Carrot or the stick? Or maybe just plain old fashioned assistance?

The budget papers suggest the govt is going to save $500 million dollars in child care benefits from it no jab/no pay policy. Well, now we know it's got nothing to do with increasing immunisation rates then.  If they thought the policy would actually increase immunisation rates, they would expect to still be paying the child care benefits. And in all honesty, they are probably right. Because how are you going to convince a bunch of people concerned about whether immunisation is all a big pharma/government conspiracy to immunise their children by trying to force them? Any sensible person would expect a knee jerk reaction of, "See it really is a conspiracy. They probably have microchips in the vaccines to keep track of everyone in the future".

Children who aren't vaccinated fall into those in families with socioeconomic problems such that they fall through the maternal and child health system and miss a lot a care as a result. Or those who come from countries where routine vaccinations just didn't happen. Or those who have deeply held, if misinformed, health/social/political concerns with vaccination. Are any of these going to be converted by the no jab/no pay policy? Probably not. The first two groups need intensive support to address the issues that have lead to them missing our on vaccinations and the third need to be provided with information in a non-aggressive manner and their concerns listened to respectfully and addressed appropriately. Of course, if you are going to consider religious objection to be a valid reason to not vaccinate, I don't quite see how other philosophical, non-scientific objection are any different.

But now we see that the government never really intended this to be a policy to address vaccination rates, but a way to save money on childcare benefits. Real action would provide further funding to access and support the families that need care. Carrots don't reach them through the complexities of their lives and sticks just put them further behind, whilst those holding "conscientious objections" tend to be well off enough to not be swayed by either.