This is an extraordinary achievement - the development of a vaccine for any virus in such a short period of time was never assured. For example, HIV remains without an effective vaccine since it emerged globally 40 years ago, notwithstanding significant improvements to treatment regimes.

While Australia has done exceptionally well in controlling COVID-19 infection rates, our success to date creates something of a challenge. Relatively few Australians have any exposure to the virus and so most of us are still at risk of contracting COVID-19.

It is therefore vital to have an effective national program of vaccination to get enough of the population protected from the disease.

The scientists have done what we collectively asked them to do. The vaccine option is now available to confer widespread protection across our community. The task in turn for government is to make sure that those hard-won gains are realised in a just and equitable way for all.

Australia's Therapeutic Goods Agency recently provided provisional approval for the Pfizer vaccine.

This means that a program of vaccination will be able to commence in February in a phased approach.

Under the federal government's COVID-19 vaccine national rollout strategy those at most risk, or likely to benefit most from the vaccine, will receive it first.

The vaccination program will extend to other groups in the population over the following months, with the program of vaccination expected to be completed by about October this year.

The question of voluntary versus mandatory vaccination raises complex ethical and legal issues. The choice you make as an individual can affect others.

Inadequate vaccination rates may leave the broader population exposed. Governments have previously dealt with these concerns through controversial policies like 'No Jab - No Play' and 'No Jab - No Pay'. Such policies seek to 'incentivise' uptake by making access to services such as childcare and social security benefits contingent on a full vaccination record.

The federal health minister has stated that inoculation with one of the COVID vaccines will be voluntary. However, he has also refused to rule out No Jab-No Pay type policies for the COVID-19 vaccine.

In a similar vein, the NSW Premier has indicated that she is considering making entry into some government buildings such as Service NSW shopfronts conditional on proof of vaccination and to permit NSW businesses and hospitality industries to do the same.

The ACT Chief Minister has suggested that he may consider making COVID-19 vaccinations mandatory in some settings.

Here in the ACT, the Human Rights Act 2004 provides a valuable rights-based framework, which can help to ensure that we develop the right policy settings for the implementation of a COVID-19 vaccination program.

Unsurprisingly, public health measures that involve direct or indirect compulsion are likely to also involve serious impositions on the rights of individuals.

Mandating vaccination is a form of involuntary medical treatment and therefore amounts to an interference with a person's right to bodily integrity.

Measures that tie access to services and benefits with vaccination can also exacerbate inequalities by disproportionately affecting disadvantaged members of our community.

Any ACT policy to mandate vaccination, whether directly or indirectly, must therefore be assessed for its impact on human rights and whether those impacts are reasonable, necessary and proportionate.

To ensure the right balance is struck between the goals of public health and respect for individual human rights, any policy of compulsory vaccination should be enacted in primary legislation and include adequate checks and balances. Under the Public Health Act 1997 (ACT), the chief health officer currently has broad powers to issue directions to reduce the threat to public health while a public health emergency declaration is in force.

However, nonconsensual interference with a person's bodily integrity is not something that a democratic society should tolerate without detailed laws and safeguards (such as external review rights) in place.

A mandatory vaccination policy that is applied in a blanket fashion would be contrary to human rights standards. Any such policy should provide exclusions for individuals for whom vaccination is likely to be unsafe or ineffective.

Exceptions should also be considered for those who conscientiously object, where other alternatives, such as testing regimes, remote work, physical distancing, and personal protection equipment (PPE), are reasonably available. Businesses and services providers, including aged care homes, should be required to apply similar criteria in deciding when to make vaccination a condition of entry.

The ACT currently has high rates of childhood immunisation uptake (approximating more than 94 per cent) and leads other states and territories in most age groups.

These rates have been achieved in the ACT without direct or indirect compulsion and are only marginally shy of the recommended 95 per cent required to maintain herd immunity.

While this uptake has been attained in the context of established childhood vaccination regimes, there is no reason to think that the ACT could not also achieve sufficient COVID-19 vaccination coverage by encouraging voluntary uptake in the first instance.

The story of vaccines over the centuries shows that educating and involving the community, understanding their concerns, and building trust through the provision of accurate and timely information is more effective in the long run than coercion or sanctions in overcoming vaccine hesitancy.

As a human rights jurisdiction, it is incumbent on the ACT government to protect the capacity of individuals to be fully informed and to exercise meaningful consent about treatments and vaccines.