Friday, October 1, 2021

The Australian Fair Work Commission deputy President issued a perfect MINORITY opinion on Monday regarding vaccination mandates   dated 9/27/21

Here is a description of the Fair Work Commission:

I misunderstood this document, which it seems is properly explained by Australia's Channel 7 News. The document is a MINORITY decision, by the Deputy President of the Commisssion, regarding a decision made by the other two commissioners.  The Deputy President took a case about a flu vaccine mandate and expanded its remit into Covid vaccines.  Regardless, this remains a powerful legal opinion against the vaccine totalitarianism being carried out in nations around the world.  The language and ideas expressed could be used in many countries.

The most useful sections begin with number 101 and onward in the document.  I have included the “final comments” here:

Final comments

[179] Research in the context of COVID-19 has shown that many who are ‘vaccine-hesitant’ are well educated, work in the health care industry and have questions about how effective the vaccines are in stopping transmission, whether they are safe to take during pregnancy, or if they affect fertility. 37 A far safer and more democratic approach to addressing vaccine hesitancy, and therefore increasing voluntary vaccination uptake, lies in better education, addressing specific and often legitimate concerns that people may hold, and promoting genuine informed consent. It does not lie in censoring differing opinions or removing rights and civil liberties that are fundamental in a democratic nation. It certainly does not lie in the use of highly coercive, undemocratic and unethical mandates.

[180] The statements by politicians that those who are not vaccinated are a threat to public health and should be “locked out of society” and denied the ability to work are not measures to protect public health. They are not about public health and not justified because they do not address the actual risk of COVID. These measures can only be about punishing those who choose not to be vaccinated. If the purpose of the PHOs is genuinely to reduce the spread of COVID, there is no basis for locking out people who do not have COVID, which is easily established by a rapid antigen test. Conversely, a vaccinated person who contracts COVID should be required to isolate until such time as they have recovered.

[181] Blanket rules, such as mandating vaccinations for everyone across a whole profession or industry regardless of the actual risk, fail the tests of proportionality, necessity and reasonableness. It is more than the absolute minimum necessary to combat the crisis and cannot be justified on health grounds. It is a lazy and fundamentally flawed approach to risk management and should be soundly rejected by courts when challenged.

[182] All Australians should vigorously oppose the introduction of a system of medical apartheid and segregation in Australia. It is an abhorrent concept and is morally and ethically wrong, and the anthesis of our democratic way of life and everything we value.

[183] Australians should also vigorously oppose the ongoing censorship of any views that question the current policies regarding COVID. Science is no longer science if a person is not allowed to question it.

[184] Finally, all Australians, including those who hold or are suspected of holding “anti-vaccination sentiments”, are entitled to the protection of our laws, including the protections afforded by the Fair Work Act. In this regard, one can only hope that the Majority Decision is recognised as an anomaly and not followed by others.


Anonymous said...

The language here is excellent. Cogent, concise, balanced. Thank you for sharing!

Anonymous said...

Dr. Nass - off-topic here, just to mention that on the left sidebar, the link to "" is incomplete/broken.

Anonymous said...


BYE-BYE VAX: Merck Unveils COVID Pill that Cuts Hospitalizations in Half

"It exceeded what I thought the drug might be able to do in this clinical trial. When you see a 50% reduction in hospitalization or death that’s a substantial clinical impact..."

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately, after a full reading of the document, the "perfect opinion" expressed in these excerpts was the minority opinion. In the majority opinion, the case was decided firmly against the employee. Rats!

Tyro said...

I wonder whether the plaintiff's atty's deliberately sought a judgement on the public order concerning the flu, because they feel that will provide a better focus for their intended appeal arguments? And those may be in line with arguments and standards introduced with the DP's dissent - sounds like OZ has been ignoring basic med ethics practices and principles as well.

Medical ethics, and bioethics more broadly, appear to have been almost entirely ignored by the CDC - I've seen no indication of their application. Rather they seem to be proceeding under some ad hoc definition of 'equity'.