Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697641492742.pdf (Australia)
I apologise that this submission may be a little late and hope you will still consider it.

I am temporarily overseas and impacted on by time zones and reduced access to Wi-Fi.

I write as a concerned grandmother whose adult children are both tertiary educated health professionals who, along with their partners, have chosen not to vaccinate their children.
Through discussions in the family I have therefore become much more aware and well-informed of the information base which is informing their decisions, and much more attuned to this highly contentious issue.
I write in the hope that the Senate committee can use this opportunity to exercise some balanced leadership in this matter and propose a way forward that can safeguard individual rights, actively seek to promote good health and begin to forge a path forward that may have some hope in preventing the increased divisiveness that is emerging in Australian society in relation to this issue.
In many ways I regard the divisiveness and marginalisation that is increasingly occurring as the greater risk to be managed.

My experience of individuals who choose not to vaccinate their children is that they are highly responsible, well educated and proactive parents who seek at all times to promote their own children's health and the health of the community.

The purpose of vaccination is immunity.

Vaccination should not be considered as an end in itself.
A well functioning immune system is equally protective both of individuals and of the community at large and can be achieved effectively through breastfeeding, good nutrition, a healthy lifestyle and a proactive approach to the management of infection.

Public policy should be directed towards how immunity can be achieved.
Vaccination is one means to achieve this and may be suitable for some people in the population, but there are other means that should also be supported and encouraged.. Human beings are not all the same.

Food that is nutritional to one person can cause a reaction that risks death in another person.

The same is true of medical treatment.

The science that supports any medical treatment only ever indicates that that medical treatment is effective for a majority of human beings, never for all of them.
Vaccine induced, or vaccine triggered injury is a reality and I am personally aware of situations where this has occurred and where the role of vaccination as a trigger has been confirmed by appropriately qualified medical practitioners.

Every medical treatment that we can access comes with risks.

The principle of informed consent is embedded in every other aspect of our medical care.

I recently had a routine mammogram and the informed consent document that I was required to sign was four pages long.
Vaccines do carry risk.

The inserts in their own packaging describes those risks and no human being should be required to have medical treatment that carries a risk without having the freedom to consent or not.

However as members of society it is reasonable to ask people to be proactive and responsible about the impact they have on the health and well-being of the community at large, and the use of public resources.
Social Services Legislation Amendment (No Jab, No Pay) Bill 2015Submission 538 I therefore respectfully request that the Senate committee consider a range of options that will contribute to improved immunity for the population at large and effective management of risk of infection when it occurs: 1.

2.

Increase the options for vaccinations to be undertaken later in childhood, and separately.
Some parents would utilise vaccinations if they could access them for one disease at a time rather than all combined in one injection.

Some parents would access vaccination for some disease and not others if separate vaccinations were possible.

Some parents would willingly pay a fee if the service was available.

Increase the options for the use of titer testing to determine a person’s immunity status where the status of their immunity is considered important for their access to services.

3.
3.

Develop a network of accredited health professionals who can work proactively with the conscientious objectors to ensure that they continue to adopt health promoting lifestyle practices and are well informed about the symptoms of disease, infection prevention and early intervention.

This could be in the form of an annual review of children's health status and parent’s health promoting practices, where the parent conscientiously objects to vaccination.

4.
4.

Take steps to dispel the myths that are developing in the community that unvaccinated children are at risk to vaccinated children.

The divisiveness that is developing in relation to this myth is, I believe, the greatest risk in the community at the moment.

The truth is that a vaccinated person can carry and pass on disease just as much as an unvaccinated person can.
A newly vaccinated grandparent who has taken this step in order to protect their newborn grandchild may inadvertently pass on infection to the new baby because they are shedding the virus during the days and weeks after the vaccination.

This in fact is a greater risk to unvaccinated newborns than an unvaccinated grandparent who is alert to the signs of infection and stays away from the newborn.
Prime Minister Turnbull said in his address on 9 October that the success of Australian society will be built upon a foundation of mutual respect.

‘Intolerance is contrary to our national interests’.

Most intelligent, responsible, socially aware and emotionally intelligent people would wholeheartedly agree with this and experience relief that Australia has leadership that is promoting these values.

These values need to be actively incorporated into immunisation promoting health policy.
There is no simple solution to the problem of infectious disease or the challenge of immunity promotion.

This is evidenced by the different positions that a range of European countries are taking in relation to vaccination policy.

However increased awareness and support for a range of health promoting strategies including vaccination, but supporting responsibility, education and choice will ensure the best outcome for the next generation of children in Australia.
I can in fact see significant benefits in having a small population of children who are unvaccinated and whose parents take other proactive steps to ensure their health as this will provide a comparison group whose health can be tracked over the next couple of decades which will provide valuable information in future that can contribute to subsequent research and health policy.

Thank you for your consideration Social Services Legislation Amendment (No Jab, No Pay) Bill 2015Submission 538