Peter Dutton considers plan to withhold family tax benefits if children aren't immunised

Updated

An expert has warned the Federal Government that withholding tax benefits from families who choose not to immunise their children is unlikely to achieve real change.

Federal Health Minister Peter Dutton will discuss the issue when he meets with his state counterparts in Brisbane today.

The minister vowed to tackle the problem while touring the New South Wales north coast, where some communities have low childhood vaccination rates.

Mr Dutton says it might be time for the Government to take a tougher stance, adding that immunisation is "very important" for children and the wider community.

"The Commonwealth obviously makes a series of payments around the Family Tax Benefit and parenting payments," he said.

"I'm considering very seriously what options the Commonwealth has in withholding payments or providing further incentive to parents to have their children immunised."

Just before the 2013 federal election Labor, under former prime minister Kevin Rudd, announced it would withhold Family Tax Benefit A - worth $726 per child, per year - from parents who refused to get their children vaccinated.

The only exemptions Labor proposed were for religious or medical grounds.

The University of Sydney's Associate Professor Julie Leask, who researches methods of improving immunisation rates, says the proposed policy is "quite concerning".

"Essentially, it punishes the whole family for the decision of the parents," she said.

She says the proposal is unlikely to make a difference and will hurt poor families who conscientiously object.

"It would probably satiate public anger against parents who don't vaccinate their children," she said.

Essentially, it punishes the whole family for the decision of the parents. Julie Leask

"But in the end it would end up punishing particularly children of poorer families who come under the means test [for family tax benefits]."

Dr Leask says real change can be achieved in areas where immunisation rates are lower through reforms and improved services that are also culturally acceptable to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders.

She says there is a need to make vaccinations services as assessable as possible with options available for families.

"Home visiting has been shown to be effective and cost effective for home-bound families where mum might not be able to drive, she might be stuck at home with five children," she said.

"All these polices need to be focused very much on where real gains can be made."

She says there also needs to be investment in creative strategies to better engage with vaccine objectors.

"The current environment is a very polarising one and this would certainly worsen it," she said.

Dr Leask says under the current system parents who object to vaccines need to visit a doctor or nurse and have a discussion about the risks before signing a form needed to receive family tax benefits.

She says if objectors are banned from receiving any payments, then they will have no reason to engage and have a conversation with their doctor.

"It would take away their exposure to a discussion that for a few might end with them changing their minds about vaccinations," she said.

"There's research in the US that shows among the biggest reasons for parents who do change their minds, the biggest reason was the discussion with their doctor or their nurse."

Topics: vaccines-and-immunity, government-and-politics, federal-government, health, tax, brisbane-4000, qld, australia

First posted