This Act sets out some rights we all have. Section 11 of the Act states everyone has the right to refuse to undergo medical treatment. A Covid-19 vaccine is a medical treatment.
The right to refuse medical treatment, at its most literal, means you cannot be treated against your will. That is, you cannot be forcibly vaccinated. It does not mean that you could never be moved to another area of work or dismissed, in certain circumstances, if you decline to be vaccinated.
In addition, section 5 of the NZ Bill of Rights Act says that the rights in the Act must be upheld, except when they are subject to “such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”
That means that the government can make laws that conflict with rights in the NZ Bill of Rights Act (NZBORA).
The border worker vaccinations Order, that means that only vaccinated workers can undertake certain roles since 30 April 2021, has been considered by the High Court to test whether it is an example of such “reasonable limits” under s 5 of the Act. On 20 September 2021, Justice Churchman considered a challenge to the COVID_19 Public Health Response (Vaccinations) Order 2021 that affected only border workers as at that date (GF v Minister of COVID-19 Response, Associate Minister of Health and Attorney General [2021] NZHC 2526). GF challenged the Order and said that it was unlawful on the basis that it did not meet the conditions required under section 9 of the Public Health Response Act 2020 and that the Order was irrational, and therefore unlawful, principally because of the consequences it has for unvaccinated employees. GF also said that the Order unreasonably infringed on her rights.
In upholding the legality of the Order and concluding “to the extent that requiring affected workers to be vaccinated before carrying our certain duties might amount to discrimination, the benefits of that requirement outweigh any discrimination and that limitation is proportional and demonstrably justified” Justice Churchman decided that:
- the Order was made within the parameters of the Public Health Response Act 2020;
- the Pfizer vaccine was not experimental;
- the Minister took into account that there was a sufficient public “health rationale for making the Order, and that the reduction in risk achieved by the Order was material and could not be achieved in any other less rights-intrusive way, and that the Order would be justified from a NZBORA perspective.”;
- in balancing “the benefit of the vaccine and the risk of being unvaccinated against any discrimination in relation to those affected” the Court stated that “if the benefits outweigh the potential discrimination, the limitation is proportionate and demonstrably justified under s 5 of the NZBORA.”
NZNO considers that it is highly likely that if the Order mandating vaccination for the health workforce is judicially reviewed the High Court would reach the same conclusion.