AND it exacerbates inequality.

The “no jab, no pay” policy has harms beyond the physical: it may unfairly deny funds to people who already suffer from hardship. While much attention is given to the half of non-vaccinators who consciously refuse, people have failed to vaccinate for other reasons such as having an ill child, or being caught up in what may be an already difficult separated family situation.∂ People who do not vaccinate for reasons other than disagreement and concern tend to have lower household incomes (60% have a household income less than A$50,000) and lower education levels (34% have year ten or less education). Single-parent households are also over-represented in this sub-population – 21% versus 15% of families nationally.∂ For such people, a policy that links vaccination to family benefits may simply increase their disadvantage. It may even add fuel to family tensions if the problem arises because of a separated family situation and parents with differing views.∂ Yet another potential harm resulting from the policy is that mandating vaccinations fails to respect individual autonomy. This tension between individual rights and the public good has been labelled the “central dilemma” in public health.∂ The counter-argument to these harms is that childhood vaccination can and does save lives. But we now know that not all vaccinations are 100% effective. If they were, there would fewer emotional appeals along the lines of “the anti-vaccine movement threatens us all”