Lawyers warn on ‘no jab, no pay’ immunisation bill

1434884916-no-jab-no-pay-no-way-march-in-sydney_7911218

One of the nation’s peak law groups is cautioning senators against supporting government plans to strip payments from ­parents who fail to vaccinate their children, including conscientious objectors, claiming it is a “punit­ive approach’’ and “not in the best interests of the child’’.

In an unusual foray into public policymaking, the Law Institute of Victoria, while saying it supports efforts to increase childhood vaccination rates, cites the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to express reservations about the government’s new “no jab, no pay’’ rules.

It fears that “this policy is not in the best interests of the child’’ and “takes a punitive approach to addressing the issue of encouraging childhood vaccinations’’.

Under existing rules, parents can be exempt from having their children meet the government’s immunisation requirements if they declare they have a conscientious objection to vaccin­ation. But the government has drafted legislation to scrap this exemption.

From January 1, all parents who don’t fully vaccinate children will lose taxpayer-­funded benefits. The only exception will be on valid medical grounds.

The government’s legislation was passed in the lower house this month with the support of Labor, and is being examined by a Senate committee.

The Law Institute of Victoria, which represents 19,000 members, has recommended that the committee not support the bill in its current form.

“As noted above, if children are not vaccinated then under this bill their families will not be eligible to receive a number of monetary benefits available to other families,’’ the peak body says. “The LIV is concerned that the practical effect of the bill may be many disadvantaged families will lose important benefits, without an increase in childhood vaccination rates.

Unknown

“This outcome would not be in the best interests of the children involved (and would not benefit society generally through higher vaccination rates).’’

It argues that there are many other ways to increase vaccin­ation rates through education and health services funding “that are likely to be more effective than the punitive approach taken by the bill, an approach that does not appear to prioritise the best interests of the child’’.

The changes, designed to lift immunisation rates and stop the spread of diseases such as meas­les, will save about $500 million over the forward estimates.

Failure to fully vaccinate will mean parents are no longer elig­ible to receive the Child Care Bene­fit, the Child Care Rebate and the Family Tax Benefit Part A end-of-year supplement, worth $726.35. The value of the childcare payments depend on family income and the use of approved childcare, but combined can be add up to thousands of dollars.

The Department of Social ­Services has told senators the bill was compatible with human rights and freedoms “because it advances the protection of the right to physical health and, to the extent that it may also limit human rights, those limitations are reasonable, necessary and proportionate’’.

A parliamentary paper on the bill said of the 75,000 children aged one, two or five not recorded as being fully immunised about 20 per cent or 14,869 were registered as conscientious objectors.

Source

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/health/lawyers-warn-on-no-jab-no-pay-immunisation-bill/story-fn59nokw-1227586013452?sv=7757476aef0444b50eb287a75d523502

6 thoughts on “Lawyers warn on ‘no jab, no pay’ immunisation bill

  1. yes they vio;ate human lawe of not letting soem one inject you with poison. any body with a stikll aliuve thgought process would have investigated this and found out what a damnable evil trick this is.and could start a undertow against those in govt where they might stick these vaccinations in them and theirs and then see what happens as autism is what 1/50 now 20 years past it was 1/10,000 vicinations are all bad , it is a false theory and is based on their underplsasn of genocide their = jews and their lickspittles.

  2. According to what I read
    ONLY 20% OF THE CHILDREN OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ARE IMMUNISED
    ‘You don’t know what you talkin’ ’bout girl”
    YOU SEE, THE HOTSHOT, TOP GUN, POWER BROKERS OF THE WORLD ARE ONLY TO HAPPY TO SHOOT THEIR BIG MOUTHS OFF IN ALL DIRECTIONS…..
    BUT WHEN IT COMES TO PAYING MONIES
    THAT IS WHERE THE ROMANCE ENDS.

    Example:
    * In Australia the TV ran hot scaremongering about diabetes. – kaching kaching
    * Special programs were set up. – kaching kaching
    * Terrified by the TV propaganda.
    * Australians fronted their GP’s … much to the lazy sods dismay. – kaching kaching
    * Blood tests were done & it was found that YOU HAD TYPE 2 DIABETES. – kaching kaching
    * you were referred to a diabetes nurse. – kaching kaching
    * you were referred to a diabetes educator – kaching kaching
    * you were referred to the Diabetes Association ‘officially’ as a member by the GP. kaching kaching
    * you got pharmaceutical stuff for free. kaching kaching
    * you were refered to a dieticion. – kaching kaching
    * you were refered to the eye clinic. – kaching kaching
    * you were refered to a podiatrist. – kaching kaching
    * you had regular blood tests done. kaching kaching
    * you had fecal tests done looking for bowel cancer. – kaching kaching
    * there was more …. – kaching kaching
    * THEN
    the diebetis nures got sick of seeing you
    so did the GP
    so did the podiatrist
    the diabetes educator will not return your calls
    ONE DAY – sick to death of you by now – ABOUT 12 MONTHS LATER – THE GP LOOK YOU STRAIGHT IN THE EYE & SAY “you do not have diabetes”
    AND THEY ALL DROP YOU.
    MONEY TALKS BULLSHIT WALKS

  3. Please know that the GP filled in the froms to have me become a member of the Diebetes Association of Australia – because I was found to have type 2 diabeted – I have a membership number & card.
    You cannot become a member with out the GP’s referel/ assurance that you indeed hav diabetes.
    IT IS & WAS DOCUMENTED MAL-PRACTICE / GROSS NEGLIGENCE FOR THE GP TO THEN INFORM ME THAT I DO NOT HAVE DIABETES.
    THERE IS NO CURE FOR DIABETES YOU SEE.
    THIS HAPPENED TO THOUSANDS OF AUSTRALIANS.

  4. All this was wasted money that should have been GIVEN TO THE CHILDRENS HOSPITAL – you need to have a shick child to know this – GOD KNOW THEY NEED IT.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *