Some parents have reported that because of No Jab No Pay/No Play, they can no longer afford accommodation and are now living in their cars.
It is almost impossible to believe that the New South Wales (NSW) LNP government has enacted a No Jab No Play law prohibiting unvaccinated children from being enrolled in early child care and education services, in the absence of any evidence showing that unvaccinated children pose a risk to other children, or the public health more generally, and contrary to the recommendation of an expert committee.
The Report on the Statutory Review of the NSW Public Health Act 2010 was tabled in parliament during November 2016 and included a number of recommendations relevant to the issue of so-called vaccine-preventable disease and vaccination.
Recommendation 31: The Public Health Act should not be amended to remove the conscientious objector exemption to enrolment in a childcare facility. (page 49)
This law represents a direct attack on economic productivity and the rights of the child, by preventing parents from participating in the paid workforce or study, as well as denying children the benefit of quality early education services.
It is quite bizarre that any progressive government would believe that erecting barriers to workforce participation and education is sound policy, yet against all logic, this law received bipartisan support.
The ALP opposition introduced a similar private member’s bill to the NSW parliament earlier this year.
To date, neither party has submitted any evidence that justifies such a retrogressive law.
No Jab No Play must be seen for what it is: a cynical, political measure which has absolutely nothing to with making children safer, and everything to do with misleading parents into believing their children will be safer.
The law is also extremely callous because it requires children who have been seriously injured by previous vaccination to continue to be vaccinated if their parents need to work.
There is no legitimate reason why the wishes of these parents should not be accommodated in public health policy. A study published in 2016 found that rates of conscientious objection were low and stable between 2002 and 2013.
There was a small increase in registered objection rates since 2002. We estimate that 3.3% of children are affected by registered or presumptive (unregistered) vaccination objection, which suggests that the overall impact of vaccination objection on vaccination rates has remained largely unchanged since 2001. Incomplete records, barriers to access, and missed opportunities are likely to be responsible for most other deficiencies in vaccination coverage.
The deaths of Dana McCaffery and Riley Hughes from whooping cough have been heavily propagandised to mislead the public into believing that higher vaccination rates would have protected these newborns, both of whom were too young to be vaccinated.
Dr. Ann Koehler, current member of the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI), has admitted it was known as far back as 2010, that Whooping Cough vaccination of close contacts of newborns too young to be vaccinated, does not prevent infection in these newborns.
We were under a huge amount of pressure to introduce a cocooning program and we resisted that because our data didn’t suggest that it was going to work. We know pertussis vaccination doesn’t prevent infection so we could not see how it could be all that good for a cocooning program that was meant to prevent infection all around a baby.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has recently written about the wave of vaccine mandates sweeping the world. There are clearly extra-sovereign forces driving this agenda in many countries, not just in Australia.
The AVN renews our call for a wide-ranging inquiry into the safety and effectiveness of vaccination. The truth about vaccine safety and effectiveness will only be revealed when our public health gatekeepers are cross-examined under oath.
