JOHN Ruddick MLC (Libertarian) has introduced the Public Health Amendment (Immunisation) Bill 2026 – the first major legislative push in NSW in more than eight years to restore parental rights and vaccine choice.
In 2017 the NSW Government quietly removed the conscientious objector exemption that had existed for decades and expanded the “no jab, no play” rules to every school and childcare centre in the state – aka a totalitarian “health care” system that violates informed consent at common law.
“Parents who had carefully weighed the benefits and risks with their doctor suddenly had the door slammed in their face. The state decided it knew better,” says Mr Ruddick.
“More and more parents are selective about vaccines after the dangerous and ineffective COVID vaccine was forced on the entire population. These parents are not extremists for wanting to make informed health decisions for their own children.”
Mr Ruddick says Libertarians don’t believe you should have to co-parent with the government, so this Bill reverses those 2017 changes and puts power back with parents where it belongs. Specifically, it does three things:
– Limits the immunisation enrolment requirements to pre-2017 rules.
– Fully restores the conscientious objector pathway from the schools it applies to, so parents who have weighed up the risks can still make the decision themselves.
– Keeps the medical objection pathway intact.
“Nothing in this Bill stops any parent from fully vaccinating their child. It simply stops the state from punishing parents who, after proper medical advice, choose a different path for their son or daughter.
“So it’s not an anti-vax Bill, it’s a Bill supporting parental rights and basic freedoms. Coercion is not health policy, it’s authoritarian overreach. Look out for the debate in the months to come.”
Cairns News also points out that the actions of the State Government in removing a long-entrenched right at common law, shows the ignorance and contempt that modern political thinking has for the law, and in particular, misuse of the “Supremacy of Parliament” argument.
When legislatures pass Acts that violate common law, that Act should become unlawful and sent back to the legislature until it complies with the law.
The Australian Law Reform Commission has long stated that “informed consent to medical treatment” is “a right at common law”.
“At common law, all competent adults can consent to and refuse medical treatment. If consent is not established, there may be legal consequences for health professionals. Under the law of trespass, patients have a right not be subjected to an invasive procedure without consent or other lawful justification, such as an emergency or necessity,” the ALRC states.
An essay on the Law Teacher website on the topic of parliamentary supremacy observes: “With regard to Geoffrey Marshall’s argument “the most obvious and undisputed convention of the British constitutional system is that parliament does not use its ultimate sovereign power of legislation in an oppressive or tyrannical way.
“That is a vague but a clearly accepted constitutional rule resting on the principle of constitutionalism and the rule of law.” Three fundamental questions arise. At first we need to consider as how this convention is “enforced” and secondly whether this convention is an adequate protection against oppression and tyranny, and finally how might such protection be strengthened. Though the writer argues that as “clearly accepted” in my view I partially agree and disagree with the writer for the reasons I indicate below.
“The doctrine of Parliament sovereignty establishes the supreme law making body of England which is the legislature. The statutes created by the parliament are non justiciable, which shows the capacity of Parliament as a retrospective law making body.
“Though this is the fact, it was different before the Glorious Revolution of 1688. The unlimited parliament legislative authority was not always being accepted in courts. In the case of Dr Bonham’s it is stated that the common law had the power to control Acts of Parliament and sometime declare them to be void and similarly in Day v Savadge the view was expressed that if an Act was against natural equity in that it made a man a judge in his own case the Act would be void in it self.
“After the Glorious Revolution Parliament asserted the supremacy over the monarch which made Parliament hold the purse strings and which now had the legislative power.”
