Definitions: Coercion, Duress, and Economic Duress
In law, coercion is codified as a duress crime. Such actions are used as leverage, to force the victim to act in a way contrary to their own interests.Duress is defined as threats, violence, constraints, or other action used to coerce someone into doing something against their will or better judgement. Economic duress occurs when one party uses unlawful economic pressure to coerce another party into a contract that they would otherwise not agree to.
As the situation unfolds
In 2015, the Australian Government implemented the 'No Jab, No Pay' legislation. This resulted in the following financial penalties to parents who made the choice for their children:
Reduction in Family Tax Benefit - A supplement
No longer eligible for Child Care Subsidy if their child's vaccinations were not up to date and they had no catch-up vaccination schedule
Some States went as far as implementing 'No Jab, No Play' which mandated that children could not be enrolled in Child Care Education Centres if they aren't vaccinated.
In 2016, Hospital and Health Services within Queensland changed their employment contracts to require all front line health workers are required to be vaccinated against all Vaccine Preventable Diseases (VPDs). Health Care workers.
In 2016, Hospital and Health Services within Queensland changed their employment contracts to require all front line health workers are required to be vaccinated against all Vaccine Preventable Diseases (VPDs). Health Care workers.
In 2020, Queensland implemented a Direction restricting entry to Aged Care facilities based on Influenza vaccination status. This impacted aged care workers, as well as the visitors of aged care residents.
In 2021, Queensland re-implemented the Aged Care Direction under Emergency Powers given to the Queensland Minister for Health and Ambulance Services and Chief Health Officer. This will again impact aged care workers, as well as the visitors of aged care residents.
Currently, the Government says that vaccines are not mandatory'; everyone has a choice whether to receive vaccines in Australia. However, the choice comes at great cost for many people, penalty.
Is this really freedom of choice without penalty or restriction?
Freedom of movement
The High Court has declared laws restricting the free movement of people throughout Australia to be unconstitutional. In Cole v Whitfield the Court said:
A constitutional guarantee of freedom of interstate intercourse, if it is to have substantial content, extends to a guarantee of personal freedom 'to pass to and fro among the States without burden, hindrance or restriction'.
However, the High Court has also emphasised that the constitutional right to freedom of movement between the States is not absolute. Restrictions on movement are permissible if necessary for the promotion of public order, safety or morals.
Incompatibility with Human Rights
To quote from the Australia Human Rights Commission:
"To be lawful, a limitation must be imposed by legislation or a comparable measure, for example, delegated legislation. The legislation must disclose with sufficient certainty the extent of interference with the freedom which is authorised and the reasons for it. It 'should use precise criteria and may not confer unfettered discretion on those charged with their execution'."
Source: https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/publications/human-rights-brief-no-4#5_exceptional https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/rights-and-freedoms/freedom-movement?_ga=2.42283749.1312330075.1619424462-1721957139.1591913632