Petition Closed

Remove NO JAB NO PLAY Victorian Legislation or Restore Conscientious Objection Option To Comply With Our Human Rights

This petition had 2,346 supporters


It is the emphatic collective WILL of all those that have signed this petition that the AUSTRALIAN VICTORIAN STATE GOVERNMENT'S NO JAB NO PLAY Legislation needs to be either abolished or amended to provide for an exemption for conscientious objection to the immunization requirement on philosophical or religious grounds, in accordance with the obligations imposed by Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, other human rights instruments to which Australia is a party, and to eliminate conflict between this Bill and the Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA) and A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act. A statutory declaration made by a child’s parents or legal guardians to the effect they have a conscientious objection to immunisation on philosophical or religious grounds should be sufficient to satisfy the immunisation requirement due to the difficulties in obtaining a signed objection form from a doctor.

THE NO JAB NO PLAY Victorian Legislation exceeds the power of Parliament which extends to making exclusions in outbreak conditions only. This legislation conflicts with sections 5 & 6 of the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) 1992 and section 6 of the New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act (FFA) 1999. Refusal to allow a child to enroll in child care because of vaccination status amounts to unlawful discrimination under the DDA, and exposes child care centres to legal liability for acts of unlawful discrimination. In the DDA unvaccinated children are considered disabled and are thus protected from discrimination as disabled people. Section 48 of the Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act dealing with discrimination against those with an infectious disease will not hold up in court as it would be difficult to prove refusing to enrol an unvaccinated child in child care on the basis the child may catch a disease in the future is reasonably necessary to protect public health.

The Legislation conflicts with the FFA by denying a benefit conferred by that Act, namely the right to access subsidised childcare services (child care benefits). While eligibility to child care benefits under the FAA is subject to an immunisation requirement, exemptions from this requirement is permitted on the grounds of conscientious objection.

The Legislation conflicts with section 3.5 of Australia’s Medical Board Code of Conduct which says a person must be properly informed and be allowed to make a voluntary decision about whether they adopt any proposed medical care (Subsection 2 requires that a doctor obtains informed consent prior to providing a treatment), by coercing their decision with the threat of removing child care, which will threaten the parents ability to participate in work.

Professor Raina Macintyre recently expressed the concern that doctors were prevented from accepting consent under such circumstances in relation to a proposed immunisation requirement in Commonwealth laws.

“In addition, doctors must obtain valid consent to vaccinate children, and consent is not valid in the presence of any form of coercion.”

This obviously raises questions about the legal validity of the Bill particularly in the absence of provision for immunisation exemptions on conscientious grounds.

This Bill violates Section 8, subsections 2 and 3 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (CHRR) which protects the right of every person to enjoy their human rights free of discrimination, and to equal and effective protection from discrimination by the law.

If deliberately unvaccinated children are claimed to pose a risk to the other children and staff, then by necessity, similarly unprotected children and people must also pose the same risk. These include:

(a) those who can’t be vaccinated for medical reasons; and

(b) those who are too young to have been vaccinated; and

(c) those who have been vaccinated, but who are not protected due to not producing the required biological response claimed to confer immunity; and

(d) those who were not vaccinated in utero; and

(e) child care centre employees.


If unvaccinated children are alleged to pose a risk to others then surely children receiving live virus vaccines would also pose a risk, but the Bill does not discriminate against these children on such a basis. Only deliberately unvaccinated children are singled out for exclusion.

Section 10, subsection c, of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (CHRR) protects the right to give free and full consent to a medical treatment. The immunisation requirement of this Bill will limit this right.

Vaccination like all medical procedures, carries with it the risk of death, disability and chronic disease. The tragic examples of Saba Button, Lachlan Neylan, Izzy Olesen and Ashley Epapara are cases in point. Both Saba Button and Lachlan Neylan suffered major brain injuries resulting in severe and permanent disability from the vaccinations they received. Izzy Olesen suffered Stevens Johnson Syndrome resulting in blindness and major skin scarring, and regrettably, Ashley Epapara died. You can read their stories at the

following links.

(Rule, 2011, Saba Button, the girl who is never alone, Perth Now)

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/saba-button-the-girl-who-is-never-alone/story-e6frg13u-1226035296706

(Hansen, 2013,Toddler who was given an adult flu shot is left severely brain-injured and unable to walk, Daily

Telegraph)

http://www.themercury.com.au/news/national/toddler-who-was-given-an-adult-flu-shot-is-left-severely-braindamaged-and-unable-to-walk-or-talk/story-fnj3ty2c-1226756398505

(Olesen, 2014, Izzy’s Story, Vaccination Information Network)

http://www.vaccinationinformationnetwork.com/izzys-story/

(ABC News, 2010, Flu Vaccine can’t be ruled out in toddler’s death)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-09-10/flu-vaccine-cant-be-ruled-out-in-toddlers-death/2256142

Importantly, unlike a medical procedure performed on a sick or injured person for therapeutic goals, vaccination is a medical procedure performed on healthy people for a potential future benefit. For this reason, the standard of informed consent to the procedure should be arguably higher than that for a therapeutic purpose, and most definitely should only be given freely, without coercion.

Again it is the emphatic collective WILL of all those that have signed this petition that this Legislation needs to be abolished or amended to provide for an exemption for conscientious objection to the immunisation requirement on philosophical or religious grounds, in accordance with the obligations imposed by Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, other human rights instruments to which Australia is a party, and to eliminate conflict between this Bill and the Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA) and A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act. A statutory declaration made by a child’s parents or legal guardians to the effect they have a conscientious objection to immunisation on philosophical or religious grounds should be sufficient to satisfy the immunisation requirement due to the difficulties in obtaining a signed objection form from a doctor.

For more reasons why at the least this Bill needs amending please read all of the following document here
http://avn.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/AVN-Submission-to-SAR-Committee-Victoria-September-2015-06-WEB.pdf



Today: simon is counting on you

simon shields needs your help with “Australian Victorian STATE Govt, MUST Remove NO JAB NO PLAY Victorian Legislation or Restore Conscientious Objection Option”. Join simon and 2,345 supporters today.