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

[glenny_c]

Labor to cut tax benefit for parents who don't immunise children - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Only exemptions will be medical or religious grounds

[Schmickers]

Quite disgusted by this policy to be honest.

[PumpkinZulu]

So they're basically forcing lower income families into vaccinating? **** this world, I swear.

[Phteven]

Meh. Government health policy is to encourage vaccination. If they want to withhold a.$700 payment from people who choose not to vaccinate I don't give a ****. If you believe vaccinations are toxic then you won't risk your child's health for the sake of $700 if you'll change your mind for $700 then you probably aren't that convinced by the anti-vaccination arguments.
We don't have an automatic right to expect every government payment especially if the payment is to encourage a policy that we don't adhere to.

[Rouge]

What I find offensive is the notion that people who are poorer than others will sell out on their children's health for $700. Yeah no. That's more offensive than the actual policy. It's no different than accusing people of procreating to get the baby bonus.

[AnyDream]

IMHO the # of true conscientious objectors in this country is a fraction of the # of people who just didn't quite get around to it. Especially in low socio-economic areas. Providing a strong financial incentive will increase vacc rates significantly in those communities and is likely to save the public health system a bucket load of cash in not having to treat quite nasty complications that arise in otherwise (statistically) preventable disease.

[Calluna]

700 a year is a huge deal to us. It wont change my mind but it will make it much harder to live. Guess we'll be living on pasta rice and 2 min noodles for the forseable future. That will be very healthy for my children.
That 13-14 dollars a week will make a difference to us.

[Tinks]

But you're not getting it weekly anyway. It's the end of financial year supplement they're talking about. So, continue to eat as you're already eating.

[HotI]

IMHO the # of true conscientious objectors in this country is a fraction of the # of people who just didn't quite get around to it. Especially in low socio-economic areas. Providing a strong financial incentive will increase vacc rates significantly in those communities and is likely to save the public health system a bucket load of cash in not having to treat quite nasty complications that arise in otherwise (statistically) preventable disease.

But that already exists. For those who don't get around to getting vaccines, they miss out on the bonus. My understanding is that the changes only affect current conscientious objectors - at the moment with a CO form they are considered up to date for centrelink reasons, with the changes they will no longer be considered up to date.

[PumpkinZulu]

Yeah it won't change my mind either. For me this is just another step in a direction I am completely uncomfortable with. I think it's toeing a delicate line.

[AnyDream]

Well I guess we'll find out how strongly held those conscientious objections are.

Don't get me wrong, this is a complex issue. But it's also true that its an area where some families may be vulnerable to ambigious information/misinformation in the public sphere. The latest research shows that many (young especially) parents rely on the opinions of the particular community they find themselves in, rather than getting good information. Until this point, "doing nothing" (ie choosing not to vaccinate) has not had any ramifications. Objection-friendly doctors are well known in particular communities. So it has created a situation for parents who have a level of doubt, possibly because they know others who are not vaccinating (or they saw the scary videos on youtube), but they haven't looked at any quality information, and so it's easier just not to vacc at all. $721 x 3 creates an incentive to get some more information and come down strongly on one side or the other.

FWIW, this is the sort of policy that will be dead easy to track statistically. If there's a surge in vaccinations it will show the policy has been successful. But if the increase is small they will know pretty quickly (ie 1-3 years) that they have misjudged the anti-vax sentiment & the policy is disadvantaging some families unnecessarily. Certainly in time for the following federal election.

I appreciate the timing is not great for true conscientious objecting parents who have children now at an age who will be affected. On the other hand, most families are affected at one time or another by the rise and fall of government generosity, often for much more arbitrary reasons than this. At least this is tied to trying to get a positive (ie measurable) public health outcome out of it.

[PumpkinZulu]

FWIW, this is the sort of policy that will be dead easy to track statistically. If there's a surge in vaccinations it will show the policy has been successful. But if the increase is small they will know pretty quickly (ie 1-3 years) that they have misjudged the anti-vax sentiment & the policy is disadvantaging some families unnecessarily. Certainly in time for the following federal election.

This is very true.

[Heaven]

Wow. That disgusts me. Won't change my mind though. Although will probably change my vote.

[forshelby]

I don't know how I feel about this policy tbh. But after seeingDS1 suffer with whooping cough, and having it myself while pg... I will continue to vax. it was terrifying and would have been worse without vaccination.

that's just my view. I'd have to give it more thought before picking a side on the policy. but I'm leaning towards a 'bugger it, whatever increases vax rates' attitude. . mostly from a place of fearing my babies getting ill again.

[forshelby]

I don't know how I feel about this policy tbh. But after seeingDS1 suffer with whooping cough, and having it myself while pg... I will continue to vax. it was terrifying and would have been worse without vaccination.

that's just my view. I'd have to give it more thought before picking a side on the policy. but I'm leaning towards a 'bugger it, whatever increases vax rates' attitude. . mostly from a place of fearing my babies getting ill again.

[Ca Plane Pour Moi]

Wow. In the UK we are given NO baby bonus, FTB or vax payment. Sure, there are some payments for families with no wage, and a modcum of tax returned for workers with children, but no financial incentives.

If you "need" a $700 payment to have a child, can you afford to keep that child at a decent standard of living for 16-20 years? Maybe this policy is not a bad one if it makes people think.

[BellyBelly]

Whooping cough is scary. I love this article about it though:

http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/20...-humphries-md/

“We’ve had over 90% baby vaccination rates for whooping cough vaccines for over 11 years…since 2000, AND they’ve included even more shots since then for the adolescents at the time… and yet more, after 2000… AND here we are with whooping cough in EVEN higher numbers than it was before 1960? Don’t you think that’s absolutely astonishing? …Australia, which has had over a 95% whooping cough vaccination rate since 2000, is having the largest outbreak in their history since pertussis vaccination started. The same is happening in USA, and their rate of vaccination is even higher than Australia. So what do you think is happening there?” – Hilary Butler

[nothing2lose]

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.