Labour to cut tax benefit for parents who choose not to vaccinate

[Phteven]

It's a pretty good way to distract people from real electoral issues like the re-introduction of work choices, selling out to big business and excessive cruelty to refugees.

[BellyBelly]

Yup a good way to gain approval from the majority population who think this is a bloody brilliant idea.

[nothing2lose]

Yup a good way to gain approval from the majority population who think this is a bloody brilliant idea.

That's politics for you

[BellyBelly]

Sad huh. I reckon they must brainstorm ideas like this, what can we throw in after a disaster comment/problem etc...

[Schmickers]

I don't get the FTB supplement because I choose to work. In fact, I don't get any government benefits (except Medicare) because I choose to work. If I wanted to get them, I guess I could choose not to work. To me it's no different with vaccinating. Make the choice to vax or not based on your beliefs, etc, and be prepared to accept the consequence of your choice.

If you are going to be swayed by a bonus payment from the Government (that could cease to exist altogether from one budget to the next), I'd question how strong your anti-vax beliefs are anyway.

What upsets me is that this is not the immunization payment. It is a family tax benefit payment. The message here is that the government thinks that families who choose not to immunize their children should not receive the same relief from tax add those that do. It's quite mind boggling to me.

What next? Mandated oral contraception for teenagers to reduce the rising rate of teen pregnancy? Mandated behavioral modification drugs for school aged children to reduce disruption in the classroom for children with ADHD? Allowing the government to mandate the way we care for our children above and beyond the need to protect then from the risk of serious harm or neglect is a terrible precedent to set.

[nothing2lose]

But you have a choice. No one is forcing anyone to do anything. That money is available through the largesse of the Government. It's not a right. It's a bonus. If it's the government policy to have universal vaccination, then it can't be surprising that it may not extend its largesse to those who reject that policy.

It doesn't effect me either way, but if it did, and I had made a conscious choice not to vax, then I would have to accept that the ramification of my choice would be no supplement payment.

[Ginger]

I am one of the people who thinks this is a bloody brilliant idea. The concept of herd immunity relies on people vaccinating their children, so by not vaccinating you are putting others at risk.

[Schmickers]

I am one of the people who thinks this is a bloody brilliant idea. The concept of herd immunity relies on people vaccinating their children, so by not vaccinating you are putting others at risk.

So how will herd immunity eradicate pertussis given that the best immunization is 90% effective?

Smallpox was the exception, not the rule.

[Trillian]

I hate this type of policy, absolutely hate it. They take a subset of people and threaten to withhold money as a way to enforce compliance. It's ****ed. Regardless of whether the money is a bonus or not and regardless of what your stance on vaccination is, the Government is telling us how to parent our children. It does irk me that some people are not true objectors and they just haven't done it for whatever reason but this is more than that. I can't believe people aren't getting more angry about the Government trying to control what parental choices (and therefore parental rights) we have. Because where does it stop? I agree with Schmickers - we don't know what else they will target in the future and I think it is terribly alarming when people think it's OK for them to do this without thinking of the broader implications such a policy can have.

[Ginger]

Why do people think you should get paid a vaccination payment if you are not actually vaccinating? I'm not being a smart ass. I just don't understand it. If you don't vaccinate, you don't get the vaccination payment. Makes perfect sense to me.

[Schmickers]

Why do people think you should get paid a vaccination payment if you are not actually vaccinating? I'm not being a smart ass. I just don't understand it. If you don't vaccinate, you don't get the vaccination payment. Makes perfect sense to me.

This isn't the immunization allowance. This is the FTB A supplement as far as I am aware.

[Ginger]

It is the ftb a bonus that is paid on the years that you vaccinate- if you vaccinate. Why should non vaxxers be entitled to it?

[Schmickers]

My understanding could be off but I thought there was a difference between the immunization allowance and FTB part A.

[Trillian]

It is the ftb a bonus that is paid on the years that you vaccinate- if you vaccinate. Why should non vaxxers be entitled to it?

No, actually the FTB supplement, which is what they will withhold, is part of your normal FTB payment they withhold until reconciliation so that if you do happen to incur a debt, they deduct that amount first, so it's still not a bonus as such (sorry for arguing semantics here, but I think it's important to note the difference). The non vaxxers are 'entitled' to it because the Government says they are - so long as they have lodged a CO form. Until the Government changes that, then any non-vaxxer will remain entitled to the money because they have complied with what the Government says they must do in order to get the money. I just think that it is a really underhanded way to force people to question their parenting choices by withholding money. I do think that there will be people who comply simply because they can't afford not to. I think people are already forgetting that people on parenting payments are already experiencing forced compliance because of the 4yo healthy children checks - if people didn't have them done then they were not getting the payment either. This is just extending it to those who may work, but who also can't afford to go without their supplement payment and were not previously bound by the healthy children check.

[nothing2lose]

No, it is a requirement for the supplement.

Eligibility for Family Tax Benefit Part A

[peanutter]

That's a good question.

I guess it's similar to the question of why should people get paid parental leave if they aren't working. Some people will argue that only the people doing the desired thing (vaccing, having babies then returning to work, etc) should get it, others will say all or none should get it, otherwise you're discriminating.

That's a very simplified form, but you get my point.

And as for whether the government is seeking to modify our behaviour as parents, well I think that's been prevalent since ... well ... forever. Free MCHN facilities but not necessarily lactation consultants or baby chiro, certain things being bulk billable or available at public hospitals (obs, gyn, midwives) but other things only privately available and user-pays (doula, hypnobirthing, waterbirthing, myotherapy), flouride in water, free vaccinations or incentives for vaccinations, some types of childcare being subsidised but not others, what recreational facilities are free and which aren't, what schooling options and classes are and aren't, etc etc etc. Where the money goes, what get publicised, and what comes up under the spotlight when the election comes around, etc.

And I don't think it's any different for parenting choices than for the choices about ourselves and what *we* do.

As in all things, I don't think we should be apathetic, but aware, and realistic, and intentional. And then own our decisions, and use what we do have (our personal time and finances, our voting power, our voice) to act on it in the best interest of ourselves and our families.

I think this is a good, important conversation to be having.

[Trillian]

N2L, it is a condition of it, but it's still not a 'bonus' payment.

And as for whether the government is seeking to modify our behaviour as parents, well I think that's been prevalent since ... well ... forever. Free MCHN facilities but not necessarily lactation consultants or baby chiro, certain things being bulk billable or available at public hospitals (obs, gyn, midwives) but other things only privately available and user-pays (doula, hypnobirthing, waterbirthing), flouride in water, free vaccinations or incentives for vaccinations, some types of childcare being subsidised but not others, what recreational facilities are free and which aren't, what schooling options and classes are and aren't, etc etc etc. Where the money goes, what get publicised, and what comes up under the spotlight when the election comes around, etc.

True. However those things have never had a monetary payment attached to them though which is what muddies the water. I just really don't believe that the Government should be withholding money to get you to do something. If you want poeple to vaccinate, prove to them that vaccines are safe and effective and are worth getting, don't get them to vaccinate by threatening them with withholding money kwim?

[onthefly]

I think they should scrap the payments entirely
Also, from a public health perspective, it's not purely a parenting choice. There are wider ramifications of these decisions, depending how you feel about vaccinations generally.