David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Hansard source

In 1796, when Edward Jenner successfully used an inoculation of harmless cowpox vaccination to immunise a child against smallpox, he little realised the technique he pioneered would later be used to save millions of lives. Today most of take for granted the gift of artificial acquired immunity and do not think twice about vaccinating our children against the diseases which were once a major reason for a limited life expectancy. There are, however, some who, for religious, philosophical, or other reasons—some of which are decidedly bizarre—do not accept that the benefits of vaccination greatly outweigh the risks. But whether or not vaccination is a good idea is not what this bill is about.

The Australian Immunisation Register and Other Legislation Bill 2017 seeks to establish an Australian immunisation register to facilitate the creation of statistics on immunisation coverage, identify areas at risk of outbreaks and help individuals keep track of what they have been immunised against. The bill implements measures to improve immunisation rates across Australia and complements other Australian government initiatives, including No Jab, No Pay, and new catch-up incentive to GPs and other immunisation providers. Currently, only general practitioners are able to enter a medical exemption from vaccination on the Australian Immunisation Register. The bill will extend that power to paediatricians, public health physicians, infectious diseases physicians and clinical immunologists. It will ensure that getting a bona fide medical exemption through these avenues means that a person continues to receive welfare under the government's No Jab, No Pay policy.

Opponents of vaccination have sought to claim that the No Jab, No Pay policy makes vaccination compulsory—but this is false. As a vet myself, I am an enthusiastic supporter of the benefits of vaccination. However, as a libertarian, I also support the right of individuals to choose not to be vaccinated. I do, however, want to clearly state that I have no problem supporting a bill which reaffirms that vaccination is made a condition of welfare. Individuals remain free to reject vaccination; they just need not take the money. If they want to receive the welfare dime, individuals need to realise that the government is entitled to place conditions on their payment, just as an employer is entitled to specify the conditions under which they are prepared to employ and pay you. These conditions may comprise restricting what the welfare can be spent on or requiring that the children of welfare recipients are vaccinated to protect them and others in the community. Receiving welfare from the government is not a right. It is welfare. It is other people's monies. Quite reasonably, it can therefore be subject to whatever conditions the government may choose to impose. So, if you want to reject the benefits of vaccination, feel free, but just don't expect taxpayers will underwrite your choice.