Hello Russell Broadbent here – your independent member for Monash.
Today I spoke in the parliament about my grave concerns regarding the government’s unreasonable, unethical and unconscionable No Jab, No Pay policy.
My speech was inspired by a powerful letter written to me by a young mother, Chloe, who’s been financially punished for failing to adhere to the government’s immunisation schedule.
I want to honour Chloe by reading her letter in full to you:
Chloe told me that:
Since 2016, this policy has withheld key government entitlements; The Family Tax Benefit Part A supplement and childcare subsidies, from families who choose not to vaccinate their children in accordance with the national schedule.
This is not just another health regulation. It is, to this day, the only federal law in Australia and in the wider world, that ties a person’s access to government financial support to their compliance with a specific medical procedure.
We’re not talking about schooling, or border control, or emergency quarantine powers. We’re talking about welfare payments—a cornerstone of Australia’s social safety net—being used as leverage against private medical choices. This is not a health policy. It is a coercion policy. And it targets those least able to absorb the loss—young families, single parents, and low-income Australians already doing it tough.
We pride ourselves on giving everyone a fair go. But what’s fair about punishing struggling families for making a personal health choice? What’s Australian about using a child’s entitlements to force their parents into line?
This wasn’t just a one-off policy, it was the beginning of a slippery slope. Once we allowed the government to tie medical procedures to financial support, it became easier to tie it to jobs, to travel, to participation in society. We are now reaping the consequences of letting coercion become part of the public health toolkit.
We’re told this is for the greater good. But coercion is not good policy. It’s lazy governance.
Even the World Health Organization—so often invoked in public health debate—expert advisory group, SAGE warns that mandates must be approached with great care, as the potential negative consequences may outweigh the benefits—an implicit call for any such measure to be proportional to the risk it seeks to address.
In the case of No Jab No Pay, there was no national emergency. No outbreak. No extraordinary risk to justify this kind of pressure. There was only policy-making by ideology—using the blunt tool of financial punishment to enforce medical compliance.
Let’s contrast that with the WHO’s global strategy on immunisation through to 2030—the Immunization Agenda 2030, or IA2030. It highlights the importance of:
Nowhere—nowhere—does it endorse coercion. Nowhere does it recommend withholding family welfare as a strategy to increase vaccine uptake.
Instead, it emphasizes people-centred approaches that build trust and promote informed decision-making.
Trust. Informed decision-making. These are not radical ideas. These are the cornerstones of ethical healthcare.
And that’s what’s been lost under No Jab No Pay. The ability to have a conversation. The ability to weigh risks and benefits. The ability to decline a medical product without facing financial reprisal from your own government.
This policy has not increased confidence in vaccination. It has eroded trust in public health and created a generation of Australians who feel bullied by the very institutions meant to support them.
We must be better than this.
We must stand for informed consent, not enforced compliance. We must return to a framework where health decisions are personal, not political—and where families are not punished for asking questions.
Repealing No Jab No Pay is not an anti-vaccine position. It is a pro-choice, pro-ethics, pro-democracy position.
Because in a free society, the government should never hold your child’s welfare hostage to your medical decisions.
The line was crossed. It’s time we drew it back.
