Edwards v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 091

Date: 18 March 2022
Court: Queensland Industrial Relations Commission
Judicial Officer: Power IC
Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) Sections: s 17
Rights Considered: Right to protection from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
Other Legislation: Hospital and Health Boards Act 2011 (Qld) s 51A; Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) ss 562B, 562C; Public Service Act 2008 (Qld) s 194.
Keywords: Education, Training, Employment; Public Law Considerations: COVID-19 Directions

The appellant sought a review of the respondent’s decision to refuse their COVID-19 vaccine exemption application form which cited genuinely held religious beliefs. The appellant submitted that the vaccination requirement was contrary to s 17(c) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) however the Commission found that the Health Employment Directive 12/21 could not be characterised as engaging this provision.

Ms Lisa Edwards (‘the appellant’) was employed as a Business Support Officer in a Clinical Governance Unit by the State of Queensland and appealed against the decision to refuse her vaccine exemption application, primarily on the basis that her refusal was not grounded in any genuinely held religious belief but rather, vaccine hesitancy arising out of concerns regarding the effiacy and safety of the COVID-19 vaccination specifically.

In making the decision, the Commission referred to the Health Employment Directive 12/21 which required COVID-19 vaccinations for health service employees but allowed an exemption application to be considered in a range of circumstances, including where an employee has a genuinely held religious belief. The appellant submitted that the vaccination requirement is contrary to the right to protection from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (section 17(c)). The Commission acknowledged that whilst the Directive impacted the rights to equality, non-discrimination and the right not to receive medical treatment without consent, however it did not find that the Directive could be reasonably characterised as enaging the right to protection from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, provided for in section 17(c) of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld): at [42]. The respondent’s decision was confirmed and the appeal was dismissed.

Visit the judgment: Edwards v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2022] QIRC 091