Terry Sarten: Immunised against populist policies

The National Party's proposal on immunisation would punish beneficiaries but not high income earners. Photo / File

COMMENT:

Simon Bridges and the National Party have begun a programme of immunising the population against the contagion called poverty by punishing beneficiaries.

He is talking about cutting the benefits of those who do not immunise their children. Now, most of us do understand the protection provided by immunising against nasty disease such as measles and rubella and the umbrella effect that immunisation provides to all children. Simon Bridges either does not understand this or does but is simply pursuing a populist path to appeal to the rednecks amongst us.

In a Radio NZ interview the other day, Bridges was asked how punishing poor people by taking away their money was going to be helpful. He launched into a classic benefit bashing ramble about beneficiaries not wanting to work, etc, ad nauseum. You could almost hear a baying mob gathering to cheer him on with his welfare bashing.

The lack of any moral courage in his response to questioning the wisdom of such a policy was obvious, as was the lack of any insight into what such a policy would mean to actual real people. He also talked about bringing back the financial punishment of solo mothers who did not name the father of the child. Again, this is hitting at the vulnerable while they are down because they are an easy political target when nothing else is getting voter attention.

Bridges did not mention the wealthy and high income earners who do not immunise their children. Perhaps this is because that would be politically dangerous and risk alienating National supporters who do like a bit of regular benefit bashing.

It is well known that there is a cohort of relatively wealthy, new age type parents who are deciding not to immunise their children for vague reasons based in bogus science. If the leader of the Opposition was really interested in improving immunisation rates by financially punishing those who do not vaccinate their children then he should also be talking about imposing an extra tax on those not on benefits but whose decision not to immunise contributes to the reduction in protection for all children.

A 2014 paper written by Dr Tom Kiedrzynski, principal adviser communicable diseases, Ministry of Health, gives a solid background to the risks associated with measles and the value of immunisation. This hints at the huge costs to the country/taxpayers of tracking outbreaks of vaccine preventable diseases, immunising those exposed, hospital care for those infected plus the time off work and worry for families with sick, distressed children.

Let's add that into the equation alongside the Simon Bridges' logic. This should lead to the conclusion that non-beneficiaries who do not immunise their children should also face financial penalties in proportion to the risk they create. Those not on a benefit, who choose not to immunise their children, should be taxed to offset their decision to increase the risk to all the nation's children.

If high income earners are choosing not to immunise their children, they must also, by default, be willing to put their money where their mouth is and contribute to the cost of that decision on the rest of us. That cost would run into the millions.

Would $50,000 tagged onto their tax bill as a contribution towards the costs of treating vaccine-preventable diseases be enough to change their minds about the value of immunisation? It certainly would test the strength of their convictions and motivate them to read the science that supports the value of immunisation to child health.

* Terry Sarten (aka Tel) is a writer, musician and social worker.