John Key has ruled out making vaccinations a condition for receiving the benefit.
John Key has ruled out making vaccinations a condition for receiving the benefit.
John Key has ruled out making immunisation a condition of receiving the benefit, following news the Australian Government wants to stop payments to parents who refuse to vaccinate their children.
The New Zealand Government also opted against a similar measure three years ago because it believed immunisation should be theparents' choice.
But if a parent wants to choose not to vaccinate their child because of hysteria and misinformation on the internet, who is really looking out for the best interests of the child?
I'm not sure I agree with tying the benefit to immunisation - it seems a very roundabout way of pursuing a worthy health policy, and would seem to target beneficiaries for some reason.
If you're going to punish parents for putting their children at risk - and the evidence is there to show that non-immunisation risks spreading harmful, preventable diseases - why do it through the welfare system? Doesn't that also harm the child?
But I also don't buy the Government's reasons for not taking action.
Yes, it's great that a record 94 per cent of 8-month-olds are immunised, but when Paula Bennett said in 2012 that removing the right to refuse medical treatment would be an unjustifiable human rights breach was she talking about the rights of the parents or the rights of the child?
John Key said this week it was too risky for the Government to insist on vaccination because of the minute risk a child could have a medical reaction and die and it would be the Government's fault. That makes little sense given Mr Key admits that the risk is far greater not to vaccinate.
The onus is on the Government to find a way to make parents protect their children and others, without making a child welfare issue a social welfare issue.
