Group argues rule 'was not a demonstrable, justified limitation'
A group of educators in New Zealand is challenging the High Court's decision which ruled that the imposed vaccine mandate on the profession was justified.
The ruling facing appeal was made by Justice Cooke in April 2022, where he ruled that the vaccine mandates for educators were "demonstrably justified."
The New Zealand Teachers Speaking Out with Science (NZTSOS) said that the "High Court was wrong to decide that the right to refuse medical treatment was not absolute."
"NZTSOS will argue that the mandate was not a demonstrable justified limitation on this right," the group said in a statement on its website.
According to the group, the vaccine mandate had a devastating effect on teachers, other professionals, and the education community.
"This appeal is important to uphold the fundamental rights that all New Zealanders have, and to prevent the government imposing a similar unjustified mandate in the future," the group said.
The government first imposed the mandates on the education sector in October 2021, before scrapping them in April 2022. By late 2021, the Ministry of Education said the vaccination rate for teachers is at 97.6%, while it was 95% for teacher aides and other education staff.
Teachers still out of the profession
Latest News
Despite the mandate being dropped, the NZTSOS told the Court of Appeals many teachers are still out of the industry.
There were about 3,000 teachers who were not vaccinated against COVID-19, according to the group.
"Nearly all unvaccinated teachers lost their jobs, the majority remain out of that profession," Matthew Hague, who represented the NZTSOS, said as quoted by the New Zealand Herald.
The lawyer also argued that there were alternatives that were less limiting on the rights of educators, according to the report.
Hague's selection follows the court victory of a group police and defence force workers in their case against the COVID-19 vaccine mandate last year.
Government defence
On the government's defence, Daniel Jones said there was a "sufficient and compelling justification" on the High Court's decision, NZ Herald reported.
Jones, who represented minister for Covid-19 response and others, also cited the benefits of the mandates in curbing the spread of COVID-19, according to the report.
Having more protection in place would mean more protection for vulnerable communities, according to Jones, as he commented on Hague's suggestion of other alternative measures.
The New Zealand Herald reported that the decision of the court was reserved.