and that employers can protect themselves from State-Based Work & Safety Laws

“We do not have a mandatory vaccine policy in this Country”

On 21 July 2021, the Prime Minister in a media conference stated that “people make their own decisions about their own health and their own bodies. That’s why we don’t have mandatory vaccination in relation to the general population”.

“Employers providing directives would need to do so consistent with the law”

“We do not have a mandatory vaccination policy in this country – we do not have that – we are not proposing to have that – that is not changing” If an employer makes a reasonable directive to staff, they would need to do so consistent with the law. A Protection can be Provided to Businesses who feel concerned that they may be liable for ‘not‘ making Vaccination Mandatory – employers should not feel they ‘have’ to put some sort of mandate in place to protect themselves from some State-Based Work & Safety laws.

It is an established principle in Law that an individual with the capacity to consent cannot and should not be compelled to have any medical or experimental treatment against their wishes.

Human Biosecurity Control Order (HBCO)

In order for the Government or a business to mandate masks (section 88), PCR tests (section 90) or vaccinations (section 92), they need to impose on you a ‘human biosecurity control order (HBCO)’ (section 60). 

Public Health Orders (PHO) have been introduced in pursuant to s 7 of the Public Health Act 2010 (PHA) which states that “this section applies if the Minister considers on reasonable grounds that a situation has arisen that is, or is likely to be, a risk to public health”.

Vaccines are not Mandatory in Australia

Since the Australian Government do not have the power to mandate the vaccinations, the Prime Minister can make announcements how “we don’t mandate vaccines in Australia – it’s your choice“, but the Premiers of each state are attempting to strongarm Employers and Businesses to get-around the law, and enforce mandates on their behalf by pressuring them to add it to their policy. There is so much polarization around this issue and government committees seem to be deliberately ignoring the latest safety and efficacy up-to-date data in the highly-vaccinated countries that show no benefit or worsened outcomes for those who are vaccinated compared to those who are unvaccinated.

The “informed choice” and the “signing of a consent form” is what is required by someone signing up for a clinical trial, but I doubt the general public are aware that these vaccines are still in an ongoing clinical trial and are not fully approved in Australia. The general public are not getting reliable information about the risks when the mantra repeated constantly through the media is “Safe and Effective”, they are not being told that the vaccines are experimental with unknown risks, and the consent forms are missing all the dangerous reported side-effects that we can see for ourselves by visiting the adverse events database. The consent form also does not mention the known urgent warning that taking an mRNA vaccine could have the opposite intended effect with increased chances of severe diseases, which is what the new data is showing is actually happening in many countries.

Anyone who mandates it – may be liable to be prosecuted when this data becomes more widely known.

Scott Morrison – Prime Minister of Australia

We do not have a mandatory vaccination policy in this country – that is not changing.

If an employer mandates it via policy, they will need to do so consistent with the law.

A business that does NOT mandate is NOT in breach of Workplace Health & Safety Laws.

A business mandating vaccines MAY be in breach of Workplace discrimination laws.”

On the one-hand, we have Mr Davis in Victoria indicating that an employer who “FAILS” to mandate vaccination in their workplace should be held responsible if that subsequently results in the infection causing severe illness and/or death and indicating they should be liable for not preventing workplace infections.

How old is your workforce?

The logic he uses to threaten and scare employers to bring in mandates makes no sense – when their own government released report on September 10 2021 indicates:

  • there is still not enough evidence that the current COVID-19 vaccines stop the spread or prevent infection
  • 75% of all deaths “who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2” were people living in residential aged-care facilities of which 88% had associated causes listed, including Pneumonia (almost 60%) and only 3% of positive cases required Intensive Care.
  • The case-fatality rates are close to 0 for those under 59 years.
  • The median-age for case-fatality is 87 years (4 years higher than all-case deaths in Australia)

Any Employer who Mandates a vaccine may be held responsible for the lifetime compensation to an employee for any adverse-reactions or injuries

In NSW, a bill has been introduced to make any employer who mandates a vaccine be held responsible for the lifetime compensation to any employee adversely affected by the vaccine rollout.

Whether a business requires an employee to be vaccinated is a private legal matter but it is one that can be regulated by legislation, which is one of the things that the bill seeks to do. The bill addresses all vaccines, not just the ones that are being promoted by the Federal Government and the mainstream media at present.

Over the past several months there has been some commentary about whether any future vaccination regime should be compulsory. I think a reasonable person may conclude that if ordinary activities associated with life, such as entering a public building or getting on transport, are rendered near impossible for a person who cannot prove that he is vaccinated, then it could be said that the regime is effectively compulsory. The right of bodily integrity is a fundamental right under our law. However, there are exceptions to this rule and some laws exist in other jurisdictions that allow authorities to compel members of the public to undergo medical treatments if there is a strong public interest to do so.

Naturally, we should all be very concerned about the potential for overreach in some of these provisions, and I certainly hope that New South Wales does not follow suit in passing the draconian legislation that is now on the books in other States. In any case, for the purposes of the bill, the controversy can be boiled down to the following question:

Should an employer acting on their own motion have the right to effectively coerce an individual to undergo an invasive medical procedure against that person’s will or consent? I would say most normal people would say no.

The slogan “my body, my choice” comes to mind, but somehow those who are most enthusiastically shouting it in relation to other matters seem to be strangely silent on this subject.

In the event that any employer makes vaccination a condition for continued or new employment and doing so is deemed lawful, it is only reasonable that the employer take on the liability for any adverse effects suffered by the vaccinated person. After all, why should somebody who effectively forces an individual to do something that they would not have ordinarily done themselves, and who suffers damage as a result, not be held liable? The bill simply legislates a responsibility on the party that is requiring somebody to do something that may be hazardous and holds them to account for their own policies and requirements in the event of damage or loss. I commend the bill to the House.

One of the listed side-effects of the COVID-19 vaccines is “Death”

Compelling patients or workers to receive a drug, medicine or vaccine which is still investigational would set a significant medical precedent, which would run counter to all international codes of medical ethics since the Nuremberg Code of 1947 and Declaration of Helsinki in 1952.

The fundamental tenets of these include complete disclosure of the risks and unknowns to the participants in medical experiments; the obligations on the experimenter for care and after-care of adverse outcomes; and the freedom from coercion, stand over tactics and over-reach. This would seem to include threats of job loss, travel bans etc.

Many patients feel pressured to accept this vaccine in the mistaken belief they may protect others due to representations in the media and/ or pressure from their employers, and that they may lose their employment or may be disadvantaged in their employment if they do not accept this experimental vaccine.

Open Letter by NZ Medical Practitioners sharing concerns about Pfizer ‘Comirnaty’ investigational vaccine for COVID-19

Section 51 (xxiiiA) of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act

This section states the parliament has the power to make laws for “with respect to the provision of maternity allowances, widows’ pensions, child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services (but not so as to authorise any form of civil conscription), benefits to students and family allowances”.

“any form of civil conscription” would include medical services that would inject medications into the bodies of Australians without their informed consent – especially medications that have not been fully approved for general use.

Is it “fair and reasonable” for employers to sack employees who refused to take part in medical trials when one of the known side effects of so-called COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ is death?

Note: The EudraVigilance – European database of suspected adverse drug reaction reports 20,525 deaths through to 31 July 2021 for the Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Moderna and Janssen experimental COVID-19 ‘vaccines’.

To require a person to do something which he may lawfully decline to do but only at the sacrifice of the whole or a substantial part of the means of his livelihood would, I think, be to subject him to practical compulsion amounting to conscription in the case of services required by Parliament to be rendered to the people. If Parliament cannot lawfully do this directly by legal means it cannot lawfully do it indirectly by creating a situation, as distinct from merely taking advantage of one, in which the individual is left no real choice but compliance.” – High Court ruling on the meaning of this provision.

Declaration of Helsinki

The World Medical Association (WMA) has developed the Declaration of Helsinki as a statement of ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects, including research on identifiable human material and data.  The Declaration is addressed primarily to physicians. The WMA encourages others who are involved in medical research involving human subjects to adopt these principles.

There are no COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ approved by the USA FDA or by the Australian TGA.

In the USA, the COVID-19 vaccines have been given Emergency Use Authorisation and in Australia the TGA has granted provisional approval only. In the provisional approval for the Pfizer vaccine (granted on 25 January 2021) the following is stated:

“COMIRNATY has been shown to prevent COVID-19 however it is not yet known whether it prevents transmission or asymptomatic disease.”

That is the Pfizer vaccine may reduce symptoms but does not provide “sterilising Immunity” (ie does not kill the SARS-CoV-2 virus). Therefore, “fully vaccinated” people can still transmit the SARS-CoV-2 virus to others in the workplace.

This makes a nonsense of calls for mandatory vaccinations in the workplace.

The World Medical Association (WMA) has developed the Declaration of Helsinki as a statement of ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects, including research on identifiable human material and data.

Furthermore, any person who receives “the jab” is taking part in clinical trials with EXPERIMENTAL vaccines which should be conducted in accordance with the WMA Declaration of Helsinki.

Australian Immunization Handbook – Meaning of Informed Consent
(As part of the consent procedure, people receiving vaccines and/or their parents or carers should be given sufficient information (preferably written) about the risks and benefits of each vaccine. This includes: what adverse events are possible/how common they are/what they should do about them)

Cannot be Mandated by Government, so they are using Employers

  • even though the median-age for COVID-19 registered deaths is 87 years (which is 4 years higher than that for all-causes of death in 2020 (83 years).
  • all COVID-19 (Provisional) vaccines are still in trial (undergoing evaluation on safety and effectiveness) until at least 2023
  • which cannot be mandated by government because it is not approved in Australia and cannot be until after it has been proven safe and effectiveafter the trial period ends
  • which Pfizer admits
    • are fast-tracked
    • are experimental
    • are a radical new type of gene-editing technology known as mRNA which are in their words (in their own government supply agreement) ‘Aspirational’ in nature, subject to ‘Significant Risks‘ and ‘may not be successful due to being rapidly developed
    • that the long-term effects, efficacy, and adverse effects are not known
  • that Australia purchased billions of doses, and signed supplier agreement contracts – before we had any safety-evidence or trial data to review
  • that the TGA admits that as of June 2021, they did not review the data from the Pfizer clinical trials they used to provisionally approve the vaccine
  • when 88% of deaths listing COVID-19 positive had associated causes listed on the death certificate and 75% occurred in those living in residential aged-care facilities
  • when Pneumonia was the most common associated cause in almost 60% of the cases and over 73% had pre-existing chronic conditions
  • when the tests cannot differentiate between Influenza, RSV, or COVID-19 and we have stopped testing for Influenza due to identical symptoms
  • when they still don’t know whether herd immunity can be achieved with vaccination
  • when it doesn’t stop the spread of transmission
  • when vaccinated have the same or higher viral load as unvaccinated since Delta (so are just as ‘contagious’ if they are infected as someone who is unvaccinated)
  • when only 3% of all COVID-19 positive cases who got sick ended up in ICU
  • when Natural Infection may provide lifelong immunity and protects against the whole virus (not just the spike protein)
  • when we can’t trust our own doctors to give us an honest assessment of our risks vs benefit when their governing body AHPRA threatens their licence or “regulatory action” if they express any concerns that differs from the current government health advice or interferes with the vaccination rollout“,
  • that any statement that differs from this global government policy is mislabelled as “antivax” to make people terrified to be understandably anxious or ‘hesitant’ about a completely new technology, that is still in trial, that is experimental, that people are indeed actually dying from, that people are indeed actually having heart attacks, strokes, clots, neurological issues, paralysis and all sorts of scary adverse reactions, and because these vaccines haven’t gone through these long-term safety trials – it literally seems like Russian roulette – they don’t know “why” it’s happening, they are apparently just ‘unlucky’ because there is no way to know whether it can happen to you – random things can happen – which is why we have a trial process – but this government policy is overriding safety and trying to get the jab into the entire population at the exact same time – without knowing how it will react to different individuals.
  • These guys all took Pfizer but at least they were one of the “lucky” ones that didn’t die:
  • when I can die or become permanently disabled from the vaccine yet have a less than 1% chance of dying from COVID-19 and even less if I don’t have co-morbidities or chronic conditions
  • when our chances of preventing severe COVID are improved further with early treatment rather than “isolate for 14 days and call us if you get worse” which is the current medical advice on – even though there are more than 2 million publications from scientists and health professionals all around the world who have been uploading studies and COVID-19 treatments since the beginning and there’s hundreds of things you can do to prevent severe infection- but global governments are hell-bent on this jab being the only answer – probably because they have invested in 11 or so ‘vaccine committees’ and only 1 ‘therapeutic’ committee – who is funded by industry
  • After looking at the data and what they are choosing to ignore, I’m starting to think ‘global health policy’ is a bigger threat than COVID-19, especially with the dividing up the population into “classes” – the “good, vaccinated”, and the “bad, unvaccinated”, and the “hesitant” being the most ‘dangerous’ – the mantra’s of the “pandemic of the unvaccinated” by those funded by industry
  • when it’s still ‘unknown’ whether these types of vaccines can cause more severe diseases than those who acquire it naturally due to Antibody-Dependant Enhancement and that the latest data coming out of both the UK and Israel show that is likely to be the case – and they were the countries we were modelling our own evidence from – as well as the USA of which a recent study shows the exact same thing is happening in one of the states there.
  • when there is little trust to our covid committees are ignoring the actual real-world data and downplaying the risks of the vaccines and overstating the risks of covid
  • when government cannot legally make it mandatory so are bullying employers and businesses to doing it for them and terrorising the public with fear of ‘cases’

when I can see how having a government-policy being in control of what gets injected into our bodies whilst threatening and silencing our health professionals, and censoring or all that are pointing out their mistakes or concerns as “dangerous antivaxxers”- even those who make vaccines as a career? This is a dangerous play on words they are using to terrorize a community into dividing the nation into conforming to a North-Korean or CCP-style dictatorship where the anthem “for we are young and free” can be binned – looks like a very, dangerous and terrifying future for all of us – requiring “booster shots” and “vaccine passports” for the rest of our lives? to get work? to buy food? to go to school? Is that the life we want for our children and generations to come? Is what they are doing justified – I feel really unsafe putting banking & mining bureaucrats and pharmaceutical manufacturers in charge of our minds and bodies and I am deeply concerned for what this means for humanity as a whole – can’t anyone else see where this is going or are they all suffering global psychosis from the media-reported “case numbers”?

COVID Vaccines are for Vaccine Passports. Problems already with Isolation Notices. Data for Check-ins has already been misused. Not about public health because even if you’re vaccinated, you can can still catch and transmit COVID. Implications for mandatory vaccinations especially when you can get a serious adverse effect.
Vaccines were exemption from liability – so they can give tens of billions of covid jabs without any compensation. Almost impossible to sue the government or anyone who provides these jabs. However, if your employer makes vaccines a condition of employment, and you actually suffer an adverse reaction, it likely becomes a Workplace Liability Claim – suspect that’s something most employers probably haven’t turned their mind to yet.

Penny... on Health
Penny... on Health

Truth-seeker, ever-questioning, ever-learning, ever-researching, ever delving further and deeper, ever trying to 'figure it out'. This site is a legacy of sorts, a place to collect thoughts, notes, book summaries, & random points of interests.

DISCLAIMER: The information on this website is not medical science or medical advice. I do not have any medical training aside from my own research and interest in this area. The information I publish is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease, disorder, pain, injury, deformity, or physical or mental condition. I just report my own results, understanding & research.