Russell Broadbent (Monash, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

Paid parental leave is an avenue for, in particular, women to participate further in their opportunities to work, their families to have better opportunities and, as has been described in the legislation, women to have greater opportunities for a better retirement than they would otherwise have had. The Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Adding Superannuation for a More Secure Retirement) Bill 2024 is to be supported and is laudable. It brings in fairness and justice, which the government and this parliament has promoted through whatever parliament there has been before it. When injustice festers in a community, it ripples outward, affecting us all. Injustice doesn't just harm those directly involved; it compromises the entire fabric of society. We can't stand idly by when faced with discrimination, especially when it targets the most vulnerable among us—our children, particularly our Indigenous children. We share the burden of this injustice, and it is our collective duty to call it out and demand change.

I don't claim to be an expert on the pros and cons of childhood vaccination. That's for those far more knowledgeable than I. However, what I do know and what has come to my attention through the voices of over 1,000 families is the deep harm caused by policies like no jab, no pay and no jab, no play. These measures, intended to protect public health, have instead punished families who choose not to vaccinate, by stripping them of essential support. Childcare subsidies, out-of-hours care, Centrelink payments and crucial family tax benefits have all been reduced or withheld entirely. Families, particularly single-parent households, are being driven to the brink, living hand to mouth, struggling under the weight of government policies that are, at best, indifferent; at worst, cruel.

Kirsten is one of many who have reached out to me whose story is emblematic of the challenges faced by countless others. When Kirsten welcomed her first child into the world, it was a moment of pure joy. Her baby girl, perfect in every way, brought immense happiness to the family. Following the standard vaccination schedule, Kirsten believed she was doing what was right, but that trust was shattered when her daughter, after receiving her first vaccine, turned blue, was unconscious and stopped breathing. This was later described as a SIDS episode. Imagine the terror of that moment when she was told to 'smack the baby hard to bring her back' by emergency responders. Kirsten's world was turned upside down. At her daughter's 12-month vaccine, the same nightmare played out. Her child required resuscitation. When her son was born, he too needed CPR after his vaccination.

Kirsten sought an exemption, understanding that vaccines were not safe for her children. Yet despite her harrowing experience, the exemption was denied. The system meant to protect her family failed her. She made the courageous decision to stop vaccinating, and her unvaccinated children have since thrived. There have been no more SIDS episodes and no health crises, and her premature child has been healthier than her vaccinated siblings. But Kirsten's decision came at a great cost. Her family benefits were cut, and her children are now excluded from educational and social opportunities essential for their development. This punishment prevents Kirsten from working, further exacerbating her family's struggles, and Kirsten is far from alone. Families who stand firm for their children's health are being pushed out of the workforce, penalised financially and denied the opportunity to fully participate in society. Of course, if you don't work, you don't get paid parental leave.

Then there is Elizabeth's story, which is a testament to the broader impact of these policies on communities. Elizabeth is a mother who, with support of her GP, made the informed decision to delay vaccinations for her children and found herself unfairly disadvantaged by this choice. As a capable, community minded woman, Elizabeth had built a promising career and was actively contributing to her local and broader community through her work and civil involvement. However, the restrictive vaccination policies forced her to change jobs, reduce her hours and accept a significant pay cut to care for her unvaccinated children, placing her family at a substantial financial disadvantage. And her children were denied access to early learning and socialisation opportunities. Elizabeth spoke of the emotional toll these policies have taken on her family and community, describing the state sanctioned discrimination that left her feeling ostracised. She pointed out how these policies are not just punitive but also counterproductive. By sidelining her, they deprive the community of the contribution she can no longer make.

Elizabeth's case is especially troubling because it highlights how these policies extend beyond individual families. They impact the broader community by preventing capable individuals like Elizabeth from fully participating in society. These policies rob communities of vital support and service. This exclusion has ripple effects that reach far beyond one family, undermining the collective good of the nation.

For Indigenous families, the impact of current vaccination policies is amplified by a long history of assimilation into Western medical systems. The National Agreement on Closing the Gap outlines clear goals to ensure that Indigenous children thrive in early years and reach their full potential and that their families are supported in meaningful economic participation. However, these goals are hindered by policies that inadvertently deny access to early learning and reduce essential financial benefits for families with unvaccinated children. Excluding unvaccinated children from early learning opportunities compromises the principles of fairness and equity that we in this parliament seeks to uphold. Education is fundamental to a child's development, and yet Indigenous children, already amongst the most vulnerable, are being restricted from these critical opportunities.

For single mothers, particularly Indigenous women, this creates difficult choices. They must either vaccinate their children against their cultural and spiritual beliefs or forfeit access to child care and their ability to work and provide for their families. The no jab, no pay policy deepens financial hardship, entrenches poverty and limits access to early education and employment for many First Nations women and their children. These policies risk isolating families from the very opportunities they need to thrive, contradicting the intentions of the National Agreement of Closing the Gap, which strives to provide equitable outcomes for all.

Furthermore, the no jab, no pay, no play policy stands in contradiction to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Article 43 of the declaration affirms that it 'constitute the minimum standards for the survival, dignity and wellbeing of the indigenous peoples of the world'. Any reduction in these standards, particularly in the context of self-determined medical autonomy, challenges the core of these human rights protections. We, as a parliament, must respect these rights. We, as a nation, must respect these rights and work towards policies that support rather than diminish the dignity, survival and wellbeing of Indigenous families, ensuring they have access to the same opportunities for growth and success as all Australians.

Here's where the irony cuts deep. In some regions, wealthier families have found loopholes in these are very policies. If they can afford to pay full fees, their unvaccinated children are still able to attend child care and after-hours care. They are essentially buying their way out of the system. This blatant double standard defeats the very health argument these policies claim to uphold. How can it be that, for a price, unvaccinated children are allowed into the same social settings from which other unvaccinated children are excluded? What does this contradiction reveal about the true motivations behind these measures? Are they genuinely focused on public health or something else entirely?

It gets worse: while unvaccinated children are excluded, health workers and parents are not required to be vaccinated to enter the same childcare settings. What does it say about our priorities when children are the ones singled out? How can we justify penalising the most vulnerable for decisions made by their parents while overlooking the inconsistencies that exist within the system? What steps can we take to address these contradictions and create a more just and equitable approach to these health policies? This paradox only reinforces the deeper injustice at play: policies designed to protect public health are instead creating new layers of inequity and exclusion, all while allowing those with financial means to sidestep the very restrictions others are forced to endure. A simple yet effective solution lies in reinstating the option for conscientious objection for parents who choose not to vaccinate. By making this process as straightforward as filling out a form at Centrelink, we can ensure that families continue to receive the benefits they need without unnecessary restrictions. This change would balance public health with respect for individual choice and cultural diversity.

It is our collective responsibility, Deputy Speaker Freelander, yours and mine, to ensure that all families have the opportunity to protect, provide and prosper. This is more than just a slogan; it is a call to action to defend individual rights, provide access to essential services and ensure that every child, every family, can thrive no matter their personal medical decision. I commend this proposition to the House.

See this speech in context