The Australian government is removing the 'concientious objection' exemption for people who don't want their children immunised but want to continue to receive welfare benefits. This is so like the Aussies, who have a much lower regard for 'human rights' - in this case the parent's right to choose whether or not to vaccinate their child. Or at least the welfare-dependent parent.
But 'human rights' principles do not provide tidy solutions anyway. Which human's right? The parent who wants to protect their child from illness so chooses to immunise; or the parent wants to protect their child from possible vaccination side effects and chooses not to immunise? The latter's right impinges on the former's. There is no clear cut answer. And that is the state of the debate even before the welfare benefit aspect is introduced
After Australia makes this change (NZ has not but let's imagine it follows suit), if the state 'forces' the parent to immunise a child under threat of losing their benefit, does it bear responsibility for any bad result, however infinitesimal the odds are?
Let's think of it another way. The state also says, take that job or lose part or all of your benefit. It could be in forestry where the risks of injury are relatively high. Does the state bear responsibility for an ensuing injury or death?
There are two answers. The first is, to an extent it does anyway, regardless of any 'compulsion' that led to the accident. It bears responsibility inasmuch as it recompenses through ACC. But this still leaves many people battling with authorities to get satisfaction.
The second is 'no'. The state does not legally bear any responsibility for 'forcing' people to take certain actions on pain of losing their benefit. Because IT DIDN"T FORCE THEM. The individual still had a choice not to work or not to immunise their child. They simply have to find an alternate source of income to furnish their decisions. That's the real world.
That's the world in which a parent who is financially independent of the state can choose not to immunise and the state cannot make them.
The debate, 'to jab or not to jab', is actually seperate. One which, again, human rights legislation cannot neatly address. But after the Australians take this step, it is a small next one to make every parent immunise their child compulsarily. Is that OK?
That is the question people really need to be grappling with.