
© Jamie Hanson/The Sunday Mail (Qld)
Anika deKroo gets her 12-month shot.
Parents who refuse to vaccinate their children are pocketing thousands of dollars in Federal Government immunisation incentives.
Opponents to childhood vaccines say it is unfair to be denied Federal Government cash because of their beliefs, and are exploiting a loophole to claim more than $2000 a child after registering as "conscientious objectors".
In July, the Gillard Government scrapped the $129 Maternity Immunisation Allowance, a specific payment to encourage parents to have their children immunised.
In an attempt to boost immunisation rates, it has now linked vaccination incentives to Family Tax Benefit A $2100 to be paid over three immunisation "check points" once children are fully immunised at ages one, two and five.
While parents have been warned they will lose their payment and the childcare benefit if they do not fully immunise their children, they are also being told exemptions will be given to objectors.
All they have to do to still receive the money is fill out a form supplied by the Federal Government.
The Federal Government's
Department of Human Services website
outlines the immunisation requirements.
It reads: "To meet the immunisation requirements, children will need to be fully immunised, be on a recognised immunisation catch-up schedule, or have an approved exemption."
The exemption forms are available from the Department of Human Services website.They require signatures of the parent/guardian of the child and recognised immunisation provider a GP or family doctor.
Independent Senator
Nick Xenophon said it was a bizarre policy.
"This is a case of everyone wins a prize. It's a bit like getting the Baby Bonus without having a baby," Senator Xenophon said.
"Anti-vaxers", as they call themselves, are now joining parenting forums to encourage others not to be bullied by the Government and to give tips on how to get objection forms lodged quickly.
Comment: Unsurprisingly, the main stream media as mouthpiece for the pathocrats in charge will always broadcast desires by those who wish to use more and harsher police tactics. What would happen if instead, there was actually an attempt to alleviate the underlying issues of poverty, drugs and easy access to guns?