Public Health Amendment (Vaccination of Children Attending Child Care Facilities) Bill 2017, specifically the omission of the section related to s87(2)(b)(1) & (2). Relates to the responsibilities of principles of child care services with respect to immunisation, the effects are wider reaching not only disadvantaging working parents (married and single) and their children, but will have other unintended consequences.
The omitting of this section removes the rights of parents to conscientious object or otherwise make an informed decision after weighing the risks and benefits of vaccinations and unvaccinated children won’t be able to attend child care facilities. The flow on effect will be that parents will need to rely on find some alternative arrangements. If they cannot, one parent will need to stay at home to look after the child. Or in the case of single parents, will need to leave their job. Creating significant disadvantage. Parents who are financially well off will be able to afford to continue to object to vaccination, however many parents cannot. Another consequence will be the emergence of underground childcare centres results a step back in disease control, herd immunity unsustained and increase in disease outbreak.
There are other ways of boosting childhood vaccination rates. Furthermore there is no evidence that banning unvaccinated children from child care will be any better than excluding them temporarily during an outbreak situation, which already occurs.
This change, will raise immunisation rates but will cause hardship, inconvenience or financial disadvantage for the target population because parents who need childcare or depend on child care payments or family tax benefits, will have no option but to vaccinate their child. However, is the use of coercion ethical and equitable? In addition, does vaccinating a child by coercion, for instance to secure a place at child care, breach the principle of valid consent (legally valid consent to vaccination, “must be given voluntarily in the absence of undue pressure, coercion or manipulation”)?
Is this amendment acceptable in a free and open society?
Conscientious belief is a fundamental right as a human being, and is inseparable from freedom

Parents objecting to vaccinations are idiots who should have their children removed from them if they don't comply.

Yes, this is most painful and depressing.

One unmentioned effect, is the rise of false documents of vaccination, where doctors and nurses are either bribed to produce them or conscientiously agree to provide them. Another possible effect is an increase in suicide rates of parents who heroically kill themselves together with their children in order to save them from being contaminated.

Knowing that these laws already exist and get worse with time, clearly no responsible person should contemplate having children or raising them in Australia.

---

I found this among LDP policies: http://www.ldp.org.au/affordable_childcare

"Governments are increasingly coming under pressure to implement legislation requiring children to be immunised in order to be granted access to childcare and education institutions. The Liberal Democrats vehemently oppose government-imposed medication. The decision to vaccinate should – regardless of the evidence for its efficacy – remain in the hands of the individual parents.

While it is appropriate for parents to seek to avoid exposing their children to others whose vaccination regimen may not be as rigorous as their own, it is not appropriate for the government to impose restrictions on which children a childcare centre may or may not accept. The operators of childcare centres should be able to set admission requirements just as the operators of any other business should. The ability for some childcare centres to accept unvaccinated children and for others to insist upon full vaccination provides a greater degree of choice in the market."

I support 'informed consent' and 'freedom of choice'.
Although I support the science of vaccination in principle, my position is that the quality of vaccines are not safe or effective enough to be mandated.
When they are, I may or may not change my position.
No parent should be mandated to take the potential risk of their child suffereing harmful side effects.

Should both staff and visitors to old age homes be required to have flu vaccinations? It's a parallel issue. If you are a conscientious objector to flu vaccination, then you should not work there or visit; your freedom to chose not to be vaccinated has to be balanced by the resident's freedom not to be exposed to unvaccinated people.
It's similar with child care centres. If your child is unvaccinated because of your freedom of choice, then they should not be at a child-care centre, because other children have the right not to be exposed to unvaccinated kids.
Perhaps all the anti-vax conscientious objectors should set up child-care centres where no vaccinated children can attend. At the least, we'd have an interesting experiment comparing illness rates between the vax and non-vax groups.

Dear Cossomby,

«Should both staff and visitors to old age homes be required to have flu vaccinations?»

This kind of policy should be determined locally by each old-age home.

However, it would be really silly to bar people from entering if they already had the actual flu rather than a vaccination - it's not less effective and some people would definitely prefer this option.

«Perhaps all the anti-vax conscientious objectors should set up child-care centres where no vaccinated children can attend.»

Yes, that's the spirit!