Here’s what I turned up about the Maternity Immunisation Allowance.
It was established in 1997 by Dr Michael Wooldridge, the then Federal Minister for Health and Family Services, in response to low levels of immunisation in Australia.
The new initiatives were designed to reach the 97 per cent of parents who are in favour of immunisation, but who did not finish the full vaccination regime.
During the launch, Dr Wooldridge said; “With such a high rate of acceptance of immunisation, it is appalling that only 53 per cent of Australian children are fully immunised for their age. This leaves all children at risk of contracting vaccine preventable diseases such as measles, whooping cough and German measles.”
“Present childhood immunisation rates in Australia are among the worst in western countries and lower than many Third World countries.”
Dr Wooldridge said the Federal Government was so concerned about the low rates of childhood immunisation that it had put its full weight behind an ambitious national strategy to significantly improve immunisation compliance.
This included the introduction of the Maternity Immunisation Allowance, a non-means tested bonus to encourage parents to fully immunise their children and the offer of financial incentives to medical practitioners as part of the Better Practice Program.
The Maternity Immunisation Allowance aims to encourage parents or guardians to fully immunise children in their care. Maternity Immunisation Allowance is a payment for children aged 18 to 24 months who are fully immunised or have an approved exemption from immunisation.
However, you can still get the money even if you don’t get your kids vaccinated. Following is an excerpt from the exemption clause.
a recognised immunisation provider (e.g. your doctor) signs a letter or form saying that:
• they have told you about the benefits and risks of immunising your child and you have a conscientious objection to immunising your child (your provider should complete a Health Insurance Commission Immu-12 form),
• immunising your child with a particular vaccine is medically contraindicated (your provider should use the Health Insurance Commission Immu-11 form),
• the child has a natural immunity to the disease, or
• the vaccine is not available,
• you or your partner are a member of the Church of Christ, Scientist and you have a letter from an official of the Church advising that you are a practising member of the Church.
I find it very interesting that this is never mentioned by the anti-vacc crowd. They are very quick to accuse GPs of being involved in some “big pharma” conspiracy since they also receive financial incentives to vaccinate and talk to parents about immunisation.
Did they forget to mention they also get paid for leeching off the rest of us who do comply thereby benefiting from they herd immunity we provide?
And as my mum who alerted me to this story said, if they are so opposed to vaccination shouldn’t they decline to take the money out of principle?
Browse Timeline
Comments ( 7 )
[...] course she was referring to the Maternity Immunisation Allowance scheme introduced in 1997, which they also get access to by the way). Professor McIntyre is a professor and researcher scientist, not a GP, therefore he [...]
» A brief report from today’s debate. added these pithy words on May 02 09 at 11:08 pm[...] for religious reasons or because of misinformation spread by anti-vax groups such as the AVN. In a scheme introduced in 1997, parents who completed the government schedule for childhood vaccinations received a one of payment [...]
» I object to this reading material. added these pithy words on Jan 19 10 at 9:59 pmSean the Blogonaut added these pithy words on Mar 01 09 at 11:20 pmI guess the reasoning is that if you get them in the clinic that there is greater chance that they might change their mind or see sense.
That being said it still smells like a rort?
Maggie added these pithy words on Mar 01 09 at 11:29 pmYes, perhaps that is part of the reason. At least they have to listen to the doctor’s spiel before signing a “conscientious objector” form. I just think the objectors should have the nous to not take the money. Why do they need to sign a form anyway? They could just as easily not get the vaccine and leave the $200 for the sensible people who are protecting their kids anyway.
John Fryer added these pithy words on Mar 02 09 at 9:59 amHi
The situation in Australia is not the same as for USA, England, Japan or Europe as a whole.
What is the rate of autism in Australia in 2009 and in past years?
USA with the highest vaccinations has the highest autism and Europe with low numbers of vaccinations has the lowest rates of autism.
It would therefore be simple to compare autism in vaccinated and non vaccinated children very easily if the rate of vaccination is around the 50 per cent level.
BastardSheep added these pithy words on Mar 02 09 at 1:49 pmActually autism rates have been going up regularly in Europe for a while, the last few years vaccination rates in both locations (and more) have gone down, autism still goes up.
I suggest you look up the difference between correlation and causation. Just because two numbers correlate to some degree, does not make them related in the slightest. The lack of correlation in the last few years once vaccination rates started dropping backs that up.
