Alex Antic (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill.

Leave granted.

I table an explanatory memorandum, and I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

This Bill seeks to restore freedom of choice for concerned parents while addressing the financial pressures placed on conscientious objectors from lower socio-economic backgrounds by repealing the 2015 No Jab, No Pay changes to family assistance immunisation requirements.

In 2015, conscientious objection and religious exemptions were removed from the immunisation requirements for eligibility for the Family Tax Benefit-A supplement, Child Care Benefit and Child Care Rebate—now the Child Care subsidy.

The removal of these exemptions, and a new requirement for children of all ages to meet immunisation requirements for the FTB-A supplement—including older children—were included in the 2015-16 Budget as part of a package of measures aimed at boosting rates of immunisation—the policy was known as No Jab, No Pay.

Through the Social Services Legislation Amendment (No Jab, No Pay) Act 2015 the changes commenced from 1 January 2016, and included free catch-up vaccinations for older children who had not received all the required National Immunisation Program childhood vaccinations.

Wealthier families who are not reliant on or qualify for FTB-A are free to exercise their judgement with respect to their children's medical treatment while those families reliant on FTB-A are forced into state mandated vaccine compliance in order to receive the financial assistance they require.

Wealthier families are also more likely to have the time and energy to question and therefore vaccine hesitancy is strongest in well-educated, affluent families.

This should come as no shock.

A national survey of parents as far back as 2004 substantiated that parents who of unimmunised children were "significantly more likely to be tertiary educated."

Lower income Australians are not afforded this same choice, further compounding the effect of financial stress and hardship on their daily lives.

They cannot question, they cannot object. They must comply or be refused financial assistance for their family.

When coupled with Australia's already high vaccination rates, coercing lower-income families through financial measures to immunise a child shows an unnecessary infringement on the freedom of choice for Australians who can least afford to express their views.

They are shut out from espousing their personal concerns.

Such coercion raises its own moral and ethical issues.

According to the Australian Immunisation Handbook for consent to be legally valid, "It must be given voluntarily in the absence of undue pressure, coercion or manipulation".

The principle of informed consent becomes questionable when consent is only obtained under the threat of denying much needed financial assistance to vulnerable families.

The current regime undermines the concept of informed consent and is quite possibly in breach of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The 2015 change in legislation has placed undue financial pressures on parents in order to coerce them to accept medical treatment for their children they might not want.

With the data gathered in the decade since the introduction of these measures, it is difficult to see how such imposts on families have had a substantial enough benefit to justify such an ethically questionable practice.

This Bill seeks to address the infringement on the rights of parents to determine what is best for their child.

Under the proposed changes, conscientious objectors would once again qualify for assistance, under certain circumstances.

This Bill reinstates the definition ofconscientious objectoras follows:

conscientious objection

Under the proposed changes, a child (or FTB Child as defined by the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999) would meet their immunisation requirement if:

It is clear that the current legislation disproportionately burdens low-income families who depend on family tax benefits and childcare subsidies to make ends meet.

More and more families with the means have opted out of this system in since 2021, but Australia's immunisation rates remain at above average levels.

Providing the same freedom to lower-socio economic families would have a minimal impact on national immunisation figures, while restoring their freedom of choice.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.