Australian Government Gets
Tough On Vaccinations
Who's Really Behind The Push?
By John Lesso
From Alan Howard <>
From Ross Dowe <>
During the last decade governments in Australia have dramatically stepped up their push towards increasing vaccination levels and to that end they have initiated campaigns which threaten one of the the very essences of this country's appeal: freedom of choice.
Back in 1987 state governments announced through the media that vaccination would be a condition of entry into state schools, which in effect would mean compulsory vaccination through the backdoor. Although they were unsuccessful in their initial attempt, some States enacted legislation which in effect achieved the same desired outcome. Incorrect statements by health officials and the media about the new legislation misled many parents. For example, the Sydney Morning Herald reported: "When parents enrol their children in NSW public schools next year they will be asked for documentary proof that they have been fully immunised, under new legislation approved by the State Government." (1) Many parents interpreted this as meaning mandatory vaccinations upon school entry and worried about their children's education rushed them for their shots. However, the new legislation only required schools to ask parents to provide their children's immunisation status certificate upon school enrolment. It didn't even make the production of a certificate obligatory. In the absence of a certificate "the child is taken not to have been immunised against any of the vaccine preventable diseases." (2)
Beginning this year the Liberal/National Federal Government decided to get very tough on vaccine non-compliance by initiating schemes which would be in direct contradiction to the Liberal philosophies of freedom of choice and individual responsibility. The most dramatic is a bold move by the Minister for Education Dr David Kemp who announced in late January that he will be calling on the State and Territory governments to make vaccinations compulsory upon school entry - the real thing this time! Dr Kemp said the matter was so serious that he would put the plan to State and Territory education ministers at a meeting in the next month. He expected "effective action" to increase the child vaccination rate. "A school would be quite entitled to say to parents: 'Go away and have your child immunised and bring the papers back tomorrow,'" he said. He did not explain how the policy would be enforced but said parents who had no acceptable reason for refusing to have their child immunised would have to "consider their legal obligation to have their child educated". Fortunately, Dr Kemps proposal was rejected by many as too heavy-handed. The Australian Education Union, the Federation of Parents and Citizens' Associations, the NSW Teachers Federation, and the NSW State Government, to name a few. (3) Just a week later the Federal Health Minister Michael Wooldridge assured the Australian public that vaccinations would not be made compulsory. (4) Citizens should be aware that the Australian Federal Constitution is a more reliable assurance than a politician's word. Section 51, Part 23A of the Constitution makes it unlawful for a government to impose any form of compulsory medication. However, in recent times in this country, governments have shown an increasing propensity to override, circumvent, or simply ignore the Constitution. More on this later.
In the same month Dr Wooldridge announced that his ministry is considering a "cash for a jab" plan. Under the proposed scheme parents would receive a cash bonus every time their child received an injection. The Health Minister is also considering payments to doctors and local regions. Doctors could be given a cash incentive if they increased the vaccination rate of children in their practice, and local governments, which run vaccination systems in some States, could have their funding increased if they increased the proportion of children vaccinated. (5) The payments to doctors and local councils would make the scheme open to abuse. It would encourage opportunistic doctors to vaccinate children without parental consent, a problem that already exists thanks to an earlier scheme by the Government. (6) And already a council has banned 2 unvaccinated children from attending a council-run childcare center in Queensland. (7) The cash incentives would encourage such human rights abuses. The foolishness of the Government's intentions is highlighted by its later suggestion that children may also be entitled to McDonald's fast-food vouchers upon vaccination.
Soon after the Government announced its cash incentive scheme it decided to take a harder line by threatening to financially penalise parents who fail to vaccinate their children. A spokeswoman for the Health Minister said a financial penalty, perhaps through child allowances, could be part of a national plan to increase vaccinations. "The cash incentive idea has been blown out of all proportion," the spokeswoman said. "Why reward parents who aren't doing the right thing?" (8) The Government has for some time considered a similar proposal. "Radford suggested one way to encourage age appropriate immunisation is to link compulsory immunisation to the receipt of family allowances as occurs in some European countries." (9) In the USA, many of its states have already linked vaccination compliance to receipt of government welfare and, in some cases, a parent's right to care for their own children. One example of the consequence of this policy is the case of a Bellefontaine woman whose baby died 17 hours after receiving a DPT shot. The mother was threatened with losing her WIC benefits (food assistance for low-income families with children) for refusing to vaccinate her subsequent child. (10)
Beginning last year the Government implemented the Australian Childhood Immunisation Register (ACIR), a computer database system that would tag, track and monitor the vaccination status of every baby born in this country. The ACIR database makes personal information available for all and sundry to see. Immediately after the ACIR was implemented reports were coming in that opportunistic doctors, having access to the ACIR database, were without parental consent or knowledge injecting children brought into hospital emergency rooms for unrelated conditions. (6) The Government justifies the ACIR database based on their misconceived view that the failing vaccination program is largely due to busy but consenting parents who simply forget to take their children for their shots. Through the ACIR, parents with children falling behind in their vaccine schedule would receive reminders by post, and further non-compliance would lead to community nurses knocking at their doors offering on-the-spot vaccinations. This caused many fears among health professionals and parents. Adverse reactions to vaccinations do occur - sometimes life-threatening - so how would the vaccinator respond in such situations?
Shortly after, the Government announced the introduction of vaccination stalls at shopping malls. Again this was justified on their belief that the falling vaccination levels were largely due to forgetful and busy parents not having the time to arrange their children's inoculations. The vaccination stalls were intended to overcome this situation - parents could simply have their children inoculated while doing the shopping. Would the shopping mall vaccinator be equipped to respond to a life-threatening vaccine reaction?
All the above schemes share a common thread - that the Government attributes their failing vaccination program to complacent but consenting parents. The Government wants us to believe that 90% of parents support vaccinations but don't keep up with the vaccine schedule because of complacency. Using this logic the Government is ignoring a fundamental truth: many parents cease to support vaccinations sometime during the course of their child's schedule because of either witnessing their child's reactions, learning about someone else's reactions, or being exposed to information. The fact is that vaccines DO cause adverse reactions and, as demonstrated by the disease outbreaks that still occur in the highly vaccinated United States (a country which has 95% coverage in most states), they aren't all that effective.
Health hazards from vaccinations can include cancer, multiple sclerosis, autism, leukemia, lupus, mental retardation, blindness, asthma, epilepsy, cerebral palsy, encephalitis, paralysis, cot deaths, damage to and/or failure of kidneys, liver, heart and other body organs, arthritis, meningitis, allergies, hyperactivity, chronic ear infections, learning disabilities, and death. (11) The reason for such problems is simple: no vaccine intended for humans has ever undergone a PROPERLY conducted controlled clinical trial. No one has ever taken a large group of people, vaccinated one half, left the other half alone and compared their health over a substantial period of time. Because there is no scientific basis in the Government's assurances of vaccine safety, their vaccination programs can best be described as a large-scale experiment on the Australian public.
Despite this the Health Department is working frantically to reverse the current trend of vaccine non-compliance. Appearing on the television program "A Current Affair," Health Minister Wooldridge has stated that "We must get the immunisation rate up to an acceptable international level." (4) Acceptable to whom?, or should I say, WHO? His aim for an "acceptable international level" is 90-95% by the year 2000 - a goal which is expected of his Government by the World Health Organisation because of an international treaty. Back in 1983 the WHO launched its Expanded Program on Immunization in order to achieve maximum vaccination coverage of the world's children. The WHO committed all national political leaders - representing 158 nations - to achieve and maintain a goal of 80% vaccination coverage in their respective countries by 1990, and in that year the WHO set a further goal of 90% coverage by the year 2000. (12,13) The WHO's latter target is unrealistic in the light of the growing awareness and concern of the dangers of vaccinations, particularly among citizens in the more developed and democratic countries where freedom of speech still does exist to some limited extent.
Our Government's involvement with the WHO should be a real concern among health freedom advocates. Although Section 51, Part 23A of the Australian Federal Constitution should protect us from any form of compulsory medication, including vaccinations, our rights can still be stolen from us. In recent times in this country, governments have shown an increasing propensity to override, circumvent, or simply ignore the Constitution. This is achieved by the High Court's willingness to allow international treaties and agreements to override our Constitution. An example of this is when in the 1970s the High Court ruled that the Federal Government could override the Tasmanian State Parliament and ban the construction of the Franklin Dam. Although the action was in breach of the Constitution, the High Court based its decision upon the fact that Australia was a signatory to a United Nations Treaty on World Heritage and therefore was more obliged to the UN agreement than to its own Constitution. Australia is already signatory to a number of UN agreements that could be misused by the High Court to override Section 51, Part 23A of the Constitution. Among these is the "Convention On The Rights Of The Child" which imposes on signatories an obligation to "ensure the highest possible standards" of health care for children. The High Court could easily interpret this as an obligation to ensure mandatory vaccinations. (14) Writing in her book The Medical Mafia, Dr Guylaine Lanctôt stated that the UN adopted the Convention On The Rights Of The Child so as to beat the resistance and opposition put up by obstinate adults against the WHO's vaccination programs. (12)
Many informed critics argue that our government should opt out of international treaties with the WHO and its parent organisation the United Nations, because these treaties are eroding our national sovereignty piece by piece, surrendering it to a world bureaucracy. The United Nations, with its numerous affiliated organisations, has been described by many critics as an "unelected World Government" which is funded and controlled by an elite group of international financiers and corporations for the express purpose of dictating the world's nations, and for this reason critics are calling on their political leaders to break all ties with the UN. Although global governance by the UN has not been completely implemented yet, its imminence is becoming increasingly clear. In an article entitled "World Government by the year 2000?", Henry Lamb of the Environmental Conservation Organisation informs readers that "the UN-funded Commission on Global Governance has completed its three-year study and has now announced publicly its plans to implement global governance by the year 2000." Lamb predicts that the United Nations will convene a World Conference on Global Governance in 1998 "for the purpose of submitting to the world the necessary treaties and agreements for ratification and implementation [of world government] by the year 2000." Lamb observes that "many of the recommendations published in this report have been under way for several years." (15)
Until the Government admits to the REAL reason why parents are refusing inoculations, and until they come CLEAN on the REAL risks and limitations of vaccines, instead of continuing its destructive course of deceit, scare-mongering, and coercion, while abdicating our country's sovereignty to a world bureaucracy intent on achieving an unrealistic vaccination coverage throughout the world, the human rights abuses caused by the Government's schemes will continue to drag this country down a totalitarian path. Protect your health freedoms - don't allow national and international bureaucrats to steal from you what's rightfully yours!
Copyright 1997 by the Campaign Against Fraudulent Medical Research, P.O. Box 234, Lawson NSW 2783, Australia. Phone/fax +61 (0)2-4758-6822. Email: URL:
Reproduction and dissemination of this article is encouraged but written permission is required.
Donations needed - As CAFMR is dependent on donation money we need your
financial support to continue our work.
1. "Schools To Require Immunity", The Sydney Morning Herald, NSW, April
18, 1991.
2. NSW Public Health Act 1991, No. 10, Part 3A.
3. "Federal push to enforce compulsory immunisation", The Sydney Morning
Herald, NSW, January 30, 1997.
4. Michael Wooldridge in "A Current Affair", TCN Chan. 9, NSW, February 6,
5. "Cash for a tear", The Daily Telegraph, NSW, January 15, 1997.
6. Meryl Dorey, VAN Newsletter, Vaccination & Awareness Network,
Bangalow, NSW, January 1996.
7. "Childcare ban if not immunised", The Cairns Post, Qld, January 6, 1997.
8. "Immunise - or pay the price: Cash penalty plan to increase vaccine
rate", The Sunday Telegraph , NSW, January 26, 1997.
9. Childhood Immunisation: A Review of the Literature, The Commonwealth
Department of Human Services and Health, 1994.
10. Dayton Daily News, May 28, 1993.
11. For an extensive insight into the dangers of vaccinations refer to
Viera Scheibner's Vaccination: The Medical Assault on the Immune System,
Scheibner Publ., Blackheath, NSW, 1993.
12. Guylaine Lanctôt, The Medical Mafia, Here's The Key Inc., Canada,
1995, p. 124-5.
13. James P. Grant, UNICEF, The State of the World's Children, Oxford
University Press, 1994.
14. Peter Sawyer, "Compulsory Immunization: Is It Good? Is It Safe? Is It
Legal?" Inside News, Maleny, Qld, May/June 1991; Peter Sawyer, One Man
Banned, Brian Wilshire (Ed.), Brian Wilshire Publ., Round Corner, NSW,
15. "World Government by the year 2000?", Behind the Headlines, America's
Future, Inc., St. Louis, MO, December 15, 1996.