Image

“Infectious Diseases Discrimination Is Against the Law,” Says NSW Government

If infectious diseases discrimination includes unfair treatment on the assumption that someone has or may acquire an infectious disease, are the NSW Government’s policies against the law?

Infectious diseases discrimination is against the law, according to Anti-Discrimination NSW, a state government body that administers the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (the Act).

The body’s website defines infectious diseases discrimination as, being “treated unfairly” because (1) you have an infectious disease; (2) people think you have an infectious disease; (3) you used to have an infectious disease; (4) you may acquire an infectious disease in the future; or (5) you are the friend, relative or colleague of a person with an infectious disease.

This also includes indirect discrimination, which is when there is a rule or requirement “that is the same for everyone but unfairly affects people with infectious diseases and is not reasonable in the circumstances.”

Places in which infectious diseases discrimination is against the law includes: (1) workplaces, such as when you apply for a job or while you are at work; (2) employment agencies, such as when you use recruitment companies; (3) when you access goods and services, such as when you go shopping, do your banking or access medical services; (4) state education, such as when you apply for study and during your studies; (5) accommodation, such as when you rent accommodation; (6) industrial organisations, such as membership of a union; (7) qualifying bodies, such as an institute that issues qualifications; (8) at registered clubs (clubs that sell alcohol or have gambling machines), such as when you try to enter or join a club.

The website states that there are rare instances when an employer or service provider may be required to comply with a law that involves discriminating against certain individuals. Examples of this include, (1) “Public health or occupational health or food-handling responsibilities to individuals in the acute stage of certain infectious diseases, such as hepatitis A and hepatitis C”; and (2) “If there is an outbreak of an infectious disease (such as whooping cough or measles) in a day care centre, preschool or primary school, the organisation’s director or principal can be instructed by the Public Health unit to exclude a child who is not immunised until the outbreak is over.”

That said, “there are only rare occasions when health and safety obligations mean that someone can discriminate against you because you have an infectious disease,” the body claims.

According to the body: “This means that it is generally against the law to: (1) refuse to hire you or provide you with a service, accommodation or education; (2) make you have a blood test; (3) segregate you from other staff or clients; (4) dismiss you from your job; (5) breach your confidentiality or privacy on the grounds that others have the right to know about your disease; (6) treat you unfairly because they think you are gay or use drugs, and therefore assume that you have an infectious disease.”

The question is, if infectious diseases discrimination includes unfair treatment on the assumption that someone has or may acquire an infectious disease, are the NSW Government’s policies against the law?

NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian announced this week that fully vaccinated citizens will be granted freedoms denied to the rest of the population on the notion that those who are not double jabbed are more likely to acquire and spread an infectious disease.

The state government has also mandated vaccinations for all school staff, aged care workers, and health care workers. This means, not only are employees required to disclose their private medical status, but they will also lose their employment on the assumption that “people think you have an infectious disease” or that “you may acquire an infectious disease in the future.”

Is this not the very thing Anti-Discrimination NSW defines as “infectious disease discrimination”?

Furthermore, Prime Minister Scott Morrison, this week confirmed that businesses can discriminate against unvaccinated people by denying them services on the assumption that they pose a “greater health risk” to the community.

His comments come despite Anti-Discrimination NSW stating that unfair treatment in accessing goods and services on the belief that you are, or may acquire an infectious disease, is against the law.

Speaking in Parliament on Wednesday, Morrison said banning unvaccinated people from entry is a “legitimate thing” for businesses to do to “protect” employees and clients.

“The simple fact is, if you’re not vaccinated you present a greater health risk to yourself, to your family, to your community, and others about you,” Morrison said.

Isn’t denying freedoms and employment to healthy citizens on the assumption that they either have, used to have, or may acquire an infectious disease Anti-Discrimination NSW’s definition of infectious diseases discrimination?

Isn’t refusing goods and services to healthy citizens on the assumption that they either have, used to have, or may acquire an infectious disease Anti-Discrimination NSW’s definition of infectious diseases discrimination?

There will always be people who are more likely to acquire infectious diseases, either through biology or lifestyle choices. In fact, this is the reason why such anti-discrimination laws exist.

So, what is the legal basis for dismissing school teachers and health care workers, or denying goods and services to individuals based purely on the belief that they could, maybe, might, possibly acquire an infectious disease due to their medical choices?

Is this not infectious diseases discrimination? And if so, is it not against the law?

Special Request:

For nearly eight years, we've highlighted issues ignored by mainstream media and resisted globalist ideologies eroding Western civilization. We've done this joyfully, without paywalls, despite personal costs to our team. Your support has kept us going, but operating costs exceed donations, forcing us to use ads. We’d love to ditch them, so we’re asking for your help. If you value our work, please consider supporting us via Stripe or PayPal. Every bit helps us keep fighting for our kids’ future. Thank you!

What's New?

Use the blue arrows at the bottom to scroll through the latest.
Decriminalising Abortion Shifts the Right to Life from God to the State

Decriminalising Abortion Shifts the Right to Life from God to the State

"By legalising abortion, we are not just allowing the state to regulate life and death; we are redefining rights as privileges that can be granted and revoked by government, not as inherent gifts from God."
By
by Ben DavisJun 18, 2025
Baptist Perspectives on What Constitutes Israel

Baptist Perspectives on What Constitutes Israel

Who are the true recipients of God's covenant promises to Israel—ethnic Israel or those who are in Christ?
By
by Tim GrantJun 18, 2025
Has the Church Replaced Israel?

Has the Church Replaced Israel?

The nature of the relationship between Israel and the Church has been the subject of much misunderstanding and debate.
By
by Ben DavisJun 17, 2025
Mel Gibson: LA’s Open Borders Violence Is the Result of “Destructive Democrat Decision-Making”

Mel Gibson: LA’s Open Borders Violence Is the Result of “Destructive Democrat Decision-Making”

“We need to make our voices heard, as a community,” Gibson asserted, “because it’s clear that our elected officials don’t seem to give a damn.”
By
by Rod LampardJun 17, 2025
Bureaucrats Target Tutoring Startup After Homeschooling Surge

Bureaucrats Target Tutoring Startup After Homeschooling Surge

“Over half of our Victorian families withdrew from our programs, not because we failed them, but because they feared the system would punish them for accessing support.”
By
by Rod LampardJun 16, 2025
The End of War: From Barbarianism to Christendom

The End of War: From Barbarianism to Christendom

"Through the message of the cross, bloodthirsty warriors were remade into saints, and their warring tribes were transformed into the foundation of the greatest civilisation the world has known."
By
by Staff WriterJun 15, 2025
US State Department Defends Ireland Against EU’s Hate Speech Law Threat

US State Department Defends Ireland Against EU’s Hate Speech Law Threat

"We support the Irish people and our shared commitment to fundamental freedoms," the US said.
By
by Staff WriterJun 15, 2025
Massive Iron Ore Discovery and Global Warming

Massive Iron Ore Discovery and Global Warming

A recent high-grade iron ore discovery in Western Australia, valued at $6 trillion, raises questions about environmental policies. The processing of iron ore to make steel requires coal, leading to significant CO2 emissions, highlighting the stark contradiction with the Climate Cult agenda.

Image

Support

If you value our work and would like to support us, you can do so by visiting our support page. Can’t find what you’re looking for? Visit our search page.

Copyright © 2025, Caldron Pool

Permissions

Everything published at Caldron Pool is protected by copyright and cannot be used and/or duplicated without prior written permission. Links and excerpts with full attribution are permitted. Published articles represent the opinions of the author and may not reflect the views of all contributors at Caldron Pool.

Caldron Pool does not condone the use of violence, threats, or intimidation for political or religious purposes. We strongly advocate for peaceful, respectful, and free communication and open debate without fear of reprisal or punishment.