KrazyKid:

sbiddle:

 

The issue is a massive one - much like the fact the lock down last year was illegal for the first 9 days.

 

 

 

It's not so much the implications that are the problem in this case (because the judge refused to grant an order stopping the vaccine rollout) but the fact our laws and health orders given under the health act have either been drafted poorly or have not followed the law.

 

They people who took this case, what were they trying to achieve? Was it pricing a technical point, a matter of legal principle, or were they trying to stop the vaccine program.

If it was the last surely they expected the government to legislate of they won and nothing to change.

It’s technical in nature and just proving a point in a sense - but I for one think it’s actually very good the actions of our government and officials are tested and held to account in the courts. It’s a great backstop against becoming a banana republic. 

The practical implications are essentially nil, and it’s certainly not a massive issue practically speaking - but it’s important that these things happen and it goes to show our government and officials need to take more care with these things to ensure they’re watertight.