Citizens should be able to use their own usage data to easily switch energy retailers, telcos, banks, health and educational providers, according to D
Biological women who identify as women need not fear their anti-discrimination protections will be stripped. Defence issued a new statement walking ba
We recently moved our readers to a new system. You may need to reset your password here to login.
Not a member ? Join here for free.
Forgot your password?
Home Features ‘We get it already’: redundant public health campaigns do little
Text size :
DEPARTMENTSDepartment of Health
TAGS Department of Health, public health, Vaccination, Preventive medicine, Sussan Ley, HIV/AIDS
Vaccination myth-busting is getting a major government funding injection, but immunisation supporters don’t need flashy campaigns, writes CIS policy analyst Helen Andrews. There are more practical and efficient ways to ensure herd-immunity.
The $26 million pro-immunisation package announced by Health Minister Sussan Ley this week has provided a rare moment of bipartisan consensus. Rather than make political hay of the issue, Labor leader Bill Shorten affirmed his support for the Abbott government’s push to boost vaccination rates, saying “the public health and safety of our children has to come first.” However, there are a few aspects of this new package that are more objectionable than this bipartisan agreement would suggest.
The first concern is value for money. Ley says that around 166,000 children are more than two months late in their vaccination schedules. A $26 million package would therefore shake out to more than $150 per child. But the per-person cost could be even higher than that, since the majority of those stragglers are almost certainly behind on their deadlines due to parental carelessness or forgetfulness, and would catch up soon on their own. If the campaign is intended to target the hard-core evaders, then the value for money drops still further.
The second objection has to do with a broader trend in public health: a blurring of the line between genuine public health measures and other pro-health campaigns that do not quite qualify for the traditional definition of “public health”. Activist campaigns like the anti-tobacco, anti-sugar, and anti-fat lobbies have long attempted to draw parallels between themselves and more traditional public health issues like sanitation and vaccination — even though there are fundamental differences that make such parallels inapt. For example, a true public health issue is one that requires collective action to be effective, often due to contagion; but obesity and smoking are not contagious in the way that, say, cholera is.
“Making vaccinations mandatory is practical for government to do, if it feels the science is conclusive enough … ”
This new pro-vaccination package shows we are also seeing a blurring of categories in the other direction, with genuine public health issues coming to resemble activist campaigns. According to the Department of Health, a portion of the $26 million will be devoted to “a range of communication activities, tools and resources to increase awareness and understanding of the National Immunisation Program and to address parents’ concerns regarding immunisation, including dispelling common myths” — in short, a public awareness campaign. But for an issue like vaccination, such a campaign is not appropriate.
Receive unlimited access, get all the latest public sector news and features, plus The Juice, our daily news update sent direct to your inbox.
The Mandarin is where Australia's public sector leaders discuss their work and the issues faced within modern bureaucracy. Join today to discover the latest in public administration thinking and news from our dedicated reporters, current and former agency heads and senior executives.
Helen Andrews is a Policy Analyst at the Centre for Independent Studies.
Read Related Content