Urgent Action Alert – please do this now!

Urgent Action Alert – please do this now!

It is important that we maintain and re-establish our right to choice.

Our right to refuse vaccination.

Vaccines come with a risk of injury and death, and there’s no liability for the medical doctors or the pharmaceutical companies. In this situation it should definitely be a choice.

Federal Member for Bonner, Ross Vasta, today said the conscientious objector exemption on children’s vaccination for access to taxpayer funded Child Care Benefits, the Child Care Rebate and the Family Tax Benefit Part A end of year supplement will cease from 1 January 2016.

By signing this petition you are helping Australian’s keep their right to
use the conscientious objector exemption and refuse to be injected vaccinations without recourse of being denied education, health care or parenting payments.

Changes to the NSW Public Health Act (Part 5, Division 4, Sections 85-88) and NSW Public Health Regulation (Part 7, Division 2, Sections 42-44A) are unethical, and people have the right to refuse to be injected something into their body.

Abbott said in a joint statement with Social Services Minister Scott Morrison “The choice made by families not to immunise their children is not supported by public policy or medical research, nor should such action be supported by taxpayers in the form of childcare payments.”

https://www.change.org/p/tony-abbott-australian-government-say-no-to-abolishing-the-conscientious-objector-exemption-a-right-to-say-no-to-vaccines/sponsors/new

TRANSPARENCY CHALLENGE and Vaccine Confidence – Australian Government and Decision Makers.

We, the undersigned, regardless of our personal stance on vaccination, do not believe that any leader or decision-maker, in control of their full intellectual capacity and understanding, could read, nor have they read, all recent submissions made to parliament; including anecdotal, legal and scientific research, and subsequently agree to passing the No Jab No Pay law with full confidence.

Furthermore, those individuals as listed below, once fully compliant with this demand, will then be required to provide proof that they have not been affected in any way, with adverse events, vaccine injury or death.

Notwithstanding the outright dismissal of :

• Article 18 in the Australian Constitution (coercion and bribery are illegal), and the confidentiality of an individual’s health records is no longer considered.
• Coercion and bribery taking place by removing Family Tax A – with end of year payment ending for ALL parents in 2017 whether they are vaccinated or not (Report here).
• Lack of privacy and open disclosure now extends to adults as well as children
• Documented research effects proving link between vaccination and chronic neurological damage to seniors along with Indigenous (See here) and armed service personnel (See here).

– We believe the No Jab Law is a breach of Constitutional regulations, thereby illegal so should be held null and void – at least until such a time that the decision-makers prove to us the efficacy and safety of 100%, and subsequently change the Constitution.

CHALLENGE TO NO JAB STAKEHOLDERS – 

We the undersigned challenge the decision makers and stakeholders – namely the following (including all family members):

• All Government representatives and leaders
• All Education leaders (principals) refusing enrolment of non vaccinated
• All Child Care leaders refusing enrolment of non vaccinated
• All Media representatives – entire Murdoch family, TV, radio, magazine, newspaper publishers, editors, journalists
• All doctors and pharmacists
• All oncology staff and child health staff
• All pharmaceutical researchers and scientists from vaccine manufacturing companies
• As representatives of the Australian public, the entire Royal family

– bearing in mind all following references, to undertake the following with full transparency :

• Full catch-up vaccination, based upon dosage according to individual bodyweight – approximately 10 x infant dosage of every scheduled vaccination on the Australian Immunisation Register for adults.
• All vaccinations documented on film for physical proof.

We also challenge all listed above to compulsorily read and note the following references, in full –

• Paralegal Maureen Hickman’s research contained in ‘Vaccination, The Right Choice?’ found here
• Indigenous deaths and gene mutations according to Dr Archie Kalokerinos’ research in Every Second Child.
• Every Australian Immunisation Schedule full practitioner package insert – these should also be available to every individual prior to all vaccinations at least one week before administration of any vaccination so that all agreeing parents and individuals are compliant with facts and notice signed and witnessed to accept ALL facts have been disclosed in full.

As our leaders so openly and wholeheartedly support vaccinations, catch up vaccinations and ultimately blanket compulsory vaccinations, we demand to be led by example, with full transparency by all involved,without protection from liability. Once this is shown publicly via all media outlets to be effective, then we will agree to discuss the demands.

Until this time –

• Media will refrain from constant vaccination propaganda headlines and stories.
• Print media will publish IN FULL, all practitioner-provided vaccine package insert details of possible side effects and ingredients – full transparency, clear enough for any parent to read, regardless of level of education.
• Family Payments and Child Care Benefits will remain as they are.
• School enrolments and registrations, and Child Care placements will remain as they are.
• No-Vax Childcare centres be free to open with full support offered to existing centres – and remain legal and unpunished ongoing.
• All vaccines given from this point be done so with a signed certificate from all administrators of every vaccine AND with a doctor’s signature as witnessed at the time of vaccination – advising that parent has been provided with full practitioner package insert documentation.
• All vaccine ingredients – hidden and documented, MUST be advised and LABELLED. As there is some proof in existence that mercury, aluminium, aborted fœtal cell lines, peanut oil and such ingredients are not being advised or labelled, transparency must begin immediately.

– All without hindrance or punishment. Furthermore, active social media infiltrators and agitators now targeting bereaved families, practitioners and others who do not conform to the No Jab No Pay rules will be considered to be breaking the law and must remain inactive until such a time that this is completed.

If in the event the outcome lies in the favour of the new No Jab law and every individual as listed above is fully vaccinated without adverse effects, in the (purported) rare incidence of vaccine injury for members of the public, records will be made public and both manufacturing companies/doctors and the Government will accept full liability.

https://www.change.org/p/no-jab-no-pay-decision-makers-australian-federal-government-australian-government-and-decision-makers-vaccine-confidence-and-transparency-challenge

We don’t want an adult vaccination register in Australia

In the May budget, Tony Abbott announced that we are going to expand our current childhood vaccination register into an adult register, starting in September 2016. Are we going to have so many new vaccinations for adults that we need a register to keep track of these things? Are pensions, tax returns and other types government support going to become dependent on having ALL the recommended vaccines?

Won’t happen? Well it’s already being done ……

Childhood vaccination used to be recommended but voluntary, much like adult vaccination is at the moment. Then in 1994 the childhood register was introduced to ‘monitor and improve’ vaccination rates. Vaccination was incentivised with the $250 Maternity Immunisation Allowance. Later this was changed to Family Tax Benefit part A supplement, worth over $2100. All this, while the number of vaccines required increased.

Now Abbott is going to abolish your right to conscientious objection and religious objection to all the vaccines currently on the immunisation schedule and ALL FUTURE ONES. This is an important point, as this does not just take away our right if we do not agree with current vaccinations but all future ones that the government chooses. The Australian Medical Association President, Brian Owler said ‘they would closely monitor if the new (No Jab No Pay) measures have a significant impact and may even advocate for stricter national rules, like mandatory vaccinations to attend school in the future’.http://www.news.com.au/national/baby-rileys-parents-welcome-governments-move-to-close-loophole-for-vaccine-refusers/story-fncynjr2-1227300692791#

Such forceful action must be in response to major problem. Right ?

Childhood vaccination rates are the highest in our history. The 2 year old cohort is currently at 91%. Contrast this where vaccination rates for 2 years old were 89% in 2003, 73 % in 1999 and an estimated 53% in the 1980’s. (Sources: Australian Childhood Immunisation Register & Australian Bureau of Statistics)

Let me tell you where the problem is?

In 1986, the United States passed a law that stopped any pharmaceutical company from being sued for any adverse outcome from their vaccines. Instead a tax was put on every vaccine and this is used to compensate adverse vaccine reactions. Contrast this for example, with the fines and compensation paid out by Merck for Vioxx (See figures from link – Vioxx Lawsuit – How to File, Settlements & Assistance for Your Claim www.drugwatch.com/vioxx/lawsuit/

So from a business point of view, vaccines are a very lucrative product line. From here we have seen an explosion in medical products delivered through the vaccine model. There are over 250 new vaccines in development.http://www.phrma.org/sites/default/files/pdf/Vaccines_2013.pdf

The adult vaccination market is a hugely untapped market. Only about a 30% uptake. But the market is estimated to be $100 billion by 2025. ( check figures here – http://lifescienceinvestingnews.com/1866-global-vaccine-mar…

With the enormous financial interests involved in the development and marketing of drugs and medical devices, government policy is being manipulated to favour needs of the industry over that of the patient / public. A recent study concluded that “to serve its interests, the (medical and pharmaceutical) industry masterfully influences evidence-base production, evidence synthesis, understanding of harms issues, cost-effectiveness evaluations, clinical practice guidelines and healthcare professional education and also exerts direct influences on professional decisions and health consumers.” . ‘(Undue industry influence that distorts healthcare research, strategy, expenditure and practicehttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23521369)

However, in Australia we don’t have have a vaccine injury compensation scheme. Instead, if vaccines are coerced just short of the point of being compulsory – then the consequences fall to the individual (that is, their affected health and the pursuit of legal redress).

What if the Australian government made the product compulsory in every way but name!?!? No marketing costs. No liability. How do they do this? Take the rights away from the people to choose what goes into their bodies now and into the future. This has already started with some professions mandating vaccines for employment – but you could always choose not to pursue that employment (if you can afford to)! It is a slippery slope that we are already on and this process of adult vaccine coercion all starts with ‘monitoring’ vaccine coverage using the Adult Vaccination Register.

This affects all Australians! We need to stand up and fight for our rights to have control over our bodies! We need to take action and now! Sign this petition. Share it widely. Write to your MP. The only right that can be removed are the ones you let be taken away!

Note: This petition does not meet parliamentary requirements. To send Tony Abbott and his ’team’ a ‘strong’ message that this is unpopular, we need BIG numbers.

https://www.change.org/p/stop-the-adult-vaccination-register

The AUSTRALIAN VICTORIAN STATE GOVERNMENT’S NO JAB NO PLAY Legislation needs to be either abolished or amended to provide for an exemption for conscientious objection to the immunisation requirement on philosophical or religious grounds, in accordance with the obligations imposed by Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, other human rights instruments to which Australia is a party, and to eliminate conflict between this Bill and the Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA) and A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act. A statutory declaration made by a child’s parents or legal guardians to the effect they have a conscientious objection to immunisation on philosophical or religious grounds should be sufficient to satisfy the immunisation requirement due to the difficulties in obtaining a signed objection form from a doctor.

THE NO JAB NO PLAY Victorian Legislation exceeds the power of Parliament which extends to making exclusions in outbreak conditions only. This legislation conflicts with sections 5 & 6 of the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) 1992 and section 6 of the New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act (FFA) 1999. Refusal to allow a child to enroll in child care because of vaccination status amounts to unlawful discrimination under the DDA, and exposes child care centres to legal liability for acts of unlawful discrimination. In the DDA unvaccinated children are considered disabled and are thus protected from discrimination as disabled people. Section 48 of the Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act dealing with discrimination against those with an infectious disease will not hold up in court as it would be difficult to prove refusing to enrol an unvaccinated child in child care on the basis the child may catch a disease in the future is reasonably necessary to protect public health.

The Legislation conflicts with the FFA by denying a benefit conferred by that Act, namely the right to access subsidised childcare services (child care benefits). While eligibility to child care benefits under the FAA is subject to an immunisation requirement, exemptions from this requirement is permitted on the grounds of conscientious objection.

The Legislation conflicts with section 3.5 of Australia’s Medical Board Code of Conduct which says a person must be properly informed and be allowed to make a voluntary decision about whether they adopt any proposed medical care (Subsection 2 requires that a doctor obtains informed consent prior to providing a treatment), by coercing their decision with the threat of removing child care, which will threaten the parents ability to participate in work.

Professor Raina Macintyre recently expressed the concern that doctors were prevented from accepting consent under such circumstances in relation to a proposed immunisation requirement in Commonwealth laws.

“In addition, doctors must obtain valid consent to vaccinate children, and consent is not valid in the presence of any form of coercion.”

This obviously raises questions about the legal validity of the Bill particularly in the absence of provision for immunisation exemptions on conscientious grounds.

This Bill violates Section 8, subsections 2 and 3 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (CHRR) which protects the right of every person to enjoy their human rights free of discrimination, and to equal and effective protection from discrimination by the law.

If deliberately unvaccinated children are claimed to pose a risk to the other children and staff, then by necessity, similarly unprotected children and people must also pose the same risk. These include:

(a) those who can’t be vaccinated for medical reasons; and

(b) those who are too young to have been vaccinated; and

(c) those who have been vaccinated, but who are not protected due to not producing the required biological response claimed to confer immunity; and

(d) those who were not vaccinated in utero; and

(e) child care centre employees.
If unvaccinated children are alleged to pose a risk to others then surely children receiving live virus vaccines would also pose a risk, but the Bill does not discriminate against these children on such a basis. Only deliberately unvaccinated children are singled out for exclusion.

Section 10, subsection c, of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (CHRR) protects the right to give free and full consent to a medical treatment. The immunisation requirement of this Bill will limit this right.

Vaccination like all medical procedures, carries with it the risk of death, disability and chronic disease. The tragic examples of Saba Button, Lachlan Neylan, Izzy Olesen and Ashley Epapara are cases in point. Both Saba Button and Lachlan Neylan suffered major brain injuries resulting in severe and permanent disability from the vaccinations they received. Izzy Olesen suffered Stevens Johnson Syndrome resulting in blindness and major skin scarring, and regrettably, Ashley Epapara died. You can read their stories at the

following links.

(Rule, 2011, Saba Button, the girl who is never alone, Perth Now)

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/saba-button-the-girl-who-is-never-alone/story-e6frg13u-1226035296706

(Hansen, 2013,Toddler who was given an adult flu shot is left severely brain-injured and unable to walk, Daily

Telegraph)

http://www.themercury.com.au/news/national/toddler-who-was-given-an-adult-flu-shot-is-left-severely-braindamaged-and-unable-to-walk-or-talk/story-fnj3ty2c-1226756398505

(Olesen, 2014, Izzy’s Story, Vaccination Information Network)

http://www.vaccinationinformationnetwork.com/izzys-story/

(ABC News, 2010, Flu Vaccine can’t be ruled out in toddler’s death)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-09-10/flu-vaccine-cant-be-ruled-out-in-toddlers-death/2256142

Importantly, unlike a medical procedure performed on a sick or injured person for therapeutic goals, vaccination is a medical procedure performed on healthy people for a potential future benefit. For this reason, the standard of informed consent to the procedure should be arguably higher than that for a therapeutic purpose, and most definitely should only be given freely, without coercion.

This Legislation needs to be abolished or amended to provide for an exemption for conscientious objection to the immunisation requirement on philosophical or religious grounds, in accordance with the obligations imposed by Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, other human rights instruments to which Australia is a party, and to eliminate conflict between this Bill and the Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA) and A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act. A statutory declaration made by a child’s parents or legal guardians to the effect they have a conscientious objection to immunisation on philosophical or religious grounds should be sufficient to satisfy the immunisation requirement due to the difficulties in obtaining a signed objection form from a doctor.

For more reasons why at the least this Bill needs amending please read all of the following document here
http://avn.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/AVN-Submission-to-SAR-Committee-Victoria-September-2015-06-WEB.pdf

https://www.change.org/p/australian-victorian-government-the-hon-daniel-andrews-mp-daniel-andrews-parliament-vic-gov-au-sarc-parliament-vic-gov-au-restore-conscientious-objection-to-no-jab-no-play-victorian-legislation-or-abolish-it

 

 

As parents it is our duty to make decisions for our children that we believe are best for them, especially when it comes to optional medical interventions like vaccinations. This is a choice that is not taken lightly and parents must make this choice without coercion or manipulation, as stated on the Government’s own website:

“For consent to be legally valid, the following elements must be present:

• It must be given by a person with legal capacity, and of sufficient intellectual capacity to understand the implications of being vaccinated.
• It must be given voluntarily in the absence of undue pressure, coercion or manipulation.
• It must cover the specific procedure that is to be performed.
• It can only be given after the potential risks and benefits of the relevant vaccine, risks of not having it and any alternative options have been explained to the individual.”

By trying to take away family and childcare payments away from low income families who conscientiously choose to selectively vaccinate or not vaccinate, you are putting them in the impossible position of having to choose between feeding and housing their families and vaccinating their children against their will, THIS IS NOT LEGAL CONSENT, IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND IT IS BLACKMAIL!

If any of these children are injured or killed because their parents have been forced to vaccinate under duress, is the Government ready to be legally responsible? Especially as there is no vaccine injury compensation scheme in Australia.

Stop using Whooping Cough rates as an excuse to attack conscientious objectors and start looking at the real problem, the vaccine.

In 1991 <71% of Australian children were fully vaccinated and there were only 347 cases of Whooping Cough, while in 2011 with 90% of children vaccinated, we had 38,751 cases an increase of over 11,000%! How can you blame the 1.8% of unvaccinated children in 2015?

The vaccinated can become asymptomatic transmitters of Whooping Cough and infect young infants, while the dominant strain of Whooping Cough is not even targeted by the vaccine. A study has also linked the Whooping cough outbreaks to vaccinated children and adolescents.

If raising already high vaccination rates is the purpose of this part of the legislation and the wealthy areas of Australia have the lowest rates, then how does targeting low income families change the vaccination rates of high income families?

We have seen children who have been injured or killed after vaccination in Australia, like Saba Button, Ashley Epapara and Lachlan Neyland and the hundreds of children rushed to hospital during the Fluvax debacle of 2009 . By bringing in punishments for families who choose not to vaccinate you are saying that these children are acceptable collateral damage and that they have less value than children injured or killed by diseases, how would you feel if this was your child?

Our children deserve better than a one size fits all approach to health care, especially when the healthcare products are being produced by a multi-billion dollar industry with a long and sordid history of fraud and deceptive practices. Just look at the industry whistle-blowers who have courageously come out to testify of this fact, such as Dr William Thompson PhD, Dr’s Stephen Krahling and Joan Wlochowski and the revelations of Peter Gøtzsche from the Cochrane Collaboration.

If there is a risk there MUST be a choice, ALL parents have the RIGHT and the duty to decide WHICH risk is acceptable to their own families!

References:

http://www.immunise.health.gov.au/internet/immunise/publishing.nsf/Content/Handbook10-home~handbook10part2~handbook10-2-1

Pertussis notifications from 1991-2013 NNDSS
http://www9.health.gov.au/cda/source/rpt_2.cfm?RequestTimeout=500

Pertussis vaccination rates for 2011
http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/cda-cdi3704-pdf-cnt.htm/$FILE/cdi3704a.pdf

Pertussis Vaccination rates in 1990-2001
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/4813.0.55.001#4.%20RESULTS%20-%20VACCINATION%20COVERAGE

Whooping cough resurgence due to vaccinated people not knowing they’re infectious?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150624071018.htm

Whooping cough increase related to current vaccine

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2015/04/24/4222316.htm

 

http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm376937.htm

http://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/health/sharp-rise-cases-new-strain-whooping-cough

http://digitaljournal.com/article/323187

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/lower-vaccine-rates-put-wealthy-areas-at-risk-of-disease-20130410-2hlt5.html

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/child-vaccinations-reach-worrying-lows-in-affluent-melbourne-suburbs-20140111-30nsq.html

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/little-girl-died-in-cot-after-flu-jab/story-e6frg6nf-1225858118518

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/saba-button-the-girl-who-is-never-alone/story-e6frg13u-1226035296706

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/toddler-who-was-given-an-adult-flu-shot-is-left-severely-brain-damaged-and-unable-to-walk-or-talk/story-fni0cx12-1226756398505

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/life/weekend-australian-magazine/virus-in-the-system/story-e6frg8h6-1226063484330

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikakelton/2013/07/29/is-big-pharma-addicted-to-fraud/

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/lawrence-solomon/merck-whistleblowers_b_5881914.html

http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2013/09/10/richard-smith-is-the-pharmaceutical-industry-like-the-mafia/

http://www.globalresearch.ca/new-study-in-journal-of-public-health-finds-autism-and-cancer-related-to-human-fetal-dna-in-vaccines/5402912

https://www.change.org/p/minister-scott-morrison-don-t-punish-parents-for-making-an-informed-choice-about-their-children-s-health-all-parents-deserve-to-make-an-uncoerced-choice

http://nojabnopaynoway.weebly.com/-petition.html

 

The Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network, Inc. (AVN), along with 140 other people, consequently made a submission to the Victorian Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee, whose role it is to scrutinise all bills introduced to the Victorian Parliament for compliance with sound legislative practice, and in accordance with The Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (the charter). Under the charter, the Committee is required to determine whether a Bill introduced into Parliament is incompatible with human rights protected under that Act. This submission is available at the following link on the AVN’s website.

http://avn.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/AVN-Submission-to-SAR-Committee-Victoria-September-2015-06-WEB.pdf

The AVN’s submission identified several human rights which are significantly limited by this Bill, and provided evidence to the committee that these limitations of human rights were not reasonably justified having regard to the Bill’s stated purpose of increasing vaccination rates in Victoria, and that there were less restrictive means by which the government may increase vaccination rates without infringing the human rights of conscientious objectors.

These arguments seem to have resonated with the committee, which reported its findings on the Bill last week, and which is available at the following link commencing on page 7 (Public Health and Wellbeing Amendment (No Jab, No Play) Bill 2015).

http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/images/stories/committees/sarc/Alert_Digests/Alert_Digest_No_12_of_2015.pdf

The findings can be summarised as follows.

1) The Bill’s immunisation requirement may constitute direct or indirect discrimination on the basis of imputation of possible future disease in contravention of the charter. However, the committee failed to note that the Bill may also conflict with the Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act for similar reasons.

“The Committee will write to the Minister seeking further information as to whether or not new section 143B’s ban on the enrolment of most unvaccinated children in early childhood services is compatible with the Charter’s rights against direct or indirect discrimination on the basis of possible future disease.” (page 9)

2) The Bill’s provision for a temporary grace period of 16 weeks by which to comply with the immunisation requirement in relation to children of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent may constitute discrimination on the basis of race in contravention of the charter.

“The Committee will write to the Minister seeking further information as to whether or not new section 143C(1)(d)’s exemption of all Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders from this requirement is a measure taken for the purpose of assisting or advancing persons or groups disadvantaged by discrimination.” (page 9)

3) The Bill’s immunisation requirement without exemptions on grounds of conscientious objection constitutes an effective mandate for those Victorian parents reliant on child care services in contravention of the charter which protects the right to consent freely to medical treatment.

“However, the Committee notes that a parent who is unable to care for a child themselves (for example due to employment or other commitments) and cannot afford or otherwise obtain private care for their child (for example from a family member or a nanny) may have no choice other than to have his or her child vaccinated in order to enrol that child in an early childhood service.” (page 10)

The committee also noted that the Bill will have the effect of denying Commonwealth child care benefits which are currently available to defray the significant cost of child care services.

The Committee called on Parliament to consider whether there is a less restrictive alternative which is reasonably available to increase vaccination rates even though the AVN’s submission provided evidence about how vaccination rates could be increased without infringing the rights of conscientious objectors.

4) In relation to the AVN’s argument that the Bill limited the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief which is protected by the charter, the committee noted that an immunisation requirement to enrol children in childcare services in New South Wales provides for exemptions on such grounds, but made no recommendation to adopt such an exemption.

Notwithstanding, the committee’s damning findings about this draconian and totalitarian Bill, the Legislative Assembly proceeded to pass this Bill last Thursday following debate, and the word ‘debate’ has been used loosely. The only debate seemed to be around the Bill not being draconian enough because it provides for a temporary grace period for disadvantaged groups. For those wishing to read the various speeches by ALP, LNP and Greens members, the links to Hansard are provided below, but brace yourselves; it’s chock full of just about every pro-vaccine fallacy of which one could think. The table of contents makes it easy to find the relevant sections.

http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/images/stories/daily-hansard/Assembly_2015/Assembly_Aug-Dec_2015_Daily_6_October_2015.pdf

http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/images/stories/daily-hansard/Assembly_2015/Assembly_Aug-Dec_2015_Daily_7_October_2015.pdf

http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/images/stories/daily-hansard/Assembly_2015/Assembly_Aug-Dec_2015_Daily_8_October_2015.pdf      

What this means is that the Bill is now before the upper house (Legislative Council) which resumes sitting next Tuesday 20 October 2015, so time is running out if we are to defeat this Bill. People in Victoria who wish to retain their freedom of choice need to stand up now, and should be contacting their state representatives to voice their objection to the Bill by highlighting to them the damning findings of the parliamentary committee: that the Bill is discriminatory; violates the right to consent freely to a medical procedure and; that there are less restrictive means by which the government may increase immunisation rates without discriminating against those opposed to vaccination.

The AVN has compiled some tips for those meeting with or writing to Victorian MPs. These can be found at the following link.

http://avn.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/AVNs-tips-for-lobbying-Victorian-MPs-05-WEB.pdf

http://nocompulsoryvaccination.com/