Opened the debate
Antic moved the second reading of the bill, arguing it would restore freedom of choice for parents and remove financial penalties for conscientious objectors. Antic contended that the 2015 No Jab No Pay policy unfairly targeted lower-income families reliant on Family Tax Benefit A, while wealthier families could opt out without financial loss. Antic cited evidence that vaccine hesitancy is more prevalent among tertiary-educated, affluent groups, suggesting the current regime is ineffective and ethically questionable. Antic argued that coercing medical treatment through financial threats undermines the principle of informed consent and may breach international human rights conventions. Antic stated that reinstating exemptions would have minimal impact on national immunisation rates, which remain high, while alleviating undue pressure on vulnerable families.