1. Legal Principle [ICCPR Article 7, CRC Article 19]
2. Egalitarianism
3. Non-Discrimination

The bill protects the right to bodily integrity and freedom of conscience by ensuring no family is denied financial support for exercising a personal, philosophical, religious or medical belief against vaccination. Under the current regime, lower-income families bear a disproportionate burden when censuring conscientious objection, effectively penalising poverty rather than safeguarding public health. By reinstating the conscientious objection exemption and removing financial penalties, the bill restores equitable access to family tax benefits and child care subsidies.

The requirement for a written certification from a recognised immunisation provider ensures informed parental choice while maintaining a safeguard against frivolous objections. Extending full eligibility to children aged seven and above recognises growing autonomy and shifts the focus of assistance from medical compliance to social support. Overall, the bill advances human rights and promotes fairness in government assistance.

1. Utilitarian Ground Truth
2. Hobbesianism

Public health relies on high vaccination rates to achieve herd immunity; weakening immunisation requirements undermines collective protection against vaccine-preventable diseases. Removing financial incentives for vaccination is likely to reduce coverage, increasing the risk of outbreaks and imposing higher long-term costs on the health system—costs that may exceed any short-term welfare savings.

Strong institutions are needed to enforce policies that balance individual choice with community welfare. The “No Jab, No Pay” mechanism served as an effective nudge to maintain immunisation standards without coercion. Repealing it signals a retreat from evidence-based public health policy and erodes trust in government’s commitment to disease prevention [Judgment].