There’s a tiny win for kids in the Budget that’s also a tiny win for science.
Parents who don’t immunise their kids will lose $28 a fortnight, under Family Tax Benefit Part A. The cut comes in from 1 July 2018.
No, a measly $2 a day isn’t going to make the most committed anti-vaxxers change their mind. But they’re not the ones the policy is aimed at. This is aimed at the fence-sitters (the ones who aren’t quite sure whether vaccination is a good idea) and the forgetters (the ones who just haven’t got around to getting their kids vaccinated yet).
This kind of financial jab at parents does work. The Government’s original “no jab, no pay” policy came in at the beginning of 2016. Since then, immunisation rates have gone up. For two-year-olds, the rate has gone up 1.75 per cent to 90.06 per cent.
We speak to Malcolm Turnbull about the anti-vaccination movement (post continues after video…):
It seems small, but it matters a lot. Government figures show that to stop most diseases spreading through the population, and infecting those who are too young or too ill to be immunised, around 90 per cent of people need to be vaccinated against them. To stop highly infectious diseases like measles spreading, around 95 per cent of people need to be vaccinated.
Top Comments
Antivaxxers are some of the most annoying, ignorant people on the planet.
Having said that, I do not agree with taking money off people to get them to vaccinate. This only affects low income earners and not the wealthier people. Anti-vaxxers come from any economic background, so if you are rich, you can continue to put your at risk children into society. A better way is school and day care. You cannot enroll your child in school or day care unless you have vaccinated or have a good, medical reason not to. You must educate and care for you children yourself in your home. That is the consequence that I would like to see for people who ignore medicine and think that their google research is as valid as the medical expert who has studied and researched for years.
I think those are probably state responsibilities, so the Federal Government is limited to where it can make changes?