This bill did not become law and is no longer proceeding.
Budget, tax & economy
Parents who object to vaccinating their child for personal, philosophical, religious or medical reasons could have the child treated as meeting family-assistance immunisation rules.
The bill's sponsor, Alex Antic (Liberal), said the current rules put financial pressure on lower-income parents who object to vaccinating their children and that vaccination decisions should remain with parents. Supporter Ralph Babet said a family earning under $88,520 could receive a Child Care SubsidyGovernment help with eligible child-care costs. covering about 90 per cent of eligible costs, and could lose around $25,000 a year per child—or more than $35,000 in some cases—plus about $950 in Family Tax Benefit Part AA payment that helps families raise children.. He also cited a study linking the existing policy to about 49,500 additional fully vaccinated children, more than 95 per cent of whom had not previously been registered as conscientious objectors.
Family-assistance immunisation conditions had applied since 1998, and the 2015 No Jab, No Pay changes removed the conscientious-objection exemption, later followed by reported increases in vaccination rates but criticised by Senator Alex Antic as imposing financial pressure on lower-income families who objected to vaccination. His private member’s bill, introduced on 26 November 2025, sought to restore access to the Child Care SubsidyGovernment help with eligible child-care costs. and Family Tax Benefit Part AA payment that helps families raise children. through written objection and provider discussion, but the Senate negatived its second reading on 16 September 2026, leaving the existing rules in place.
Murray Watt (Labor) argued that the bill would reduce vaccination rates and increase the risk of serious preventable diseases, including whooping cough and measles. Anne Ruston (Liberal) said five-year-old vaccination coverage had reached 95 per cent by 2020 but had since fallen, while whooping cough notifications reached a 35-year high across 2024 and 2025; she warned that lower coverage would put babies, people with weakened immune systems and pregnant women at greater risk. Jordon Steele-John (Greens) said there was no evidence supporting repeal without other public-health investment, although he also acknowledged that the existing financial penalty falls more heavily on people receiving income support and can punish families facing barriers to health care.
Senator Alex Antic introduced this bill. It was supported by One Nation, UAP; opposed by Labor, Greens, Australia's Voice, Jacqui Lambie Network, some crossbench members; and did not pass.
Did it become law?
No
The bill did not complete passage through Parliament.
Final passage
Did not pass
1 recorded vote before the bill stopped proceeding
Time before failure
294 days
From introduction to the final recorded step before the bill stopped proceeding
Meaning
Parents who object to vaccinating their child for personal, philosophical, religious or medical reasons could have the child treated as meeting family-assistance immunisation rules. A recognised immunisation providerAn authorised health professional who provides vaccination advice. would first need to confirm in writing that they discussed the benefits and risks with the parent, who must also declare the objection in writing.
The same pathway could apply when the child is also under another person's care. That other person would need to discuss vaccination with a recognised provider and make the written declaration.
Children aged seven or older would automatically be treated as meeting the immunisation requirementsVaccination conditions linked to specified family assistance., regardless of their vaccination status.
The changes would affect access to the Child Care SubsidyGovernment help with eligible child-care costs. and the Family Tax Benefit Part AA payment that helps families raise children. supplement. They would not stop vaccinations, medical advice or the National Immunisation Program, and they would not override separate state rules about whether unvaccinated children may attend child care.
If enacted, the changes would begin the day after Royal AssentFormal approval that turns a bill into law..
5 Meaning of conscientious objection An individual has a conscientious objection to a child being immunised if the individual’s objection is based on a personal, philosophical, religious or medical belief involving a conviction that vaccination under the latest edition of the standard vaccination schedule should not take place. 3 At the end of section 6 Conscientious objection (9) The child meets the immunisation requirements if a recognised immunisation provider has certified in writing that he or she has discussed with the adult the benefits and risks of immunising the child and the adulA New Tax System (Family Assistance) Amendment (No Jab No Pay Repeal) introduced text
(10) The child meets the immunisation requirements if: (a) the child is an FTB child, or a regular care child, of another individual (whether or not the child is also an FTB child, or a regular care child, of the adult); and (b) a recognised immunisation provider has certified in writing that he or she has discussed with the other individual the benefits and risks of immunising the child and the other individual has declared in writing that he or she has a conscientious objection to the child being immunised.A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Amendment (No Jab No Pay Repeal) introduced text
Children 7 years of age or older (11) The child meets the immunisation requirements if the child is 7 years of age or older.A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Amendment (No Jab No Pay Repeal) introduced text
A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Amendment (No Jab No Pay Repeal) Bill 2025. Thank you to Senator Antic for originally introducing that bill in 2025. This bill restores the conscientious objection pathway, which was removed in 2015, allowing parents who object to childhood vaccination on conscientious grounds to formally declare that objection and remain eligible for family tax benefit part A and the child care subsidy. In a free country, which is what this is supposed to be, parents should not be punished because they make lawful and informed medical decisions for their child—not the goveSecond reading speech
2 Commencement (1) Each provision of this Act specified in column 1 of the table commences, or is taken to have commenced, in accordance with column 2 of the table. Any other statement in column 2 has effect according to its terms. Commencement information Commencement Date/Details 1. The whole of this Act The day after this Act receives the Royal Assent. Note: This table relates only to the provisions of this Act as originally enacted. It will not be amended to deal with any later amendments of this Act.A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Amendment (No Jab No Pay Repeal) introduced text
Context
Family-assistance immunisation conditions had applied since 1998, and the 2015 No Jab, No Pay changes removed the conscientious-objection exemption, later followed by reported increases in vaccination rates but criticised by Senator Alex Antic as imposing financial pressure on lower-income families who objected to vaccination. His private member’s bill, introduced on 26 November 2025, sought to restore access to the Child Care SubsidyGovernment help with eligible child-care costs. and Family Tax Benefit Part AA payment that helps families raise children. through written objection and provider discussion, but the Senate negatived its second reading on 16 September 2026, leaving the existing rules in place.
Immunisation becomes a family-assistance condition
Full immunisation became a requirement for family assistance payments, establishing the condition later changed by the No Jab, No Pay reforms.
Hansard ↗No Jab, No Pay removes conscientious objectionA personal, philosophical, religious or medical objection to vaccination.
The 2015 reforms removed conscientious objectionA personal, philosophical, religious or medical objection to vaccination. as a valid exemption from the immunisation requirementsVaccination conditions linked to specified family assistance. for family assistance payments.
Hansard ↗Vaccination rates rise after welfare payment cuts
ABC News reported that vaccination rates appeared to increase after welfare payments were reduced for families with unvaccinated children.
ABC News ↗Senator Alex Antic introduces the repeal bill
Senator Alex Antic introduced the private member’s bill to restore a conscientious-objection pathway to family assistance eligibility.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Senate rejects the bill at second reading
The Senate negatived the second reading, leaving the existing family-assistance immunisation conditions in place.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Legislative route
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Second reading negatived
Key criticism
Murray Watt (Labor) argued that the bill would reduce vaccination rates and increase the risk of serious preventable diseases, including whooping cough and measles. Anne Ruston (Liberal) said five-year-old vaccination coverage had reached 95 per cent by 2020 but had since fallen, while whooping cough notifications reached a 35-year high across 2024 and 2025; she warned that lower coverage would put babies, people with weakened immune systems and pregnant women at greater risk. Jordon Steele-John (Greens) said there was no evidence supporting repeal without other public-health investment, although he also acknowledged that the existing financial penalty falls more heavily on people receiving income support and can punish families facing barriers to health care.
Supporters said the bill would not ban or discourage access to vaccination; it would remove financial penalties for families who make a written objection after discussing the risks and benefits with a recognised provider. They argued that those penalties fall hardest on families relying on government assistance.
Votes
These were the main recorded votes on the bill.
Defeated 6 to 34. Support came from One Nation and UAP. Opposition came from Labor, Greens, Australia's Voice, Jacqui Lambie Network, and minor parties and independents. One cross-floor vote was recorded: Alex Antic (Liberal) voted aye. Liberal had split recorded votes.
These are votes on the bill itself rather than amendment votes.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Antic supports the bill because it would restore parents' freedom to decline childhood vaccinations without losing family assistance, particularly protecting low-income families from financial coercion.
Read in Hansard ↗Steele-John says the Greens will oppose the bill because repealing the policy without supporting evidence or investment to address healthcare barriers could reduce vaccination rates and put children at risk.
Read in Hansard ↗Malcolm Roberts says One Nation strongly supports the bill because it restores conscientious objectionA personal, philosophical, religious or medical objection to vaccination. to childhood vaccination requirements and prevents families who decline vaccination from losing childcare and family tax benefits.
Read in Hansard ↗Babet urges the Senate to pass the bill, arguing that parents with conscientious objections to childhood vaccination should not lose family tax benefits or childcare subsidies for making their own medical decisions.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
1 speaker · 1 oppose
“The Albanese Labor government's position is clear: we have no time for those seeking to reduce vaccination rates in Australia, because let's remember—childhood vaccination saves lives. Vaccines are a highly effective, safe and evidence based way of protecting children from and reducing the severity of serious preventable diseases such as whooping cough, measles and more. What this bill would do if it was passed through the combined support of elements of the Liberal Party and One Nation is reduce vaccination rates and increase the risk and likelihood of diseases like whooping cough, measles and more. That's what this bill would do. Delaying or not accessing the recommended vaccinations under the childhood vaccination schedule could risk a child catching a disease and becoming very sick. Some vaccine preventable diseases cannot be cured and lead to lifelong infection, lengthy hospital stays and the development of other health problems. Childhood vaccinations have greatly reduced and prevented a significant number of deaths since their introduction in Australia. Many of these vaccines work best when herd immunity is achieved because vaccinations, of course, don't just protect kids who are vaccinated; they reduce the risk of disease for other kids that arises from unvaccinated kids mixing in childcare centres and other places. Without high vaccination rates, preventable diseases can spread more easily and put more vulnerable people at risk. This is why the government provides a range of incentives and program arrangements to encourage and support parents, carers and families keeping up to date with the recommended vaccine schedule.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
2 speakers · 3 contributions · 1 support · 1 oppose
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Alex Antic on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Antic supports the bill because it would restore parents' freedom to decline childhood vaccinations without losing family assistance, particularly protecting low-income families from financial coercion.
“This Bill seeks to restore freedom of choice for concerned parents while addressing the financial pressures placed on conscientious objectors from lower socio-economic backgrounds by repealing the 2015 No Jab, No Pay changes to family assistance immunisation requirements.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Antic supports the bill because it would restore parents' ability to conscientiously object to vaccinations without losing family assistance, which he argues is coercive and unfair, especially for families on low incomes.
“Over the last few years, I've received much correspondence from concerned parents about this issue. I know those parents are not reckless or careless about the health of their children. Contrary to what the media would have you believe, these parents are thoughtful, intelligent people who want the best for their children. A few short decades ago, their concerns and their right to have these concerns would have been accepted. Well, what happened? We need to act against the slide of governments into every aspect of our life and preserve our liberties while we still have them. The way in which legitimate and well-founded conscientious objection has been demonised is disgraceful, and we owe it to Australians and Australian families to right that wrong by passing this bill.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“Whooping cough notifications reached their highest level in 35 years across 2024 and 2025. Measles cases in Australia have been climbing sharply too. Reopening conscientious objection now, at the exact moment coverage is falling and diseases are returning, would not be a neutral act. It would help accelerate that decline. I ask every member in this place to think about this seriously, because the impact of this proposal would not just sit with the individual families who make the decision. It sits with the infant too young to be vaccinated in the same library storytelling group, the immunocompromised child at the same cinema session and the pregnant woman in the same community. Conscientious objection was not removed to punish parents. It was removed because it was used to bypass a system that protects children who have no say in the matter at all. Now is not the time to step back. The coalition will oppose this bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
1 speaker · 1 oppose
“Let me be clear: I do not believe that this bill is being put forward in good faith. Throwing out this policy with no evidence supporting us to do so and with no continued investment in positive encouragement or addressing the public health gaps that are so clear in the healthcare system can leave us with only one conclusion: that this is a scare campaign put forward by people who want to spread fear for their own political purpose with the express intent of reducing vaccination rates and putting kids at risk of diseases, including polio, diphtheria, measles and mumps, just to name a few.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
2 speakers · 2 support
“In summary, parents have every right to be wary of the harm these products may be doing to their children. They have every right to exercise their religious or conscientious objections to forced vaccination. They should not be treated differently for not having vaccinated their children in whole or in part. And childcare centres should be free to make the decision to accept or not accept vaccinated or unvaccinated children. One Nation will proudly support this bill.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“None of this requires anyone to change their own mind about vaccination. Parents who want to vaccinate will still be able to vaccinate. Doctors will still advise. The National Immunisation Program will still exist. What would change is the state's willingness to use the family payment system as a bludgeon against parents. If we learned anything from the last few years, let it be this. There is no emergency so tidy and no majority so confident that we should force people to give up the right to choose what is right for them and their families. Rights that exist only for people who can afford to lose a payment are not rights; they are privileges. This bill returns the right to choose. It removes a form of government coercion that falls hardest on the families we claim to help. This bill should be supported.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
1 speaker · 1 support
“This bill is modest. It doesn't abolish the immunisation program. It doesn't stop somebody vaccinating their kids if they choose to. All it says is that, if a parent has a genuine objection, they can formally declare that objection and not lose vital family assistance because of it. That's it. We're not going to ask senators in this place whether they personally support vaccination. That's up to you. We're asking a more fundamental question, a more simple question and a very important question: should the government use financial hardship and threats as leverage to secure compliance with a medical decision? Obviously, the answer is no, and your answer should also be no. The government is not the parent—I keep saying it's not the parent. The bureaucracy is not the parent. Canberra doesn't know a child better than that child's mum and dad does, and it certainly does not love that child more. In short, it's this—and I keep saying it and I'm going to say it again: less government, more freedom and more responsibility returned to Australian families. Obviously, I urge the Senate to support this bill, but let's see.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Record
Senate · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Senate · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Senate · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Second reading negatived
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
