Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Australians told to immunize children or loose family tax breaks
Australian Broadcasting Corporation ^ | November 25, 2011 | ABC News

Posted on 11/25/2011 10:21:19 AM PST by JerseyanExile

Parents who do not have their children fully immunised will be stripped of family tax benefits under a scheme announced by the Federal Government.

The Government says 11 per cent of five-year-olds are not immunised and has announced a shake-up of the system which will take effect from July 1 next year.

Under the changes, families who refuse vaccinations face losing up to $2,100 per child in benefits.

Families will need to have their children fully immunised to receive the Family Tax Benefit (FTB) Part A end-of-year supplement.

A new immunisation check will be introduced for one-year-olds to supplement the existing immunisation checks at two and five years of age.

The FTB supplement, worth $726 per child each year, will now only be paid once a child is fully immunised at these checks.

Families are already required to have their child fully immunised to receive Child Care Benefit and the Child Care Rebate.

Children will also be required for the first time to be vaccinated against meningococcal C, pneumococcal and chicken pox.

Children will also be immunised against measles, mumps and rubella earlier, at 18 months instead of the current four years of age.

Health Minister Nicola Roxon is also announcing today a new campaign to advise parents and healthcare providers on what they can do to protect babies from whooping cough.

All parents of newborns will receive letters providing information on immunising against whooping cough and how to identify the disease and prevent it spreading.

"We know that immunisation is fundamental to a child's lifelong health and that's why we want to make sure children are immunised at the right time," Ms Roxon said.

The Government says the changes will deliver savings of $209.1 million over four years.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS: australia; publichealth; vaccination
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-55 next last
You know, I tend to be pretty pro-vaccination. But even I think this might be going too far.
1 posted on 11/25/2011 10:21:30 AM PST by JerseyanExile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: JerseyanExile

Ummm, and why should people get benefits from the government—if they’re:

A) Neglecting their children’s health
B) Making their kids a danger as carriers to others
C) Putting their own superstitious anti-science bias above their own family’s health and the health of others?


2 posted on 11/25/2011 10:26:26 AM PST by AnalogReigns (because REALITY is never digital...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JerseyanExile

“Australians told to immunize children or loose family tax breaks”

Do the Aussies spell “lose” as “loose”?


3 posted on 11/25/2011 10:28:45 AM PST by treetopsandroofs (Had FDR been GOP, there would have been no World Wars, just "The Great War" and "Roosevelt's Wars".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JerseyanExile

Take the King’s Coin, do the King’s Bidding.


4 posted on 11/25/2011 10:29:44 AM PST by dfwgator (I stand with Herman Cain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JerseyanExile
I don't trust the Government.

Simian Virus 40 (SV40):A Cancer Causing Monkey Virus from FDA-Approved Vaccines

5 posted on 11/25/2011 10:30:52 AM PST by FReepaholic (Stupidity is not a crime, so you're free to go.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: treetopsandroofs

The actual title spells “lose” correctly.

Some tard changed it.


6 posted on 11/25/2011 10:31:39 AM PST by humblegunner (The kinder, gentler version...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: AnalogReigns
Since when is confiscating less of a citizen's property considered a "benefit from the government" by any conservative?
7 posted on 11/25/2011 10:35:37 AM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

But how bout “loosed’?
Is that a good thing or what?????


8 posted on 11/25/2011 10:42:54 AM PST by gunnyg ("A Constitution changed from Freedom, can never be restored; Liberty, once lost, is lost forever...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner

Oh my.


9 posted on 11/25/2011 10:44:34 AM PST by Zuben Elgenubi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner
The actual title spells “lose” correctly.

Some tard changed it.

It remains a mystery to me how some Freepers continue to misspell "lose" and "loose" in context. So few can get "it's" and "it" right, either. Darn it, people. "It's" is the contraction of "it" and "is" and "its" is the possessive pronoun as in "This was its destiny." What is so damn hard about that?

Journalists have many faults, but spelling usually isn't one of them.

10 posted on 11/25/2011 10:46:38 AM PST by OldPossum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: JerseyanExile

Forcing people to inject known toxins into their children at the most vulnerable time in their lives ...hmmmmm particularly irrational vaccines for homosexual drug addicts like Hep B. 3-doses of this poison and no harm????? Right. No connection with Autism and vaccinations when the “epidemic” coincided with the tripling of vaccines and the mass grouping of toxins in one shot....hmmmmmm.

No one is logical anymore....they think this is ALL “good” and govt. does what is “best”. hmmmmmmm

Very Sick and fascistic.


11 posted on 11/25/2011 10:47:54 AM PST by savagesusie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JerseyanExile

They elected a socialist. What did they expect?

Zero and Julia Gillard got along very well on Zero’s recent waste of jet fuel.

Gillard, however is prolly a moderate socialist - on social issues- compared to Zero. She does not support gay marriage but is pro-abortion with a wink to “understanding the moral issues”...


12 posted on 11/25/2011 10:48:16 AM PST by NeverForgetBataan (To the German Commander -- ..........................NUTS !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: savagesusie

The very concept of vaccination is based on the assumption that the vaccinated are not threatened by the disease. Therefore, the unvaccinated cannot be a threat to the vaccinated. The risk they assume is their own only.

Amazing how most people can’t understand that simple reality.


13 posted on 11/25/2011 10:55:43 AM PST by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: JerseyanExile
Australians told to immunize children or loose family tax breaks

Not sure I understand the headline, but I assume this means that if they don't immunize children, more choices as to tax breaks will become available to them.

14 posted on 11/25/2011 10:56:59 AM PST by Fiji Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldPossum

I agree that its a hugh and series problem.


15 posted on 11/25/2011 10:57:21 AM PST by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Fiji Hill

Alright, alright. I was in a rush when putting this up, got a bit sloppy on the title.


16 posted on 11/25/2011 11:17:07 AM PST by JerseyanExile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: JerseyanExile

Next they will require Gardasil and fun can really begin for those tennie-boppers...just like here in Texas (almost).


17 posted on 11/25/2011 11:18:46 AM PST by BobL (Send Rove a Message, VOTE CAIN, no matter what)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
The very concept of vaccination is based on the assumption that the vaccinated are not threatened by the disease. Therefore, the unvaccinated cannot be a threat to the vaccinated. The risk they assume is their own only.

Not true. No vaccine is 100% effective. Plus, some vaccines lose their effectiveness over time. So yes, the unvaccinated can be a threat to the vaccinated.

18 posted on 11/25/2011 11:26:21 AM PST by jalisco555 ("My 80% friend is not my 20% enemy" - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: jalisco555

Ah, a gnat was found.

Congrats.


19 posted on 11/25/2011 11:28:52 AM PST by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: savagesusie
Forcing people to inject known toxins into their children at the most vulnerable time in their lives ...hmmmmm particularly irrational vaccines for homosexual drug addicts like Hep B. 3-doses of this poison and no harm????? Right. No connection with Autism and vaccinations when the “epidemic” coincided with the tripling of vaccines and the mass grouping of toxins in one shot....hmmmmmm.

What known toxins are you talking about? And don't tell me you aren't aware that the so-called vaccine-autism link has been thoroughly discredited.

20 posted on 11/25/2011 11:29:14 AM PST by jalisco555 ("My 80% friend is not my 20% enemy" - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-55 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson