But the proposal has received backlash from online business owners and the minority of residents who are reluctant to receive the vaccine.
On social media, anti-vaccination groups have pushed the idea of non-compliance, while Guardian Australia has also reported concerns of some business owners who say holding them accountable for enforcing a vaccination mandate places an unfair burden on staff. Berejiklian was pressured by reporters on Wednesday whether the NSW government had obtained advice on both the legality of compulsory vaccinations and the requirement for companies apply all the rules.
The prime minister said the government would "need to seek legal advice ", saying that he was in "uncharted territory".
"We get advice from a myriad of sources every step of the way and what people choose to do individually affects them in terms of legal issues. , but I'll say this - our job is to provide certainty and security for the community, but also to see both clients enjoy their freedom, ”she said.
But experts said the government would. be on solid ground in its attempts.ves to impose vaccinations for certain freedoms.
While the government of NSW is currently faces legal challenges regarding some of its public health orders , including rules requiring police and healthcare workers to be vaccinated Dr Ron Levy, as an associate professor at Australian National University Law School, said the legal outlook for those opposed to Vaccination mandates were "pretty bad.
"I don't see many limits, legally speaking," he said. "People want to find them because they firmly believe that their freedoms are limited, but legally speaking, they will not find what they are looking for.
While some groups, including the Australian Human Rights Commission, have raised the possibility of discriminatory laws affecting vaccination mandates, Levy said they could only apply in extremely limited cases, as the personal opposition to vaccines was not a form of discrimination.
"In very rare cases, people might not be able to get vaccinated for medical reasons, so there could be an argument of discrimination on the basis of disability, but what is very, very likely is that any order or law will have exemptions for this kind of people, anyway, "he said.
The legal landscape was less complicated in NSW, Levy said, because the state didn't no human rights law. In states and territories that do - Victoria, ACT and Queensland - lawmakers should consider the rights implicationsof any rule limiting access to places based on immunization status.
The Australian Human Rights Commission, for example, has warned that vaccine passports "can have important implications for privacy and autonomy, freedom of movement and association, fairness and discrimination, especially when it comes to accessing goods and services dailies ".
But Levy said the courts would always balance people's rights, using the saying " your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins ".
" This iswhat it is… you have the freedom not to put anything in your blood or your muscles but on the other hand if you want to go out into society with other immunosuppressed or disabled people or simply I don't want to potentially die from Covid, the interests of these peoples are also important.
"So this is the balance that needs to be done . There are hardly any relative rights apart from torture and genocide, most rights are certainly just the starting point for the discussion. "