No jab, no pay laws pass parliament

Nov 24, 2015

Parents who don’t immunise their children will stop receiving childcare benefits next year but one senator believes welfare for all parents should be stripped back.

The federal government’s no-jab-no-pay laws will remove childcare benefits, rebates and the Family Tax Benefit A end-of-year supplement from parents who don’t immunise their children.

The changes start on January 1, 2016, with exemptions for medical reasons, after legislation passed the Senate on Monday.

Liberal Democrats Senator David Leyonhjelm, speaking in support of the measures, said childless families should not have to subsidise the lifestyles of those who choose to have “little blighters”.

In fact, most welfare payments for parents should be abolished, he said.

“The government is not your parent or your spouse – get over it.”

To continue reading the entire article, click the name of the source below.

9 comments on “No jab, no pay laws pass parliament

  • Good news. Canada seems to be getting its act together too. And even in the UK there are calls for homeopathy to be struck from the list of services provided by the NHS; how the fuck it ever got on that list I don’t know; effective lobbying of ineffectual, scientifically ignorant politicians I suppose.
    Report abuse

  • The article discusses two issues: welfare for parents who refuse to vaccinate their children, and all welfare for children. I hope Dawkins isn’t taking a stand on the latter, which seems outside his mission of promoting science and secular values.
    Report abuse

  • Kenneth
    Nov 25, 2015 at 2:41 pm

    The article discusses two issues: welfare for parents who refuse to vaccinate their children, and all welfare for children.

    Vaccination and herd immunity, is very much about the welfare of ALL children.
    Report abuse

  • Yes, I’m fine with Dawkins taking a stand on the issues of vaccines, herd immunity, and social policy designed to promote health. The issue of whether any parent should get welfare payments for their children, also discussed in the article, is the one I hope Dawkins is not taking a position on.
    Report abuse

  • Kenneth
    Nov 25, 2015 at 3:20 pm
    The issue of whether any parent should get welfare payments for their children, also discussed in the article, is the one I hope Dawkins is not taking a position on.

    There are certainly abuses from parents who have large families they can’t support, or play the victim of being too busy trying to look after their droves of poor children to go out and earn a living.

    @OP – Liberal Democrats Senator David Leyonhjelm, speaking in support of the measures, said childless families should not have to subsidise the lifestyles of those who choose to have “little blighters”.

    However, I suspect that this Liberal (???!!) senator, is going to expect the younger generation of “little blighters”, to provide tax for his senator’s pension, and business activity which will produce returns for any other pension fund which is to support him in his old age!

    I usually suspect personal greed and “I’m all right Jack”, when well off politicians suggest ways of cutting funding and services, for other people, or other sectors of the community.

    I hope Dawkins is not taking a position on.

    One position I think he takes, is that families should be planned, to avoid over-populating the planet and producing large poverty stricken families.

    If the anti-contraception and anti-abortion woo-meisters were cleared out of the way, many child welfare problems would not occur in the first place.
    Report abuse

Leave a Reply

View our comment policy.