Teacher Belinda Cetnar to fight Victoria’s Covid jab mandate Supreme Court trial
A relief teacher and her horticulturist husband will fight Victoria’s mandatory vaccination policy in the Supreme Court.
A Victorian teacher and her husband will take the state’s Covid-19 “no jab, no job” policy to trial this month.
Relief teacher Belinda Cetnar and her horticulturalist husband, Jack Cetnar, launched an urgent application against the policy and appeared in the Supreme Court on Tuesday.
Both of them work at schools and were at risk losing their roles if they failed to get vaccines, according to documents filed in the court.
More than 2000 people tuned in to watch the virtual hearing.
The teacher appeared via videolink with her husband and represented herself, but she told Justice Melinda Richards they were seeking a lawyer.
The pair could do with an “experienced lawyer’s eye” looking over their documents and there needed to be “refinement” of their case, Justice Richards said.
“There are a number of matters raised in there that I’m not really sure what they have to do with the powers of the chief health officer under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act,” Justice Richards said.
The argument in relation to the state’s human rights charter was “well developed” but the judge said she was unsure what relevance the Biosecurity Act and civil conscription had to the matter.
Justice Richards said she was keen to have a trial for the matter and set a date for October 25.
She gave the Cetnars’ a week to file their amended statement of claim with the court and to address any issues raised in the document.
The teacher claimed in court documents the mandatory policy was an “extreme measure” and was “inconsistent” with human rights provisions.
She argued the directives for mandatory vaccinations were not a “proportionate response” to the pandemic.
“They do not uphold a citizen’s right to autonomy and informed consent in medical treatment and procedures,” Ms Cetnar wrote in the statement of claim.
“The blanket mandate approach does not consider the human rights of those it is imposed
on and the defendants have failed to consider less restrictive means reasonably available
to achieve the purpose for which they seek to achieve.
“If the mandate is permitted, the plaintiffs and broader community opposing the proposed
mandate might face termination of employment and subsequent loss of income which will
adversely affect their livelihoods and established careers.”
The teacher questioned the safety and efficacy of the coronavirus shots. Such concerns have been debunked by international and Australian public health experts.
The Victorian government announced last month teachers and staff must receive their first dose of a coronavirus vaccine by October 18 if they want to continue working at schools.
Last week Premier Daniel Andrews announced all authorised workers would need to get vaccinated in order to work.