The New Changes / Laws Taking Effect in 2019 (That might affect you)

scrimshaw on 01/01/2019 - 23:32
Last edited 02/01/2019 - 17:55

Happy New Year, fellow pennypinchers. Let's take a look at some of the new changes in Australian legislation to see what's going to impact you (financially) this year. Here are the most relevant things you'll want to know:

Education

  • FEE-HELP Student loans have been increased. For 2019, the FEE-HELP limit will be $104,440 (previous, $102,392). If you plan to study medicine, dentistry or veterinary science, the FEE-HELP limit will be $150,000 (previously, $127,992). Visit the FEE-HELP page for more info

  • From 1 July 2019, the new minimum HELP repayment threshold will be $45,881 with a one per cent repayment rate, with a further 17 thresholds and repayment rates, up to a top threshold of $134,573 at which ten per cent of income is repayable. Link to Education.gov.au Kudos to cathyrrn

  • Preschool Subsidies now available for 3 Year old Kids — they will receive access to 2 days a week of subsidised preschool education.
    Link to Education.gov.au

  • Fairer access to selective school options. These include changes to the school entry test and improving the psychometric design of questions, increasing avenues to apply for disability provisions and introducing a better balance of exam questions across subjects. Link to related article on Edu.gov.au

  • The $100 Creative Kids Rebate which was posted as a deal. The NSW Government are introducing a $100 rebate valid for students aged 4.5 to 18 enrolled in school, as a voucher that can be redeemed on selected Creative activities.

  • Some changes to ABSTUDY and Youth Allowance. Increased payment rates to students and more allowances given to travel, & the parental income limit for parents of students has increased to $160,000. The full details are on the Human Services site

  • Free TAFE Classes (Kudos to jjjaar), in 30 'high priority' fields of study and disciplines.. Applies to Aussie and New Zealand citizens living in VIC.

Financial

Credit card reforms

  • Ban on credit card limit increase invitations (In Plain English: Credit card issuers can not contact customers to offer credit limit increase invitations.) This ban was actually placed in July last year.

  • Credit card limit assessments — ASIC has set a three-year period to be used by banks when assessing applications for credit cards or increased limits. This may make it more difficult for some people (with credit card debt) to apply for a credit card. link to SBS which explains this in more detail. Link to ASIC.

ATM Fees

  • Targeted to NAB Customers. ATM fees ($2) are payable on rediATM machines. Statement on NAB website NAB customers can continue to withdraw their money fee-free at more than 7,000 NAB, ANZ, Commonwealth and Westpac ATMs across Australia that do not charge fees.

Public Transport and Utilities

  • For Melbourne and NSW (Opal), public transport fees will increase by an average of 2.2%.

  • 1.8% increase for Brisbane

  • Links ACT fares, PTV (Victoria) fares and NSW Opal Fares

  • Road tolls will rise by up to 10 cents per trip, for Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. (Source: The Guardian)

Goods and Services Tax

  • Australian women will no longer have to pay GST on tampons and sanitary pads, after the states and territories finally agreed to abolish the tax.

Parents

  • Free Baby Bundle for new parents in NSW. Parents of babies born after January 1st can get a bundle of items to help take care of their newborn.. This includes $300 worth of baby care products and an entry to an online first aid training program. đź‘Ť for Freebie!?

  • No Jab, No Play now enforced by the Western Australian government. It was initially introduced in 2016, but the law did not ban unvaccinated children from being enrolled into childcare centres and schools. To enrol now, your child must be vaccinated (Correction: Not yet, this is to be implemented later mid-year in Phase 2) , and schools must also collect immunisation records. It brings WA's laws in line with VIC, NSW and QLD. Read more on Mediastatements.gov.au

General Discussion

Comments

  • jjjaar on 01/01/2019 - 23:48
    +9

    Thanks for this great list!

    In Vic, a number of TAFE courses and pre-apprenticeships are now free. More info here and here

    • ms_caz on 02/01/2019 - 10:33
      +3

      *subject to eligibility conditions:

      Under 20 or upskilling
      aged under 20 (regardless of any other qualifications they might hold); or
      are 20 or older and enrolling in a course that is a higher qualification than the highest qualification previously attained

      Victorians who need additional support
      - unemployed and clients of the Jobs Victoria Employment Network
      - retrenched workers
      - automotive supply chain workers

      Looking to change careers
      Victorians who want to reskill, change careers, improve their employment prospects and/or meet the needs of local industries, subject to availability of TAFE places, and prioritised based on need.

    • diddy50 on 03/01/2019 - 15:50

      good, but its only for two years, isn't it?
      Plus the course material and other things are not free.

  • SmiTTy on 01/01/2019 - 23:49
    +2

    Fantastic post, thank u

  • [Deactivated] on 01/01/2019 - 23:49
    +8

    I wonder what the women will spend the $5/year in saved GST on tampon tax.

      • penguincat on 02/01/2019 - 00:24
        +22

        Pretty sure condoms where included as a health item and therefore exempt since day 1.

      • JIMB0 on 02/01/2019 - 08:31
        +7

        And massage parlours

        • Munki on 04/01/2019 - 19:56

          Those aren't GST. They're "tips". So I've been told.

    • chumlee on 02/01/2019 - 07:26
      +4

      What are you spending your $5 savings on?

      • pegaxs on 02/01/2019 - 13:59
        +4

        Moar tampons!!! :D

    • HangryCakeStore on 03/01/2019 - 00:52
      +1

      Liberals are desparate for votes, lol

  • Lv80 on 02/01/2019 - 00:15
    +38

    "Australian women will no longer have to pay GST on tampons and sanitary pads, after the states and territories finally agreed to abolish the tax."

    Proof we live in the most backward of all 1st world countries. I'm a male and find it a joke it's taken till now for this to happen.

    • theHMASfriendship on 02/01/2019 - 07:52
      +31

      About bloody time.

    • KSMLJ on 02/01/2019 - 08:02
      +3

      What about men buying for wives, partners and girlfriends?

      Uh, asking for a friend.

      • Lv80 on 02/01/2019 - 08:40
        +10

        Are you serious?? Or joking?

        Tampons are GST free…doesn't matter who buys them lol
        My reference to being a male is that even as someone that doesn't need them, am blown away at the absurdity of such an essential hygienic and health device having GST on it.

      • MrBear on 02/01/2019 - 10:41
        +8

        Are you on Ozbargain or is this just a fantasy?

        • Lv80 on 02/01/2019 - 12:30

          truth!

      • Diji1 on 02/01/2019 - 12:34
        +1

        HighAndDry never met a boot he won't lick. He cheers on everything the establishment does.

      • nith265 on 03/01/2019 - 00:19
        +2
        • Let s say $5.50 a month = 50cents gst
        • $6 a year
        • At a guess 6 million women who would be paying this gst
        • = $36 million a year collected from only a select segment of the female population

        I guess any policy funding could be reduced to "It's a few cents…" if that's how you want to look at it

      • Alligate on 03/01/2019 - 18:04
        +1

        And yet some nutbags on here seem really bothered it got taken off, for some reason.

    • johnno07 on 02/01/2019 - 11:51
      +14

      More than likely the consumer will end up paying the same and the retailer will pocket the difference.

      • stewy on 04/01/2019 - 00:25

        Plus the Government will simply find something else to tax higher instead….

  • whooah1979 on 02/01/2019 - 00:35
    +31

    So basically nothing for Australians that are over 18, single, no children and working full-time.

    • bobbified on 02/01/2019 - 00:44
      +13

      That's expected. Same thing happens during every Budget.

      Think we should feel happy they haven't introduced a "family avoidance" tax!

    • Cheap Steve on 02/01/2019 - 03:03
      +28

      “Rich bachelors should be heavily taxed. It’s not fair that some men should be happier than others” - Oscar Wilde

    • [Deactivated] on 02/01/2019 - 04:48
      -3

      Cry us a river

    • chumlee on 02/01/2019 - 07:27
      +9

      You're already living the dream. Give the rest of us a chance

      • HighAndDry on 02/01/2019 - 09:40
        +3

        We have children/spouses by choice.

    • HighAndDry on 02/01/2019 - 09:39
      +1

      You only have one vote each. Children? Generally 1.8 votes from parents. Couples/families? More than one vote. This is all about winning elections.

    • Lv80 on 02/01/2019 - 12:32
      +4

      This market doesn't grow the economy. More kids = more tax payers.
      All gov is doing is investing in the future for their greedy coffers rather than considering that life isn't about more people, money and things.

      • Diji1 on 02/01/2019 - 12:43
        +7

        I thought the fact that electricity prices are threatening large business viability according to the ACCC would have clued you in that the Government does not give a shit about economic growth.

        If they wanted economic growth they would have increased the minimum wage and welfare payments, moved the tax burden onto business and the wealthiest to redistribute wealth and not privatised electricity so it threatens large business viability.

        They did the opposite which has created massive wealth inequality.

        This is known as an oligarchy where the wealthy control the country to benefit themselves at the expense of everyone else. Both the ABC and the Washington Post have found that Australia is indeed an oligarchy using different methodology.

        The ABC found that a staggering 80 percent of wealth in Australia is created this way: at your expense.

        https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-26/frijters-foster-battl…

        • Lv80 on 02/01/2019 - 12:50
          +3

          Without people you have no-one to control. Without people you don't have a base wealth and workers to own and control.

          People are money. It's that simple isn't it?
          Why else would anyone want a population to keep growing?

          Simcity 101: people = taxes = money to spend. And a reason for government to exist and elites to have the lifestyles they have.

          Curiously…do people need them or do they need us?

        • RefusdClassification on 03/01/2019 - 01:17
          +2

          Excellent post. Finally a kindred soul. Not all of us have capitulated to the lie that "what's good for the rich" is good for the rest of us (so called trickle down economics).

          "Some changes to ABSTUDY and Youth Allowance. Increased payment rates to students and more allowances given to travel, & the parental income limit for parents of students has increased to $160,000." It's disgusting that the government gives welfare to households earning $150,000 a year; they are upper middle class, send their offspring to private schools, probably own multiple homes and can afford annual overseas holidays.

          • FutureTech on 03/01/2019 - 17:31

            @RefusdClassification: But that's family money not the Kids' though. Many of the kids are self dependent when they go off to university and why shouldn't the government support them just like the others?

        • pizzapock3t on 03/01/2019 - 08:23

          Such a shame this isn’t the main stream view, regardless awesome to read people like you exist. Thank you for your comments, leaves me with some hope that we arn’t totally f**kd.

      • [Deactivated] on 02/01/2019 - 13:12
        +3

        It's about winning the election because what life is about doesn't matter when one isn't in office to even ponder these philosophical questions as elected leader.

        Skewing subsidies/tax breaks/financial reward in some shape is done to entice a group to vote a particular way. Spending money on the smallest group of voters, ie perpetually single and childless, is a futile effort. The very fact that they will be childless means you have to buy another round of votes once these geezers kick it.

        Buy the vote of families and you buy perpetual loyalty. Even if a party changes it's principles beyond recognition, loyalist and some of their children will vote based on some fuzzy feeling of nostalgia. Money well spent.

        This is why left wing parties always seem more popular. It is more in line with what the majority feels is in their interest. Right wing parties OTOH realize that "interest" isn't always best interest much less overall good. Same thing with majority not necessarily being correct or even politically aware/educated, nor their feelings being in line with reality.

        • Lv80 on 02/01/2019 - 18:44

          Valid. Of course it's about the vote. I guess that's the scarier thing isn't it? That people are bought so easily with one thing when the greater party policies for society at large are detrimental.

          And so, as long as we get something and a bit of our needs are met, then we're happy, even if that comes at a significantly greater cost to another group.

    • outlander on 02/01/2019 - 12:32
      -1

      You're upset that the government didn't get you a present this year?

      • Lv80 on 02/01/2019 - 12:46
        +6

        Couldn't care less. If I wanted kids then great. But I don't and so I don't "need" government hand outs.The issue is…why should anyone that decides to start a family and have kids get money where others don't? The only reason is to keep the population steady or growing…and the only reason anyone would care about this would be because people = money (taxes)

        • outlander on 02/01/2019 - 13:22
          -3

          The only reason is to keep the population steady or growing…and the only reason anyone would care about this would be because people = money (taxes)

          You really need to do some soul searching. That is the opinion of someone without a sense of purpose in life.

          • Lv80 on 02/01/2019 - 18:42
            +2

            @outlander: Just a realist. My purpose in life is clear and I'm fulfilled in both pursuits and passions. But sure…go for the personal attack because that's the level you need to work at in arguing a point.

            Maybe consider that for the most part…the majority of people live and work to serve others to get rich. This has existed in society for so long we've normalised it.

            Reality.

            • outlander on 02/01/2019 - 19:27
              -2

              @Lv80: Not a personal attack. Its just a very sad thing for me to read. Whats even sadder is that I don't think thats an uncommon opinion.

              • Lv80 on 02/01/2019 - 19:33

                @outlander: Believe what you wish.

                Meanwhile…people keep working for the man.

                Why else would government give out incentives to parents to have kids if keeping and growing a population wasn't important?

                Why is it that the more couples start not having children the more the government worries?

                Less people…less workers…less money…less power.

                • outlander on 02/01/2019 - 19:43
                  +1

                  @Lv80: Thank you. I will. And I will let you believe as you wish too.

                  Children serve a very specific role, and it has nothing to do with taxes, or having someone to look after you when you get old, or just for the joy of it.
                  They are an investment, the most valuable one most people will ever make. The fact that the birth rate is decreasing is not a good thing, so it makes sense the government would aim to implement policies that increase it. Money and power have a lot to do with, yes, but money and power are tools. By themselves they are worthless.

                  • Lv80 on 02/01/2019 - 20:32
                    +1

                    @outlander: I'm not speaking of the role children play for the individual.
                    Do you really think the government or the powerful care about children?
                    We are debating incentives and rewards from government to individuals.

                    "The fact that the birth rate is decreasing is not a good thing,"

                    Why is it a bad thing? Why is a population going down bad? This is my exact point and issue. The human race isn't exactly at risk of reducing to oblivion.

                    We are constantly harping on about limited resources, global warming and urban sprawl…and the solution could simply be less kids…less growth.

                    But you're right. Jobs and growth. This is the way forward. This is progress.

                    "Money and power have a lot to do with, yes, but money and power are tools. By themselves they are worthless."

                    Exactly…power over people. To which you also need kids to continue having power over something.

                    • RefusdClassification on 03/01/2019 - 01:30
                      +1

                      @Lv80: The world should be downsizing the human population (like China's old 1 child policies), not bribing people to reproduce. Ecofundamentalists in the ALP and Greens preach about saving the planet and yet they all support the concept of endless economic growth. Growth is what is killing the planet.

                      Currently, 60% of mammals are livestock & pets, 36% are homo sapiens, and only 4% of mammals are wild animals. That is how incredibly f%#ked up the world has become because the human population has been exponentially increasing since the 17th century. All the wars and atrocities of the 20th centrury didn't put a dent in human population growth.

                      We need a massive worldwide sterilization program. Start by neutering the 'fake' environmentalists who are preaching growth. These are the morons who think it is maleficicent to burn coal in Australia but okay to dig it out of the ground and ship it over to Asia where it ends up as CO2 in the atmosphere.

                      • idonotknowwhy on 03/01/2019 - 07:40

                        @RefusdClassification: You're being petty hard on us as a species. We've only known about the dangers we're causing to the planet for what, 50 years? That's a blink of an eye compared with now long humans have been around.

                        And it's not like we're just sitting there doing nothing.

                        We're moving towards solar power, electric cars, paper straws, etc.

                        More people are living in rises closer to work instead of occupying massive surface areas and diving 25-40km to work each morning.

                        There's also the push for vegan diets, free ranged eggs, cycling to work, keep cups,

                        The planet is far harder on us than we are on it.

        • idonotknowwhy on 02/01/2019 - 14:12
          +1

          Who is going to change your nappy when you're 80 if nobody has children now?

          • Lv80 on 02/01/2019 - 20:27
            +1

            @idonotknowwhy: I don't want to live longer than I can look after myself. Hopefully by then voluntary euthanasia will be in. Don't live outside of your means…this goes for money and ability.

            If you want to have your nappy changed for you at an old age then enjoy that way out.

            • idonotknowwhy on 02/01/2019 - 22:35

              @Lv80: I figured based on your username that you are aiming to live until 80…

      • whooah1979 on 02/01/2019 - 13:16
        +2

        Australian couples are slowly moving away from having children. The policies this year may not work in a few years when childless couples starts to vote for parties that looks after their interests.

        • [Deactivated] on 02/01/2019 - 13:41

          Then we're going to see some unprecedented governing (maybe Japan would be the closest, but still, they're encouraging offspring).

          Our government doesn't do so well even if it's just copying other nations. I wouldn't stick around for experimental policies.

    • cameldownunder on 02/01/2019 - 15:14
      +1

      What about one free babysitter and 1 night at hotel ( 3* ) per year for parents who don't lock doors ?

    • naomieve on 02/01/2019 - 17:46

      Unless they're a menstruating female that is. I think when you said "Australians", you meant to say "Australian men".

    • djones145 on 02/01/2019 - 23:02

      u,have ozbargain
      however we will be taxing those who are 18, single with no children and working full time from viewing ozbargain

  • ronnknee on 02/01/2019 - 01:50

    Very informative post. Wish I could pos forum posts.

  • trustnoone on 02/01/2019 - 03:14

    Awesome and informative post for the new year, thanks heaps!

  • kerfuffle on 02/01/2019 - 05:34

    Opal fares won't be going up until July I think. Unless someone hasn't changed the fares on the website (I haven't caught public transport this year yet)

    • scrimshaw on 02/01/2019 - 08:42

      That's correct. Opal fares usually go up in the middle of the year.

    • chumlee on 02/01/2019 - 07:33
      +16

      Can still get an education, just not in a school environment where other children are around.

      If you don't like it, run for Parliament or do something proactive about the issue.

      My POINT is, how long does society need to be forced to hear this unnecessary dribble, how long before I will not be able to work, drive, travel or visit loved ones in hospital without hearing this dribble?

    • theHMASfriendship on 02/01/2019 - 07:53
      +10

      Lol

    • terrys on 02/01/2019 - 07:54
      +8

      " and the research I have done since then I know with a high degree of certainty t"

      I take it you were home schooled.

    • dylo on 02/01/2019 - 08:25
      +6

      An anti vaxxer just died of the Flu , she was only 27.

    • pegaxs on 02/01/2019 - 08:30
      +30

      I wont be entering an uninformed debate

      It’s not “uninformed” and it certainly isnt a debate, it’s pretty much fact that vaccines save lives and it’s backed by scientific evidence.

      I have seen what happens at a school when something like a cold or flu breaks out. I volunteer at a school and just this year, there was a cold/flu type virus that ripped through the school. And on one particular day, over 240 students were absent from a school of about 400 children. This was for something quite mild and unable to be vaccinated against.

      That’s how fast infections can spread at school. Now, let’s replace that cold virus with something like polio or measles and a school full of unvaccinated kids.

      I think that not only banning unvaccinated kids, the parents should have any government assistance removed and the parents, who are more than likely vaccinated, should be subject to the same laws as people who commit child abuse.

      And no offence, but I don’t want your unvaccinated kid anywhere near a hospital that has my friends of family in it. The kid is a walking time bomb. And no amount of herbs and healing stones is going to fix polio or death.

        • HighAndDry on 02/01/2019 - 09:43
          +10

          I am well versed in the ignorance around this 'religious' topic.

          This would be hilarious if not so ironically depressing. Your views are 'informed' by your kid and your own research. I'm sorry, what qualifications did you have in this field again?

        • pais on 02/01/2019 - 09:22
          +13

          Why should someone be forced to vaccinate? The only reason this is legislated is because of herd mentality. Ie, someone else's kid can't be vaccinated and so is more susceptible to virus. If you're child is vaccinated then great. If they aren't…why do you feel you have a right to demand someone else fill their child up with chemicals when they don't want to, just to protect your child?

          The reason this is legislated is because of herd immunity, not herd mentality.

          There are children that are unable to be vaccinated (and not for the reason of inheriting stupid parents) and therefore having a wall of vaccinated children around them is the best way to prevent them from dying from easily preventable diseases.

          • Lv80 on 02/01/2019 - 12:40
            -7

            @pais: freudian slip on the mentality/immunity bit.

            Again..to save your child I have to inject mine? This is essentially what you are saying? What gives you or the government the right to discriminate against people and dictate what they can and can't put into their bodies?

            And don't say they aren't forcing people because saying if you don't you can't send your child to a tax funded school is not forcing them to.

            Herd immunity is safer yes. I'm not denying that. But government has NO right to force people to put substances into their body. Should we demand all adults have drug and alcohol inhibiting devices put into their body like addicts do? Because you know…herd immunity. And imagine that if you didn't agree to this then you couldn't go to work or be on the road because you are a likely risk.

            How would you feel if the government started telling you what you can and cant feed your child? Given the level of obesity and health issues coming from this…that would in fact be a much smarter thing to do for the health of society.

            Again…not arguing herd immunisation…just that what is essentially compulsory immunisation injections are not right. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

            • pais on 02/01/2019 - 13:22
              +5

              @Lv80:

              dictate what they can and can't put into their bodies?

              As a general rule I agree; in this particular instance I am OK with it. I would suggest we be careful of going down a slippery slope argument and just arguing the merits of this based on reality and not lofty ideals.

              Should we demand all adults have drug and alcohol inhibiting devices put into their body like addicts do? Because you know…herd immunity

              I suggest you look up herd immunity as this is a poor analogy.

              just that what is essentially compulsory immunisation injections are not right.

              I don't believe it is socially acceptable for you to endanger other children, my children (or your own children), therefore I am OK with the law. It's as simple as that.

            • [Deactivated] on 02/01/2019 - 13:38
              +3

              @Lv80:

              government has NO right to force people to put substances into their body.

              They're not forcing. No one is tying someone down in a dark basement. It is the same logic that everyone accepts for everything else. Ie, if I don't want to to conform to RWC and register my vehicle, I cannot drive it on a public road.

              If I don't want to wear clothes, I cannot stroll down the CBD.

              Besides, vaccinations are not some random substance and definitely not "poison". Parents don't seem to mind when there are a whole lot of things happening to their kids when they are brought to an ER. Never any protest (except from very dysfunctional families usually battling for custody)… but when it comes to prevention, ie. the urgency isn't there, suddenly they are medical experts.

              • Lv80 on 02/01/2019 - 18:55
                -2

                @[Deactivated]: Invading someones body is very different to clothes. I understand the argument you are laying down. For the most part yes, cause and effect. Do this, get that. Don't do this, don't get that. Go to school, get a job. No-one is forcing you do do any cause, but you have to accept responsibility for the effect.

                All this doesn't breach someones body though. Yes sure, vaccines aren't a poison. Not disputing the validity of vaccinations. But education should not come at the cost of not vaccinating. So you can't send your unvaccinated kid to school. They'll be at the playground, the sports clubs, the shopping centres. They'll still be able to have as much of an effect in public.

                What's next? Demanding every child has to be vaccinated or they can't leave their house when there is an epidemic? Do we start tagging kids?

                • [Deactivated] on 02/01/2019 - 21:26
                  +3

                  @Lv80: You're talking about basic human rights and I fully empathize. I too wouldn't be supportive of a law that literally forces vaccinations, however, vaccination is medicine that works on a societal level and it is only fair that people who refuse such measures also be denied access to establishments that are also built on a societal level.

                  No one is saying that an unvaccinated child cannot be educated. By all means, round up all the unvaccinated children and school them together.

                  Ps. Forcing me to where clothes also forces me to apply chemicals that may be absorbed through skin.

                • Repi on 02/01/2019 - 21:40

                  @Lv80: Maybe today's news will help https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/extremely-contagious-sec…

            • secondstory on 02/01/2019 - 14:38
              +2

              @Lv80:

              ..to save your child I have to inject mine? This is essentially what you are saying?

              No - to protect vulnerable children please keep yours away from them to protect them both.

              What gives you or the government the right to discriminate against people and dictate what they can and can't put into their bodies?

              That's what laws against illicit drugs are for. It also stops attention seeking parents from injecting faeces into their newborns.

              • Lv80 on 02/01/2019 - 15:22
                +2

                @secondstory: Laws on taking drugs are to stop you putting things in your body…not to force you to have to.

                It's similar to forcing females to take the pill. Or forcing people to take vitamins. There is a big difference between compelled action and banning certain action. Again…no government nor any person should be forced to inject themselves or anyone else with anything unless they want to…except perhaps where they are at risk of dying and aren't conscious to make that decision.

                Take compelled speech vs banned speech. Something that is rather topical with regard to Canada trying to legislate that you have to address people by their preferred prefix/gender. This against the obvious banned hate speech etc.

                And again…the children are only a risk if they have the virus. Until such a time they are no more harmful to your child than any one elses. So if you feel like you cant take your child to a school where children aren't immunised then fine…don't take them. Start up an immunised only school. But removing the right of a publicly funded education for children not immunised and demanding they inject themselves before being allowed to go to the same school your child does is abhorrent.

              • Lv80 on 02/01/2019 - 15:26

                @secondstory: Just reading more of the thread that speaks on this:

                "Phase one of the State Government’s no jab, no play policy comes into effect in the new year, with unvaccinated children banned from attending school and child care centres during disease outbreaks."

                If this is the legislation then I'm totally down with it. As a blanket statement of non-immunised child cant attend school I disagree strongly. As it stands where precautions are taken when there are outbreaks…I'm cool with.

                But then the question is…what about non-immunised adults going to work, going out in public during outbreaks?

                • pais on 02/01/2019 - 17:47

                  @Lv80:

                  But then the question is…what about non-immunised adults going to work, going out in public during outbreaks?

                  Children are the most vulnerable/susceptible, whereas an adult going into an office environment is not surrounded by other vulnerable/susceptible people… unless, by some strange chance, they work with an entire office full of the immunocompromised.

                  With that said, the question itself is just bad faith what aboutism.

              • pegaxs on 02/01/2019 - 17:07
                +1

                @secondstory:

                parents from injecting faeces into their newborns.

                I thought that was a "bullshit" vaccine. To build up immunity to other peoples shit…

            • terrys on 03/01/2019 - 09:45

              @Lv80: "What gives you or the government the right"

              The same reason we insist you wipe your arse and wear pants before sitting in a restaurant, times 10,000

              • Lv80 on 03/01/2019 - 11:24
                +1

                @terrys: again…wiping my arse, or wearing clothes is not demanding i inject myself with something.

      • secondstory on 02/01/2019 - 12:55
        +3

        No you're wrong. The uninformed debate had already started, we were the ones who entered :D

        • Lv80 on 02/01/2019 - 15:23
          +1

          This I agree with you on. Not entering into discourse does neither side any favours. Nothing is learnt from being quiet. In fact, history shows so obviously that staying silent leaves the monsters to engage their atrocities unchecked.

      • idonotknowwhy on 02/01/2019 - 15:33
        +1

        should be subject to the same laws as people who commit child abuse.

        I agree that not vaccinating children is a form of neglect on behalf of the parents.

        banning unvaccinated kids

        But it's not the child's fault that they're unvaccinated. They're on the receiving end of the neglect you mentioned. And without school, the children have no chance of escaping these beliefs* and are likely to grow up as perpetrators themselves.

        *I say 'these beliefs' because if the parent(s) have the type of which can ignore all evidence and rationalize this action, I think they're likely do other similar things.

        P.S. I'm not very well versed on the details but I was thinking "if all the other kids are vaccinated, they have nothing to fear when unvaccinated kids get sick". I assume the issue is that some kids can't be vacinated for whatever reason, and that unvaccinated infants, or those with compromised immune systems are still vulnerable.

        • Lv80 on 02/01/2019 - 18:32

          And many of these parents that vaccinate their kids stuff them full of sugar and fast food and stick them in front of a tv all day. Wonder what's worse for their kids.

          On the other hand…having your kids live in a sterilised home and constantly have them sanitise themselves could be a form of child abuse given you arent letting them build up natural defences and immunities.

          Or maybe the whole flu vaccine before winter…even though we all still get sick.But not worry about eating healthily, resting enough, not living stressed lives…because that is going to kill you or slow you down more than a flu.

          • pais on 02/01/2019 - 19:26
            +7

            @Lv80:

            Wonder what's worse for their kids.

            Polio, hands down.

    • gyrex on 02/01/2019 - 08:44
      +4

      Username definitely doesn't check out.

    • BigBirdy on 02/01/2019 - 09:37

      Maybe give some thought to the plagues/epidemics of the past that killed millions of people, and think about how much the world’s population (& our mobility to spread anything) has grown since then. The Black Plague was rumoured to kill up to half the population of Europe …

    • HighAndDry on 02/01/2019 - 09:41

      Lol.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join