Social Services Legislation Amendment (No Jab, No Pay) Bill 2015 - Submission

Prepared By:

Mrs Amanda Taylor

I am writing to voice my opposition to the No Jab, No Pay policy.

Freedom of Choice

In a democracy like Australia, freedom of choice is sacred. The right to choose, or not, to undergo invasive medical procedures is even more important than most choices: so much more so when it relates to our children and especially where there is an inherent risk. For example, who accepts liability should something go wrong with the procedure given the decision to vaccinate has effectively been forced onto parents?

In addition, where do we draw the line on the Government being able to force or coerce people into behaviour that they would not freely choose? Once we start on this course, who is to prevent a future Government taking this further on ideological grounds?

Coercion or Civil Conscription?

Making payment of benefits to a family, dependant on their children receiving a medical procedure, may constitute a form of coercion or Civil conscription. This is effectively a way to force people, often the most vulnerable people with limited financial options, to give their children a medical procedure that they would otherwise choose not to have. The potential withdrawal of benefits is a form of civil conscription. Under S. 51(xxiiiA) of the Australian Constitution, which states:

(xxiiiA) the provision of maternity allowances, widows' pensions, child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services (but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription), benefits to students and family allowances;

Under this section of the Constitution, forcing people to vaccinate their children under threat of removal of benefits may be illegal!

Financial Saving or Health Outcome?

It is unclear if the intention of this bill is to improve the budget position through a financial saving, resulting from the withdrawal of benefits to a small group of people, or a health outcome. Whichever is the main objective, I believe that both outcomes would not be met.

Most conscientious objectors who choose not to give their children vaccinations and will forgo benefits in order to preserve their right to choose what medication their children receive. I would for my family. As a result, I would not be able to work and would be on some other form of Government benefit. I would not be working and paying taxes as I do now. Where is the cost saving or the health outcome in this?

How does removal of childcare benefit prevent children from interacting in any other walk of life? At a park, supermarket or indoor play centre? Informed Consent

If the choice to vaccinate is made based on a financial consideration by parents, how will this impact on the imperative of “informed consent” where medical procedures are involved?

Definition of Informed Consent: permission granted in full knowledge of the possible consequences, typically that which is given by a patient to a doctor for treatment with knowledge of the possible risks and benefits.

It is unclear whether the current system gives parents the information they need to make an Informed Consent choice in relation to vaccinations. Removal of financial benefits may lead to more parents making the choice on financial grounds rather than what is best for their child medically.

In Closing

There are better ways to improve health outcomes than penalising a very small minority of parents, many of whom will most likely choose to forgo the financial incentive rather than vaccinate. Ironically, we are all wanting the same outcome; healthy and happy children.

Education would be a more appropriate method to achieve this. Much of the anti & pro vaccination argument revolve around fear. Either the fear of the diseases (pro) or the fear of potential side effects (anti). Perhaps using reason and a more constructive dialogue to engage both sides of this debate in a less emotional and more respectful manner would be more effective. Using a “stick” approach will not work because you are talking about people’s children.

No one should ever be put in a position where they may have to choose between a financial incentive and their conscience when it comes to the health of their child.