In-depth answers to commonly asked questions
1. What is the basis for your party?
Our party was founded out of concerns that the precautionary principle (first do no harm) is being ignored with respect to mass medication programs, such as water fluoridation and vaccination. Due to genuine scientific uncertainty about the benefits and risks in a genetically diverse population, combined with inadequate surveillance of potential harms, we support the right of every Australian to freely opt out of these mass medication programs, without penalty.
Mandatory vaccination lobbyists have been very successful at shutting down any legitimate conversation or questioning of medical and political practices by labelling such people as being “antivaccine”. We believe that it is appropriate and acceptable to criticise Government policies that are not evidence based.
2. Are you a single issue party on vaccinations?
Our concerns about compulsory mass medication are not limited to vaccination. We are also opposed to water fluoridation and any other compulsory mass medication carrying the risk of significant harm that may be implemented in the future.
Our concerns are informed by the decline in overall health outcomes of children, who are suffering with chronic autoimmune diseases and disabilities not observed in previous generations, and the possible connection with the growing vaccination schedule.
We are also concerned about the erosion of Natural Health Therapy choice and funding for natural therapies, pressure for medicalised births, the poisoning of the food, environment and the planet through chemicals, pesticides and insecticides. We support sustainable, green energy and believe everyone has the right to live a happy and healthy lifestyle.
3. Are you against vaccination, if yes why?
We are against the bullying, blackmail, discrimination created by our media and government and we reject the mainstream hysteria of today that the ‘science is settled’. Vaccination has been reduced to a ‘for and against’ false separation, for the purpose of suppressing legitimate criticism of taxpayer funded vaccination policies.
In recognition of the scientific uncertainties regarding the safety and effectiveness of mass vaccination, we believe that all decisions about vaccination should be a matter between citizens and their chosen medical practitioner, without intrusion by the state. We are concerned with compulsion or coercion by the state, a view shared by many medical practitioners and public health experts, who otherwise support the vaccination program. We are not alone in this regard.
4. The medical community believes vaccination is integral to the functioning of society and stamping out diseases, what do you say to that?
Many medical practitioners and public health experts, who otherwise support the vaccination program, share our concerns that making vaccination compulsory for receipt of federal welfare benefits and enrolment in childcare services and kindergarten is unnecessary and unjustified.
Taxpayer citizens should be able to question the integrity of Pharmaceutical companies, based on the extensive history of corruption and fraud in the industry for regular drugs. There is no reason to presume that the track record of pharmaceutical companies is ‘clean’ just because it’s a vaccine. Do you know who is recommending these vaccines? We are finding that a lot of the 'science' is funded by industry and producing this data. For example, we’ve recently seen state funding of the GlaxoSmithKleine vaccine Bexsero in SA, despite it being rejected 3 times by the PBAC due to a lack of evidence of effectiveness. The state’s recommendation to fund the vaccine was provided by the same people who are currently running the GlaxoSmithKleine funded Bexsero trial in SA, and the conflict of interest arising from this is a legitimate concern.
Allergy and genetic testing and full family history and prior adverse reactions should be considered before vaccination. Full disclosure and Informed Consent by Doctors should be mandatory before all vaccination. Vaccines do cause adverse reactions including death, disability and injury therefore should not be mandated.
5. What are you hoping to achieve with your political party?
Our immediate goal is to restore proportionality and balance to vaccination policy in Australia. The No Jab No Pay/Play laws are not evidence-based or justified.
In 2015, the federal Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights found that Social Services Legislation Amendment (No Jab, No Pay) Bill 2015, which abolished conscientious objection exemptions for the purpose of eligibility to means-tested family assistance payments, limited the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and raised concerns as to whether this limitation of rights was justified. This finding was noted by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, which is currently conducting an ‘Inquiry into the status of the human right to freedom of religion or belief’, in its Interim Report, dated November 2017.
In 2017, the New South Wales parliament abolished conscientious objection exemptions for the purpose of enrolment in childcare and kindergarten, directly against the advice of experts from the Ministry of Health.
We support the following legislative and administrative reforms:
1. Amend Victorian and NSW laws to include conscientious objection exemptions for the purpose of enrolment in childcare and early education services.
1. Amend family assistance legislation to reinstate conscientious objection to vaccination.
2. Amend the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 (Cth) to include the follow
a provision requiring that all enactments of the parliament are compatible with human rights protected under the international instruments listed in section (3) subsection (b) of the Act, unless there is a legitimate rationale to limit such rights based on the highest standards of evidence.
a judicial power to invalidate an enactment (or section of an enactment) that is incompatible with human rights protected under the international instruments listed in section (3) subsection (1) of the Act, unless there is a legitimate rationale to limit such rights based on the highest standards of evidence.
3. Amend section 116 of the Australian Constitution, by referendum, to include protection for freedom of thought, conscience and religion, consistent with Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
1. Introduce transparency measures to address the lack of public/consumer scrutiny over vaccination committees such as the Advisory Committee on Vaccines, Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation and Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee.
2. Introduce integrity measures to address concerns that members of vaccination committees are not acting at arms-length from vaccine manufacturers.
6. What do you see as your chances of achieving electoral success?
We are confident there is wide community support for freedom of choice. We know that, even among parents who choose to vaccinate their children according to the government schedule, there are many who object to laws which override parental consent. IMOP offers an alternative for those who are dissatisfied with the two-party system and current legislative overreach.