The Australian Government’s ‘No Jab No Play’ Social Services Policy
Senate Inquiry and Public Hearing into the ‘No Jab No Pay’ Policy
This federal government legislation was approved by the Australian government on 23 November 2015, despite thousands of submissions against this bill and two national rallies that were not publicised by the mainstream Australian media. This policy was linked to the ‘full’ vaccination of children with vaccines listed on the National Immunisation Program (NIP). However, since mid-December 2015 the Australian government has claimed that the legislation will NOT be based on the NIP. The government is now stating that the vaccines relevant to the No Jab No Pay policy will be set independently by the minister. This policy has been clearly described on Elizabeth Hart’s Over-Vaccination website which also describes the significant conflicts of interest (COI) that exist in this policy. Here is further clarification of this policy for families who are eligible for welfare benefits and below is a description of the procedure that enabled this policy to be passed without public debate or scrutiny.
On the 15th of October 2015 a vaccination forum was organised by a media student at the University of Technology in Sydney (UTS) who wanted to present a balanced debate on the reasons for implementing this policy. Although about 45 public health authorities and government representatives were invited to attend this forum to explain the need for the policy all of them declined to attend. Here is the presentation that I gave at this academic forum that explains why the ‘No Jab No Pay/Play’ legislation is a danger to public health and how it breaches many human rights covenants including the Nuremberg Code. Here is the video of this forum titled ‘Questions and Answers: No Jab No Pay/Play’
This mandatory and coercive vaccination legislation has been passed in the federal Social Services Department even though there is no legitimate public health purpose for mandating all of the vaccines on the NIP and there was no legislation or regulation in any Health Act in Australia to support this extreme measure and the measure was not proportionate to the risk of infectious diseases in Australia in 2015.Yet human rights have been breached with these policies as has informed consent for this medical intervention. Doctors are not informing parents of the ingredients of vaccines or the serious health risks that are associated with the schedule of vaccines.
In September 2017 an amendment was passed to the NSW Public Health Act 2010 to introduce the No Jab No Play legislation that will prevent the enrolment of any child in childcare and preschool centres that are not ‘fully’ immunised (all ~16 vaccines) or on a recognised catch-up schedule.
Here are two 7 minute videos that demonstrate that lack of scientific evidence that this social services legislation is founded on and this will have serious adverse health consequences for the Australian population:
Public Hearing and Submissions Process
On 2nd November 2015 the Australian government held a public hearing in Brisbane into the proposed social services ‘No Jab No pay’ policy due to be introduced on 1 January 2016. This policy will introduce mandatory vaccination for the receipt of welfare benefits, and in some states mandatory vaccination will also be required for enrolment in childcare centres. The legislation will also remove a parent’s right to refuse any vaccines on the basis of personal, philosophical or religious exemption if they wish to receive welfare benefits. Only medical exemptions will apply from 2016 and children up to 19 years of age will be required to have all the vaccines recommended on the schedule. This may also include any vaccine added to this schedule after 1 January 2016. Thousands of submissions have been made against this policy and many submissions have not been published on the government website. Prior to the public hearing only 400 submissions were published (2 November 2015). On the 6 November 2015 I published a newsletter (no.86) that informed the public that many submissions had not been published prior to the hearing. This included my own submission that was based on university research. My submission was only uploaded to the government website on Sunday 8 November 2015 (with many others) and this was the day before the Senate Committee Report was due to be released – 9 November 2015. The Senate Committee Report was released on 11 November 2015 and clearly did not address many of the arguments presented by the public.
Here is the program for the Senate Inquiry Public Hearing that shows that the hearing focused very heavily on arguments produced by consumer lobby groups and not independent health bodies or authorities. The program included three pro-vaccine lobby groups to present information at the hearing: the Northern Rivers Vaccination Supporters, the Stop the Australian Vaccination Network (SAVN) and the Friends of Science in Medicine.These lobby groups have many subscribers from the Australian Skeptics lobby groups – a non-scientific organisation – that has members who have used false, misleading and abusive information to promote vaccines to the public. The evidence presented at this hearing was not provided by Peter McIntyre, Robert Booy or Terry Nolan – representatives of the Australian advisory boards (ATAGI and NCIRS) that have been designing government immunisation policy for the last decade.
I sent Newsletter 86 ‘No Jab No Pay’ Public Hearing Australia (2 November 2015) on 6 November 2015 – 4 days after the public hearing on 2 November and 3 days before the Senate Committee Inquiry Report was due to be released and after I published this newsletter hundreds of submissions were published on the government website on Sunday 8 November 2015 – the day before the report was due (9 November 2015). This included my academic submission which is now number 468 on the government website.
Public Forum Sydney to discuss the “No Jab, No Pay” Policy 15 October 2015 6 – 9pm.
In 2015 Australia amended its social welfare policies to mandate the national schedule of vaccines in order to receive some social welfare benefits. In this legislation, the Social Services Minister repealed the definition of conscientious objection (to a medical intervention) that had allowed parents to choose how many vaccines they use in their children in order to receive government benefits. The previous definition allowed ‘personal, philosophical, religious or medical’ objections to vaccination. The national schedule of vaccines is continually expanding and parents are now required to use 12 vaccines in children under 12 months of age to receive these welfare benefits. In addition, the new legislation has changed the definition of ‘general practitioner’ without any scrutiny by the public or the media. General practitioners under the new definition will refer to a narrower range of medical professionals.
If this policy is evidence-based then it will stand up to scrutiny in public forums and the public is entitled to be involved in discussions of this policy. Powerful lobby groups are using the label ‘anti-vaccination’ to suppress the medical literature that describes the risks of vaccines and they are implying that this information should not be included in debates. This is dangerous to public health. This policy needs to be debated by everyone – those that vaccinate, selectively vaccinate or choose not to use any vaccines.
A public forum to discuss this policy was held at the University of Technology, Sydney (UTS) on 15 October 2015. The government was invited to provide two representatives for a Q and A panel discussion of this new social welfare policy with myself and another professional. This discussion was filmed for a UTS student documentary and seats were limited. Here is the invitation to the event and participants were asked to RSVP and to send any questions for the panel to the email provided.
This event was held successfully on the 15 October 2015 and all the government representatives, public health authorities, immunologists and general practitioners who were invited to defend this policy declined to attend. This included representatives of the Australian government vaccination advisory boards – ATAGI and NCIRS. Terry Nolan was chair of the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI) from 2005-2014, and Peter McIntyre and Robert Booy have been the co-directors of the NCIRS from 2004-2015. These individuals declined to attend the public forum to defend the National Immunisation Program (NIP) they have been involved in developing for the last decade.
Protest Rallies 20 September 2015 for the Proposed Childcare Assistance Package
Here is a link to the National Rallies that will be held around Australia on the 20 September 2015 to peacefully protest coercive vaccination policies in the proposed childcare assistance package. Here is the rally speech (No Jab No Pay No Way! Rally speech Judy Wilyman PhD 20 September 2015) that I gave in Perth 20 September 2015 that describes the human rights that have been removed from this policy with its implementation on 1 January 2016.
On Sunday 21 June 2015 Australians took to the street to demonstrate our opposition to these policies. This was not covered in the mainstream media and the issues are not being properly communicated to the public in the promotion of the proposed childcare package by the Australian government. Many people turned out for this event and it was covered by Real News Australia.. The campaign is titled No Jab, No Pay, NO WAY!. The removal of all exemptions, other than medical exemptions has not been mentioned in the mainstream media and it has not been discussed as an important human rights issue. Here is a flyer that can be used to promote the national rallies that will be occurring again on the 20 September 2015. It can also be used to inform people of the rights that are being removed in this proposed legislation.
The Proposed Changes to the Childcare Assistance Policy
The Australian government’s recently proposed childcare package has mandated the ‘full’ schedule of childhood vaccines (up to the age of 19) in order for families to receive government welfare benefits of $15,000 and childcare assistance. This package has removed the right of parents to refuse any of the 12 vaccines recommended for infants under one year of age if they wish to receive these benefits. Only medical exemptions for a very few conditions will apply if this legislation is passed. This is being done without the government listing the ingredients of vaccines on consent forms for parents or listing them on the Immunise Australia Program (IAP) website. The list of ingredients is only provided in Appendix 3 of the Australian Immunisation Handbook . In the disclaimer on the IAP website, the government has acknowledged that the information it is presenting is not warranted to be ‘accurate, current or complete’ and that the recommendations ‘do not necessarily reflect the views of the Commonwealth of Australia’. The government has not funded many of the studies that are needed to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of the vaccines recommended in the National Immunisation Program (NIP). The evidence that has not been collected to make evidence-based claims about the safety, efficacy and necessity of vaccines listed on the NIP is presented here Evidence Not Presented to Support the Australian Government’s NIP
The list of ingredients that is injected into developing infants includes aluminium compounds, antibiotics, formaldehyde, sodium borate (linked to infertility), polysorbate 80 (linked to infertility) and thimerosal (a mercury compound that is still present in multi-dose vials of vaccines) and many other additives. This demonstrates a lack of informed consent for the recommended schedule of 16 vaccines up to 19 years of age. Healthy people who do not wish to have all of these vaccines will not be able to receive government welfare benefits after the 1 January 2016 if this legislation is passed. They will also not be eligible for payments to attend childcare centres.
Parents who cannot afford to pay for childcare cannot go to work and earn a living. These payments represent coercive and manipulative measures (using financial payments) that are in breach of the right to informed consent to vaccination that is supported by the World Medical Association and all international bills of human rights. Here is the right to informed consent stated in the Australian Immunisation Handbook. (section 2.1.3). It states free and informed consent must be given “voluntarily in the absence of undue pressure, coercion and manipulation”. Giving financial incentives to parents who cannot afford to work without childcare, is a coercive and manipulative strategy that pressures parents to use all the vaccines that the government is recommending – including new ones that are continually added to the schedule.
This is a clear breach of the code of conduct for good medical practice and the International Covenant for Economic, Cultural and Social Rights (ICECSR) which prohibits discriminatory welfare policies and the removal of autonomy over our own bodies. These rights are also covered in the Geneva Declaration and the Nuremberg Code. I have presented this information to the Australian Human Rights Commissioner, Tim Wilson, and he has stated that “no-one is being forced to take a vaccine, therefore there is no human rights violation”. It appears that the Australian Human Rights Commission is not going to protect these rights that are covered in many international human rights covenants and in the Good Medical Practice guidelines for Australian practitioners.
On Sunday 21 June 2015 Australians took to the street to demonstrate our opposition to these policies. This was not covered in the mainstream media and the issues are not being properly communicated to the public in the promotion of the proposed childcare package by the Australian government. Many people turned out for this event and it was covered by Real News Australia.. The campaign is titled No Jab, No Pay, NO WAY!. The removal all exemptions, other than medical exemptions has not been mentioned in the mainstream media and it has not been discussed as an important human rights issue. Here is a flyer that can be used to promote the national rallies that will be occurring again on the 20 September 2015. It can also be used to inform people of the rights that are being removed in this proposed legislation.
Subscribe to our Newsletter
- JUDY WILYMAN