Australia’s Largest Christian News Site

Conscientious objection, informed consent, parental rights, and the overreach of the No Job, No Pay policy.

In recent years, Australian government policy has increasingly linked access to essential benefits for families with childhood vaccination requirements. These measures, notably the No Jab, No Pay policy, were implemented with the stated goal of protecting children and the wider community from vaccine-preventable diseases.

However, the policy has sparked significant debate, particularly around issues of informed consent, parental rights, and government overreach. As a parent, how can one give genuine informed consent when the choice is tied to financial penalties?

History of No Jab, No Pay Policy

Let’s take a look at the evolution of the No Jab, No Pay policy and why the reinstatement of conscientious objection is necessary to restore the balance between individual rights and community protections.

The concept of tying immunisation requirements to government payments is not new in Australia. The connection dates to 1998 when the first immunisation requirements were attached to family assistance payments. Then, in 2009, the Maternity Immunisation Allowance was split into two payments given at 18 months and four years, each contingent on a child’s vaccination status.

In 2012, the government strengthened these links by attaching immunisation criteria for Family Tax Benefit A. But it was in 2015 that the government took unprecedented steps, introducing the No Jab, No Pay policy. This legislation removed exemptions for those objecting to vaccinations on religious or personal grounds, extending requirements to children beyond the age of four. As a result, families who chose not to vaccinate their children were penalised by losing access to vital financial support.

Punitive Measures and Government Overreach

The government has admitted that the goal of this policy is punitive rather than incentivising. They explicitly state that ‘rather than offering an incentive payment for families to immunise children, these requirements apply a financial penalty for those whose children are not immunised’. For many, this stance raises serious ethical questions about linking financial support for families to compliance with medical procedures, especially when considering the policy has pushed hundreds of families into financial hardship.

The No Jab, No Pay policy has broader implications beyond vaccination, it reflects a growing trend of government intervention in areas traditionally considered private. For the same purpose an enshrined separation of powers exists between the Parliament, Judiciary, and Executive branches, the same principle applies to the rights and responsibilities of the individual and family, which should be devoid of government interference. There is no one-size-fits-all approach when it comes to personal health, and it is an abuse of power to punish families for personal choices, through government-inflicted consequences.

Parental Rights and Freedoms

Parents and individuals should have the freedom to make health decisions based on their unique circumstances, values, and understanding. Some families choose not to vaccinate due to lived experiences, religious beliefs, or confidence in natural immunity. Yet, these families are often labelled, ridiculed, and marginalised, facing a societal stigma that equates their choices with opposition to public health.

The debate should not be reduced to ‘anti-vax’ versus ‘pro-vax’. At its core, this issue is about respecting individual choice, supporting informed consent, and acknowledging that each person’s health journey is personal and valid.

As referenced by several human rights organisations, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCRR), the right to make medical decisions is a fundamental human right. When the government imposes financial penalties for exercising this right, it undermines the very principles of choice and informed consent, turning what should be a personal health decision into an obligation backed by economic coercion.

The No Jab, No Pay policy’s financial burden on non-compliant families is significant. Many families have lost tens of thousands of dollars because of this policy, all while the government has touted a $500 million saving from denying benefits to those who do not comply. This approach has left numerous families struggling financially and deprived of vital support – often the most vulnerable families. Recognising the unintended harm caused, there is a growing call to restore the rights of conscientious objectors.

The Restoration of Conscientious Objector Rights Bill 2024

The proposed Restoration of Conscientious Objector Rights Bill 2024 aims to address these issues. This bill would remove childhood immunisation as a criterion for receiving Childcare Subsidies and the Family Tax Benefit, thus reinstating critical support for families without imposing medical compliance as a prerequisite. Additionally, the bill seeks to prevent future legislation that could mandate any form of medical treatment as a condition for financial assistance. By doing so, it would uphold the principles of informed consent and protect against further government intrusion into personal health decisions.

Along with many others, I was part of a government that supported the Social Services Legislation Amendment (No Jab, No Pay) Act 2015. I apologise for this and now recognise the harm this policy has inflicted on countless Australian families.

I have spoken with hundreds of parents who feel alienated, financially burdened, and disenfranchised due to a law that disregards their right to choose what they believe is best for their children. For some of these families, the financial penalties have led to hardship, pushing them further into economic uncertainty.

Now, with a fuller understanding of the consequences of this policy, I cannot in good conscience let this issue go unaddressed. The Restoration of Conscientious Objector Rights Bill is about opposing a system that prioritises punishment over support, a system that compromises the medical freedom of individuals in the name of community protection.

True sovereignty lies in finding the right balance between personal responsibilities and community protections. Today, I am deeply concerned that the rights and responsibilities of families are being subordinated to the concept of ‘community protection’ in a way that erodes personal choice and autonomy. The No Jab, No Pay policy, while well-intentioned, has strayed from its original purpose and now stands as an example of government overreach.

What You Can Do To Help

I urge every Australian to consider the importance of informed consent, bodily autonomy, and the right of parents to make decisions for their families without the fear of financial penalty.

As the Restoration of Conscientious Objector Rights Bill 2024 moves forward, I ask for your support in advocating for a fairer, more compassionate approach to public health policy.

Please reach out to your Federal MP to ensure that this bill receives the consideration it deserves.

___

Originally published at The Spectator Australia. Photo by Adobe.