This bill is currently before Parliament.
Budget, tax & economy
The bill would change family assistance immunisation rules so a child could meet the requirements through a declared conscientious objectionUnder the bill, an objection to a child being immunised based on a personal, philosophical, religious or medical belief involving a conviction that vaccination under the latest standard vaccination schedule should not take place., rather than only through vaccination or other existing exceptions.
The bill was introduced to undo parts of the 2015 No Jab No PayThe common name for the 2015 policy changes that linked some family assistance and child care payments to childhood immunisation requirements. This bill seeks to reverse parts of those settings for conscientious objectors. family assistance changes. Senator Antic and the explanatory memorandum say those changes removed conscientious objectionUnder the bill, an objection to a child being immunised based on a personal, philosophical, religious or medical belief involving a conviction that vaccination under the latest standard vaccination schedule should not take place. and religious exemptions, extended immunisation requirements to older children, and placed financial pressure on families who rely on Family Tax Benefit or child care assistance. The bill’s proposed answer is to let children satisfy the immunisation requirement where a written conscientious objectionUnder the bill, an objection to a child being immunised based on a personal, philosophical, religious or medical belief involving a conviction that vaccination under the latest standard vaccination schedule should not take place. follows a discussion with a recognised immunisation providerThe type of provider who would have to certify in writing that they discussed immunisation benefits and risks before a conscientious objection could satisfy the bill's proposed family assistance rule., and to treat children aged 7 or older as meeting the requirement.
The bill sits in the long-running debate over linking family payments and child care assistance to childhood immunisation. No Jab No PayThe common name for the 2015 policy changes that linked some family assistance and child care payments to childhood immunisation requirements. This bill seeks to reverse parts of those settings for conscientious objectors. was announced in 2015 as a policy that would withhold some child care and welfare benefits from parents who refused vaccination. The sponsor’s speech says the 2015 legislation removed conscientious objectionUnder the bill, an objection to a child being immunised based on a personal, philosophical, religious or medical belief involving a conviction that vaccination under the latest standard vaccination schedule should not take place. and religious exemptions for relevant family assistance immunisation requirements, extended those requirements to older children, and commenced from 1 January 2016. This 2025 private senator’s bill seeks to reverse that approach for conscientious objectors, but the collected record shows only introduction and second-reading proceedings in the Senate, not passage.
The collected material does not include later debate from other parties, divisions, proposed amendments, committee scrutiny, or a detailed public critique of this specific 2025 bill. The controversy visible in the local record is mainly the sponsor’s criticism of the existing No Jab No PayThe common name for the 2015 policy changes that linked some family assistance and child care payments to childhood immunisation requirements. This bill seeks to reverse parts of those settings for conscientious objectors. settings: he argues they are coercive and fall hardest on lower-income families, while the original policy was presented in 2015 as a way to raise vaccination rates by linking benefits to immunisation.
Senator Alex Antic introduced this bill. Supportive speeches so far have come from Liberal Party.
Did it become law?
Not yet
Final passage
No final vote yet
The bill has not yet completed passage through Parliament.
Days since introduction
196 days
Updated 10 June 2026.
Meaning
The bill would change family assistance immunisation rules so a child could meet the requirements through a declared conscientious objectionUnder the bill, an objection to a child being immunised based on a personal, philosophical, religious or medical belief involving a conviction that vaccination under the latest standard vaccination schedule should not take place., rather than only through vaccination or other existing exceptions.
It would insert a definition of conscientious objectionUnder the bill, an objection to a child being immunised based on a personal, philosophical, religious or medical belief involving a conviction that vaccination under the latest standard vaccination schedule should not take place. based on a personal, philosophical, religious or medical belief against vaccination under the latest standard vaccination scheduleThe vaccination schedule referred to in the bill's proposed definition of conscientious objection..
For a conscientious objectionUnder the bill, an objection to a child being immunised based on a personal, philosophical, religious or medical belief involving a conviction that vaccination under the latest standard vaccination schedule should not take place. to count, a recognised immunisation providerThe type of provider who would have to certify in writing that they discussed immunisation benefits and risks before a conscientious objection could satisfy the bill's proposed family assistance rule. would have to certify in writing that they discussed the benefits and risks of immunising the child, and the adult would have to declare the objection in writing.
The same kind of written provider certification and written objection could also apply where the child is an FTB childA child covered by Family Tax Benefit rules. The bill uses this term when setting out how a conscientious objection by another individual could satisfy the immunisation requirement. or regular care childA child who is in an adult's regular care for family assistance purposes. The bill refers to regular care children in its proposed conscientious objection rule. of another individual.
The bill would also make children aged 7 or older meet the immunisation requirements for family assistance purposes.
If enacted, the bill would start the day after Royal AssentThe final formal approval needed after a bill passes both houses of Parliament before it can become an Act. This bill would commence the day after Royal Assent if enacted.. The collected APH material records it as before the Senate, so this page does not treat the proposal as law.
It re-introduces eligibility for a child meeting their immunisation requirements, for the purposes of government assistance, without requiring immunisation – under circumstances where the parents or guardians meet the definition of conscientious objectors.A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Amendment (No Jab No Pay Repeal) explanatory memorandum
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.A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Amendment (No Jab No Pay Repeal) introduced bill text
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 adult 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 bill text
The child meets the immunisation requirements if: (a) the child is an FTB child, or a regular care child, of another individual ... 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 bill text
Children 7 years of age or older ... 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 bill text
The whole of this Act ... The day after this Act receives the Royal Assent.A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Amendment (No Jab No Pay Repeal) introduced bill text
Context
The bill sits in the long-running debate over linking family payments and child care assistance to childhood immunisation. No Jab No PayThe common name for the 2015 policy changes that linked some family assistance and child care payments to childhood immunisation requirements. This bill seeks to reverse parts of those settings for conscientious objectors. was announced in 2015 as a policy that would withhold some child care and welfare benefits from parents who refused vaccination. The sponsor’s speech says the 2015 legislation removed conscientious objectionUnder the bill, an objection to a child being immunised based on a personal, philosophical, religious or medical belief involving a conviction that vaccination under the latest standard vaccination schedule should not take place. and religious exemptions for relevant family assistance immunisation requirements, extended those requirements to older children, and commenced from 1 January 2016. This 2025 private senator’s bill seeks to reverse that approach for conscientious objectors, but the collected record shows only introduction and second-reading proceedings in the Senate, not passage.
No Jab No PayThe common name for the 2015 policy changes that linked some family assistance and child care payments to childhood immunisation requirements. This bill seeks to reverse parts of those settings for conscientious objectors. policy announced
A collected Australian Financial Review article reported that Australian parents would lose thousands of dollars of child care and welfare benefits if they refused to vaccinate their children, and described bipartisan support for the plan.
Australian Financial Review ↗Family assistance immunisation exemptions narrowed
Senator Antic's speech says the 2015 No Jab No PayThe common name for the 2015 policy changes that linked some family assistance and child care payments to childhood immunisation requirements. This bill seeks to reverse parts of those settings for conscientious objectors. changes removed conscientious objectionUnder the bill, an objection to a child being immunised based on a personal, philosophical, religious or medical belief involving a conviction that vaccination under the latest standard vaccination schedule should not take place. and religious exemptions from immunisation requirements for Family Tax Benefit-A supplement and child care assistance.
Second reading speech ↗No Jab No PayThe common name for the 2015 policy changes that linked some family assistance and child care payments to childhood immunisation requirements. This bill seeks to reverse parts of those settings for conscientious objectors. changes commence
The sponsor's speech says the Social Services Legislation Amendment (No Jab, No Pay) Act 2015 changes commenced on 1 January 2016 and included free catch-up vaccinations for older children.
Second reading speech ↗No Jab No PayThe common name for the 2015 policy changes that linked some family assistance and child care payments to childhood immunisation requirements. This bill seeks to reverse parts of those settings for conscientious objectors. repeal bill introduced
Senator Alex Antic introduced the private senator's billA bill introduced by a senator who is not introducing it as a government minister. It can start debate but does not become law unless both houses pass it and it receives Royal Assent. in the Senate and second-reading proceedings began on the same day.
Parliament of Australia ↗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
Key criticism
The collected material does not include later debate from other parties, divisions, proposed amendments, committee scrutiny, or a detailed public critique of this specific 2025 bill. The controversy visible in the local record is mainly the sponsor’s criticism of the existing No Jab No PayThe common name for the 2015 policy changes that linked some family assistance and child care payments to childhood immunisation requirements. This bill seeks to reverse parts of those settings for conscientious objectors. settings: he argues they are coercive and fall hardest on lower-income families, while the original policy was presented in 2015 as a way to raise vaccination rates by linking benefits to immunisation.
This page does not infer current parliamentary support or opposition beyond the collected sources. It also does not treat the sponsor's human-rights and policy claims as findings of fact; they are presented as the bill's stated rationale.
Further sources
Votes
No recorded votes have been found yet for this bill.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Senator Alex Antic introduced the bill and argued that No Jab No PayThe common name for the 2015 policy changes that linked some family assistance and child care payments to childhood immunisation requirements. This bill seeks to reverse parts of those settings for conscientious objectors. placed unfair financial pressure on lower-income families who object to vaccinating their children.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
1 speaker · 1 support
“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 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.
