Larter v Hazzard (No 2)  NSWSC 1451 (on Caselaw).
Between 26 August 2021 and 22 October 2021, the Honourable Brad Hazzard, the first defendant (the Minister), purported to make two public health orders pursuant to the power conferred on him by s 7 of the Public Health Act 2010 (NSW) (the Act) to give such directions by order as the Minister considers necessary to deal with a situation that he considers on reasonable grounds is, or is likely to be, a risk to public health.
The effect of the public health orders, if valid, is that, unless the plaintiff has received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine by 30 September 2021 and received two doses by 30 November 2021, he is prohibited from working as a paramedic in New South Wales, which has been his occupation for over 25 years.
Mr Larter, the paramedic, sought declarations that two public health orders are invalid. He also seeks associated relief by way of further declarations and injunctions.
Justice Adamson does not appear to have accepted any of the arguments put for Mr Later. She said at :
Dr Chant’s articulation of the rationale for the orders in her affidavit evidence and her responses to Mr Prince’s cross-examination was a model of reasonableness. She was able to explain, on a scientific basis, why the Order, the Amended Order and Order 2 had been made, why they were made when they were made, and why the lines had been drawn where they had. Although Dr Chant was an adviser, and not the repository of the power to make orders conferred by Parliament, it was open to the Minister to accept her advice and make the orders she recommended that he make, as in fact occurred.
Further at  as to religious freedoms:
I reject the plaintiff’s submission that the orders infringe art 18 of the ICCPR, which provides for freedom of religion and religious expression, since these rights are subject to an exception in art 18(3) that the freedom may be subject to limitations which are necessary to protect public health, as I have found the limitations imposed by the orders to be. For the same reasons, an infringement of art 19 (which protects freedom of thought and expression) has not been established since it is subject to the same exception. I am not persuaded that art 26 (which prevents discrimination on the grounds of religion, race and sex) is infringed. As Mr Prince accepted on behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff would be in the same position if his objection to the virus arose from veganism, Buddhism, Catholicism or idiosyncratic beliefs. Further, and in any event, Australia has an obligation under art 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to prevent, treat and control epidemics, as addressed in Kassam at . In these circumstances, it is not necessary to address the question whether Australia’s international obligations can be used to construe not only Commonwealth legislation, but also State legislation.