Category: Australia

The Australian Constitution describes and defines the way in which the executive can function. Through a discussion of three constitutional functions, including; the process of altering the Constitution, creation of the High Court of Australia, and preservation of State Powers, evidence ultimately suggests that the Constitution has been able to adapt to changes in Australian society over time.

Altering the constitution

The Constitution can only be formally altered by a strict process outlined in section 128 of the Constitution. There are four stages to this process. The first is the consultation stage, where the community is encouraged to consider and debate any proposed changes. The next stage involves a bill being introduced into parliament, where it must be successfully passed through both houses. However, it can be reintroduced after a period of 3 months in which it only needs to be passed through one house. The referendum stage provides that the Governor-General authorises the referendum, and must then vote regarding the proposed change. To be successful dual criteria must be achieved: the democratic criteria, with more than 50% voting in favour of a change, and the federal criteria, with at least four of the six states voting in favour. If the referendum is successful, the governor-general assents to the changes and they are made, if unsuccessful, the bill lapses. Despite this, the lack of referenda success suggests it is not effective, as there have only been eight successful proposals out of forty-four put to a referendum. The 1967 referendum was one of the eight successful proposals, in which Australians voted to amend the Constitution to allow the Commonwealth to make laws for Aboriginal people and include them in the census. The reasons for the lack of success include a lack of bipartisan support, difficulty in achieving the dual criteria, the conservative nature of the electorate, and misunderstanding the process. The eight successful proposals out of fourty-four put to referendum have been passed to allow the Constitution to keep up to date with society, however, as the process is so strict, constitutional alteration is not the best means to achieving change.

Preservation of state powers

The Founding Fathers created the Australian Constitution, prescribing safeguards to protect the sovereignty of the States from the powers of the Commonwealth. The nature of the federal system was intentionally constructed to ensure States retain sovereignty over certain legislative powers. The doctrine of the division of powers ensures that any legislative powers not specifically enumerated in the Constitution reside with the States and the Commonwealth cannot legislate in these areas. Constitutional Protection is provided through sections 106, 107, and 108. These sections operate to preserve the constitution of each state; provided it does not conflict with the Commonwealth Constitution, preserve the powers of the states unless exclusively given to the Commonwealth and preserve state laws to the extent they are not inconsistent with their federal counterparts. Protection of state powers is also provided through equal representation for the states in the Senate, with the intention that the twelve Senators from each state vote in favour of that state’s interests. Despite these protections, state powers have gradually eroded over time. Whilst originally the senate’s role was to vote in the interests of the states, this purpose has now shifted, in that it now votes along party lines. This transition was demonstrated in the 1942 Uniform Taxation Legislation where the Senate voted in favour of altering the division of powers away from the state by making income tax a specific power of the Commonwealth. While the protection provided through sections 106, 107 and 108 of the constitution has proven an effective mechanism for the preserving state powers, the shifting roles of the senate has rendered it less effective in this regard. 96 grants power roads case

The creation of the High Court of Australia

The High Court of Australia was established in 1901 pursuant of section Section 71 of the Constitution. It is vested with judicial powers to interpret the constitution and uphold its principles. The High Court achieves this through two jurisdictional sittings. The majority of the High Court’s workload derives from its appellate jurisdictions where disputes from lower sate and federal courts are resolved pursuant to section 73 of the Australian Consitution. The original jurisdiction, which is defined in sections 75 and 76 of the Australian constitution vests the High Court with the judicial authority to undertake disputes involving the constitution . Essentially, the High Court sits in its original jurisdiction as ‘guardian of the constitution’, giving expression to the words and phrases within it so as to ensure that power is validly exercised by the legislature and executive. The High Court’s interpretations have brought a dynamism to the constitutional alteration process which has prevented the constitution from becoming antiquated in the face of rapid societal changes. This was demonstrated in the Mabo (2) case, where the Full Bench of the High Court of Australia determined that the doctrine of terra nullius was the product of bygone ideas and values and as such was contrary to contemporary human rights expectations. In its place, the High Court established the common law principle of the Native Title, which provided a means for Indigenous Australians to claim Native Title if an ongoing link and association with the land could be proven. Mabo 2, is one of the many examples in which the High Court of Australia has adapted to changing societal expectations in regard to race and social equality.

Conclusion

The Australian Constitution has somewhat adapted to changing societal expectations through its key functions. The altering of the Constitution ensures that the Constitution can only be changed by a strict processes outlined in section 128 of the Constitution. However as this process is so strict Constitutional Alteration has proven an ineffective means of achieving change. The state powers has been successfully upheld through sections 106, 107 and 108 of the Constitution, however, the shifting roles of the senate has provoked a shift in powers away from the states, in favour of the commonwealth. This shift has created a less rigid and strict division of law making powers, which has given the legislative the ability to adapt to changing societal needs and expectations. The High Court of Australia, has brought about the most flexible changes in Australian society through its decisions and interpretations. These functions are effective for the Constitution as it promotes trust and coordionation for people to live cohesively together and evidence ultimately suggests that the Constitution has been able to adapt to changes in Australian society over time.

Are we really young and free? Our national anthem says so. There is no doubt that we are in fact a young nation. However, are we really free? Human rights are often taken for granted in first world countries such as Australia. What most Australians are unaware of is that, there is no single legally binding piece of legislation which protects their human rights. Australia has sanctioned several international human rights documents; yet, we are the only liberal democracy which does not possess a Federal Human Rights Act or Bill of Rights. Due to this there have been numerous circumstances of violations of our basic rights. If this continues, are we really free?

Were we really free when there were children being treated as adults under the eyes of the law? When Campbell Newman’s government unreasonably and unethically put 17 year olds in adult prisons. Forcing adolescents to grow up too fast and disregarding their rights as children. Teen years are a crucial part in the transition from childhood to adulthood. Cutting these vital years short can be detrimental to the development of adolescents. These laws may have since been overturned, but if we live in a country where this miscarriage of justice is even a possibility, are we really free?

Were we really free when the Queensland government brought in the Vlad laws in 2015? These laws may have been seen as a reasonable way to restrict bikie gangs at the time but they rather impinged on Australian’s human rights. The Vlad Laws violated the Universal Declaration of Human Rights specifically the freedom to move freely within our country, the freedom of expression, and the freedom to assemble. A Bill of Rights would enable judges to use the laws democratically enacted in parliament to regulate fair implications and ensure that our rights are not disregarded. Without legislation to control fair repercussions, are we really free? The bikie laws were not the only instance of which infringed Australian human’s rights.

Were we really free when anti-terrorism laws that were passed, stood to allow the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation to detain any Australian citizen without evidence? Dr Mohamed Haneef, an Indian born doctor, was incorrectly accused of assisting terrorists. Dr Haneef was detained and questioned for twelve days without any substantial evidence against him. This investigation cost over $3 million dollars. And guess what? Dr Haneef has since been found completely innocent. This situation was a direct violation of Mohamed Haneef’s human rights and an example of how easy it is to strip someone of their rights in Australia. If our rights can be taken away from us so effortlessly, are we really free?

Moving forward as a nation is dangerous without a human rights document to protect both the rights of the majority and minority. Without a Bill of Rights Australia is vulnerable to abuse of power. Like that of which can be seen in under-developed countries which most Australians don’t distinguish a likeness to. It is this chance of abuse of power which counteracts all the checks and balances put in place to prevent corruption in Australia. Precautions which are designed to form a just, equitable and free community. All of this put in jeopardy without a Bill of Rights. So, I ask you again, without a bill of rights in Australia, are we really free?

Shangri-La is a strong economical country buried inside the Kunlun Mountain. At present the Crown exercises the power and it does not have any official constitution. However, they have Legislative council (17 members), Cartons (5) and the High Court which is the higher court of appeal. All of which are appointed by Rani Plantagenet (Hereditary ruler) after Queens approval.

Rani Plantagenet wants to implement a representative form of federal government which allows the inhabitants and the local regional government bodies to express their opinions in the recent affairs. Also, she favors in making the High Court independent for judicial affairs. She thinks that the Australian federal model will be more suitable for Shangri-La.

I would agree to replicate Australian federal system, if it is followed exactly as per the written constitution. It would certainly create a structured accountability and promote institutional and political diversity. However, there is always a gap, the below findings and discussion will explain the actual workaround of federalism in practice in Australia compared to its theoretical approach.

Summary On Division of Power

Australia is considered to have a representative parliamentary democracy where the power is divided among the federal parliament and the state parliament. Federal government can mostly make laws pertaining to international trade, foreign affairs, quarantine, defence, immigration, taxation, banking, insurance, marriage, currency and pensions. State government laws usually covers local governments, education, school, health, environment and emergency service operations.

The Council of Australian Government (COAG) assist the interaction between different levels of government. This happens to be a forum where the ministers of different levels work together on common issues managed by both the levels of government ex: environment, transportation, customer rights etc. However, section 51 provides the consent to the state parliament to refer matters on the federal parliament. Both of them have their level of responsibilities which may overlap in few cases. In case of any disagreement, the High Court of Australia resolve the issue.

The Queen has been provided limited powers which includes giving Royal Assent to law passed by parliament and beginning the process of federal elections. Which is exercised by the Governor-General after consulting the Prime Minister.

Main Findings and Discussion

Federalism touches the key aspect of Rani Plantagenet requirement of creating democratic form of government as it promotes citizenship participation and allows the people to present their interest in the political matters irrespective of your socio-economic status. This approach eliminates the ideology of Cass Sunstein which states, “when a particular social group is unable to gain adequate representation at one particular level of government it may nevertheless have the opportunity of popular representation at a different level in the political process”. Australian federal structure supports and protects the rights of such groups and ensures equal participation in all matters.

It also expedites individual rights and public welfare increases the government’s accountability towards the local citizens and their growing concern, for example: Sunstein’s federal model which stresses on ‘right to exist’, where a person has the right to move from one political area to another in case where he/she is being burdened or victimized by the state. Citizens have the due right to transfer to another state where they feel policies are adaptable

It creates a space for recognizing the community and economic issues that cannot be attained at a federal level and promotes the realization of a need of regional/state government to manage the affairs of that region.

Moreover, to maintain equality and justice and to make the judicial system independent and strong the Australian Act of 1986 makes the High Court the ultimate court of appeal and abolished the appeal to the Privy Court. Unless the High Court issues a certificate for intervention of the Privy Court. For example, in matters concerning the lawful relation between the federal government and state or between 2 or more states. This scenario has occurred only once in 1912.

Recommendations

However there always happens to be a gap between the theoretical and the actual operation of the Federalism, which impacts the life of an individual and a community as a whole. If fixed, it could be the strongest government body.

Federalism limitation for the dominant role in the common wealth when the constitution 157 was drafted indicated at the major power for Senate during the Australasian Convention debates made Henry Bournes Higgins reject the constitutional bill. Also, the Australian federal structure happens to be more sensitive and considerate towards the Minority community thereby creating socio economic injustice and inequality. Other example of inequality and injustice happens to be absence of government regulations in prime areas like education, health etc. For example, Jeffrey Gillespie identifies in 1990 that the state was not successful in safeguarding the right of the poor. He stressed further that it was mainly due to direct involvement of the federal authorities the interest of the Native group was secured.

Federalism can also compromise the ability of the Australian constitutions and political bodies to reallocate the resources and national wealth. This basically constraints the promotion of equality and creates social injustice ex: The federal parliament to state sovereignty had the ability to restrict the national parliament’s capacity to transfer resources to other nation parts. State actually happens to be an incorrect platform for socio economic factors, the uniform distribution of goods and commodities/ assets must be directed to the federal government. Limitations needs to be imposed on the power of the state parliament.

Moreover, the federalism is more market-oriented model. According to libertarian theorists, “a perceived virtue of the Australian federal structure is that it militates against government or state intervention and that it prevents governments from unduly intruding in the operation of a free market”. This nature attracts the attention to libertarian paradigm of Wolfgang Kasper, who links the federal structure to interstate competition and decreasing levels of government regulation, and investments in public sector. The Australian federal structure can block public interference and inhibit development of socially oriented welfare programs.

The strongest point of Australian federal structure is it incorporates power balance which contains the right to remove the Prime Minister or the Governor-General if they act wrongly. It is impossible to dissolve the head of the government in many nations. This assist to keep the democracy stable. This creates a responsibility, pressure and accountability on the government to act in a right way and serve the citizens.

Conclusion

Despite of all the above factors I would still consider incorporating the Australian federal structure with few amendments basis the findings shared, as the written constitution of federalism safeguard and promotes democratic form of government. If the written constitution is followed accurately, it can support socio economic development of the country which would further be strengthened by an independent judicial system.

References

1. 2016, The Australian Trade Commission (Austrade), Sydney, viewed 26th April 2020, file:///C:/Users/user/Downloads/Australian-levels-of-Government.pdf
2. Australia Act 1986, Wikipedia, viewed 26th April 2020, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_Act_1986
3. 2016, The role of the Queen and the Governor-General in Australian democracy, viewed 26th April 2020, http://www.cefa.org.au/ccf/role-queen-and-governor-general-australian-democracy
4. Paquette Jonathan, 2019, Federalism, viewed 26th April 2020, 10.1007/978-3-030-12680-3_1.

World War One (WW1), was a devastating historical conflict between many countries all over the world. This war began in 1914 and ended in 1918. WWI is still known as one of the biggest wars Australia has ever fought in. WW1 had a significant impact on many different countries, unions, and religions, including Australia’s Homefront. WW1 politically impacted Australia over the debate of conscription which divided political parties. Australian women were greatly affected due to the number of men enlisting, enforcing them to enter the workforce which had an economic impact. This war impacted the social rights within Australia leaving Australians of German descent with no civil rights. Through great research of primary and secondary sources, there is no doubt that WW1 had a large impact on the Homefront of Australia.

WW1 impacted Australia’s Homefront in many different ways, some being positive and others negative. One of the main political impacts WWI had on Australia was the split in parliament due to the debate over conscription. The issue of conscription caused a division within unions, beliefs, and the role of women. According to Easton et al., ( 2014 p. 470), in 1916 William “Billy” Hughes decided to leave his current party due to their differing beliefs. Hughes left the party alongside other men who supported his thoughts and ideas. They then made a new party called the Nationalist Party. This event which was led by Hughes caused a split in the Australian parliament. According to the Australian War Memorial (2017), the first referendum over the debate on conscription was held in October 1916 and the second one was held in December 1917. According to the Easton et al., ( 2014 p. 470) textbook, the people that were more likely to oppose this idea of conscription were the people in the working class, Catholics, or people of Irish background. The people that did vote “no” claimed that Australia had already sent enough of its young men and that it was not even Australia’s war to fight. A poster found on the Australian War Memorial (2017), a website named (Single Men. Conscription [Gun], Who’s Next?) shows a large man sitting down loading a gun that has “conscription” written on it with bullets from a box named “single men”. There is another box next to the man named “who next?”. This poster shows that people supporting conscription were agreeing to men being sent out to fight in the war with the possibility of not returning. The poster illustrating the man casually loading the gun shows that many young and single men are going to risk their life by fighting in the war if the idea of conscription is passed. Overall many sources show that Australia’s Homefront was impacted politically mainly due to the debate over the idea of conscription in Australia.

The increase in women entering the workforce was an impact clearly brought on by Australia’s involvement in WWI. Due to many of the men volunteering to fight in the war, it left a lot of wives in need of money so they felt obliged to join the workforce. Many families would have been poor at this time leaving them with no choice other than to work and ration their food. The workforce began to change as more men were needed at war so more women started to work. A photograph taken in 1915 by Easton et al., ( 2014 p. 468) shows many women at the Commonwealth Clothing Factory in Melbourne making uniforms for the men at war. This image shows many women in a large room all working hard at their sewing machines. Women working in this particular facility were offered better working conditions and wages compared to offers from private employees, however, they were expected to work very hard for the war effort. At the time of war, there was a great deal of voluntary work being done by the women of different groups like the Australian Branch of Red Cross and the Australian Women’s Service Corps (AWSC) as well as paid jobs like Australian Army Nursing Services. A primary source from The Argus, Melbourne, 4 January 1917, cited in Easton et al., ( 2014 p. 468) states that the AWSC had a membership of roughly 1000 women. This group of women was training with the object to develop their skills in organization and finances. This source states that the AWSC offered 700 women to the Defence Department “to release men for fighting purposes”. To which the Department of Defence replied that there were no positions available where “the services of women could be utilized”. This shows that the women wanted to help more with the war other than sending clothes and boxed goods to the soldiers. According to Striking Women (2013), women’s employment rates increase greatly during WW1. Striking Women (2013) states that before WW1 the employment of women was 23.6% and between 1914 to 1918 it increased to 46.7%. These statistics clearly show that because of WW1, the number of women in the workforce increased greatly. According to Conroy et al., (2000 P. 56, 57) women were paid much less compared to men for doing the exact same job. During the times of WW1, many believed that it was just natural for women to help others therefore they were paid less. These primary and secondary sources show that WW1 had an impact on the economic structure of Australia’s Homefront.

Socially, WW1 also had an impact on Australia’s Homefront. The two main ways in which Australia was impacted socially by WWI were through the rights of Germans and those of German descent and the impact on the public. At the time of WW1 Germans or people of German descent had their civil rights ripped away from them leaving them without land, businesses, and even homes. This happened due to the rising tensions between the British and German Empires, Easton et al., ( 2014 p. 473). Many German-Australians had enlisted in the Australian Imperial Force. When Australia and the rest of the British Empire were at war with the Germans, life became very hard for anyone of German descent living in Australia. Any German-Australians were considered as threats to the nation’s security, often being put into internment camps due to the government seeing them as “enemy aliens”, Easton et al., (2014 p. 472) Not long after the war began the War Precautions Act was introduced. This act allowed the Commonwealth government to do whatever was necessary to ensure the safety of the nation. Following this act, anything that was ‘too German’ was either renamed or removed, including schools, foods, towns, churches, and music. Speaking German was forbidden in public places or on the phone. This was all because of the thought that these German-Australians were plotting things behind the Australians’ backs. Due to all of this fuss the public became ‘spy-manic’. People everywhere were being careful about what they said and they would even listen to others’ conversations. Many Australians would refuse to work alongside anyone of German descent, tearing apart the social life in Australia at the time. German-Australians were forbidden to have any civil position such as counselors or Justices of Peace and were not allowed to join the Defence Department due to the government’s suspicions. People of this time also would refuse to buy anything from German-owned businesses causing many to go bankrupt and close down, Easton et al., ( 2014 p. 473). Overall after analyzing many primary and secondary sources, it is clear that Australia’s Homefront was impacted socially due to WW1.

In conclusion, WW1 had an overpowering impact on Australia’s Homefront from 1914-1918. The impacts of war-affected many different groups of people within Australia. The social impacts were felt mostly by those of German descent because their civil rights were taken away. The economic impacts changed how women were seen in the economy and the overall structure. Politically the debate over the idea of conscription changed the views of many as well as splitting parties within the Australian Government. In conclusion, Australia’s Homefront was impacted and changed due to the outbreak of WWI.

Since 1990 there has been a significant increase in obesity (Monash University, 2017). Obesity is a condition involving a human body having excessive body fat which increases the risk of health problems. Many methods have been used in attempt to curb obesity, but none have had much luck. A new method that should be implemented is sugar tax. Many countries including Chile, France, Italy, and the United Kingdom have implemented sugar tax and I believe that Australia should implement sugar tax to curb obesity.

Sugar tax discourages the consumption of unhealthy beverages by putting a financial charge on all unhealthy beverages. If the unhealthier beverages were more expensive than the healthier beverages; then, the consumer is less likely to purchase the unhealthier beverages. This is because most families simply can not afford to buy expensive products all of the time, especially products they do not need, such as sugary drinks. The expense will put consumers off and direct them to a more affordable, healthier option. This decreases consumption of beverages with high sugar levels which is linked to obesity, and is how Australia will help to curb obesity.

The more the beverage costs, means that there is a higher amount of sugar in the beverage. This makes the consumer very aware of how much sugar is in every beverage. Many consumers are unaware of the amount of sugar in beverages. Sugar tax makes it clear for consumers to identify which beverages are unhealthy or healthier. This discourages unhealthy intake and reduces sugar consumption which decreases consumption of beverages which is linked to obesity, and is how Australia will help to curb obesity.

Manufacturers have the option of lowering sugar levels to avoid sugar tax (Hawkes.C,2018). This entices the manufacturers to put less sugar in their beverages as it is financially cheaper for them. Not only does this benefit the manufactures financially, but it also benefits the consumers health and reduces chances of obesity. This reduces consumption of beverages with high sugar levels which is linked to obesity, and is how Australia will help to curb obesity.

To conclude, Australia should implement sugar tax to curb obesity because the price will make it clearer for consumers to identify which beverages are unhealthy or healthier, encourages consumers to go for the more affordable, healthier option, and also entices manufacturers to put less sugar in their beverages. Fat tax discourages the consumption of unhealthy food and beverages by putting a financial charge on the unhealthy food, beverages or overweight individuals. So not only should sugar tax be implemented in Australia, but fat tax should also be implemented. I strongly believe that these two tax policies will discourage the consumption of unhealthy food and beverages which will help curb obesity in Australia.

Devastating droughts, brazen bushfires and now; contagious COVID-19. Whatever our nation is threatened by next we assure you our government will be ready to act. Currently COVID-19 has infected 90 countries and has been contracted by over 100,000 people. This pandemic is creeping dangerously close to our Australian shores and likely has infiltrated our lands as we speak. Our government are immediately implementing preventative measures ahead of possible outbreaks in Australia. However, the main threat by COVID-19 is its detrimental impact it had and will continue to have on the Australian economy.

Australia’s economy is interdependent on China’s economy and therefore, the 14-day travel ban on Australia and mass shutdowns of factories in China have halted production and sent stocks, expenditure and tax revenue plummeting. Australia’s GDP crisis caused by the virus has caused Australia to land itself back in the Red despite our government being previously on track to be in the Black.

Moreover, last year Australia’s growth was only 1.7% and this year due to the droughts, bushfires and Coronavirus we expect a possible drop between 2-7.9%. The devastating Australian bushfires have already cut our economic growth by 0.2% points in December quarter and current quarter. Unfortunately, for our nation a recession could be on the horizon.

Coronavirus now named COVID-19 is an extensive family of viruses that mostly effect your respiratory system and can vary from minor severity like the common cold to very severe causing severe respiratory syndromes. Its origin has been traced back to a Wuhan (Hubei Province) food market in Huanan Seafood Market, where a bat is believed to have transmitted the disease to a human and thus the origin of the outbreak.

COVID-19 is highly contagious and we advise if you have visited the five main epicentres: Japan, China, Iran, South Korea and Italy to self-isolate yourself from the community for up to 14 days. However, it is worth noting that the mortality rate for this virus is significantly low in comparison to the number of cases and the deaths have been those who are elderly, have a compromised immune system or have pre-existing medical conditions.

We understand that our people need immediate financial assistance to get our nation back on track. It’s no secret that our government are heavily reliant on our tax revenue received from exports to China and therefore, financial strain on our economy is a realistic outcome of the disease. Therefore, is imperative that we band together as a nation and have the patience and trust in our government to provide the financial assistance needed by those directly affected like the businesses, the tourism sector and the education sector in particular.

As China is densely populated with over 80,000 of the total 100,000 cases originating in Mainland China. Clearly this is a huge national threat to our economy as Chinese traffic makes up 16% of airport business in Australia and New Zealand. Additionally, with Chinese students unable to enrol for the next six months it will cost our economy $6-8 billion as they usually contribute $34 million to the economy. However, despite the travel bans extensive economic impact, our nation’s health and safety are our top priority.

As government we are entrusted by this nation to respond to any outbreaks and keep all Australians updated by Australia’s Health Organisations, The World Health Organisation and the National Security Committee. It is our patriotic duty to respond in the appropriate manner as we investigate avenues like the cutting of interest rates and adaptions in a mixture of monetary, fiscal and health policy. Additionally, in the future, Australia will be looking to invest more into global cooperative public health care to increase the stability of economic growth during pandemic.

Whilst we look into financial assistance it’s imperative that we discourage making comparisons of the impacts and statistics of COVID-19 to the SAARS outbreak in 2003 as Australia’s economic situation and reliance on China has significantly increased since 2003 and therefore, the extent to which Coronavirus has on Australia’s economy is not yet known. What can be acknowledged is that COVID-19 is currently distorting our Global stock prices which are down by 10%. In the future Australia will be looking to invest more into global cooperative public health care to increase the stability of economic growth during pandemic.

Australia relies heavily on its economic relationship with China and as a result of COVID-19 our tax revenue has fallen 10%, as Iron Ore alone account for $60 billion in export revenue. Our government are also mindful of China close economic relationships with other countries like America, which will also need repairing. We also ask that you rally around the Chinese community as racist behaviour and the marginalisation will not be tolerated in Australia. Furthermore, we warn Australians against mass panic and paranoia buying; it seems paranoia is spreading faster than the virus itself as supermarket factories attempt to keep up with the panic demand for toilet paper.

In Olivia Willis’ article “Obesity rates are rising in Australia but its where you live that matters”, the health reporter highlights on the issue of obesity in Australia and its relation to how wealthy communities are. When it comes to health and wellbeing, Australia matches or outperforms many other countries with comparable income. However, Australia’s level of obesity has slowly but steadily risen to become the worst in the developed world, ranking in the worst third of OECD countries for obesity among people aged 15 and older. Obesity is a worldwide issue that effects quality of life for many individuals by increasing their risks of heart diseases, cancer as well as depression and other mental health problems. Although on the surface it may appear as only an issue of people’s personal choices, the fact of the matter is the government also plays a big role in influencing peoples’ decisions. ‘We have to realise that individuals cannot make good choices when those good choices are not available to them”

Health can be defined in many ways, as each culture, society and community interpret what it means to them according to their own beliefs, experience and knowledge. The World Health Organization defines health as ‘a state of complete physical, mental and social wellbeing and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity’ (WHO 1946). Health can be influenced by many factors including social, economic, cultural and physical environment. These are known as determinants of health which are sometimes referred to as ‘the causes of the causes ’as it is widely accepted that the health of populations is shaped by social and economic structures, not just behavior and exposure to risks alone. A framework known as the ‘rainbow model’, developed by Göran Dahlgren and Margaret Whitehead in 1991, shows the relationship between an individual, their environment and health. The model displays layers of influences on health, starting with factors whose health impact is immediately obvious such as ‘individual life style factors’ extending to ‘social and community networks’, ‘living and working conditions’ and lastly ‘Socio-economic, cultural and environmental conditions.’

Two living and working conditions that can be considered determinants of health include; education and unemployment. Education can be defined as “the process of acquiring general knowledge, developing the powers of reasoning and judgment, and generally of preparing oneself or others intellectually for mature life”. The world health organization states that “low education levels are linked with poor health, more stress and lower self-confidence” (WHO 2020) research has proven that higher levels of education attained leads to longer life expectancy “people who graduate from college live at least 5 years longer than people who don’t finish high school” (APHA 2016) Additionally higher education correlates with lower rates of unemployment and increasing employment opportunities which is the major determinant for economic resources. The more educated individuals are, the more likely they are to make better informed health related decisions for themselves as well as their families, and therefore increasing their health and wellbeing. Unemployment occurs when a person who is actively looking for a job but cant find work. It is also considered a health determinant as job loss is associated with negative health effects. A well-paying job allows workers to live in higher socio-economic areas, where people tend to have better information on healthier life habits. Additionally suburbs in wealthy areas are usually greener with more space for parks and gardens, aiding in the treatment of mental health illnesses and reducing health inequalities (WHO 2020) By contrast unemployed individuals are more likely to suffer from stress due to lack of income, eventually leading to stress related health problems such as stroke, heart attack and arthritis.

Unemployment can bring forward many stressors in people’s lives, psychologically, mentally and physically. When looking at how it influences obesity it becomes apparent that individuals who have a low socio-economic status are at higher risk to become obese. Most unemployed individuals are struggling to make ends meet, leaving them with no choice but to go for the cheapest most feasible options such as frozen foods and fast food. Due to the little resources they have and the resources in their community they are financially unable to access healthier food options. In a study completed in America, areas in the country with a “high unemployment rate were associated with an increased likely hood of obesity”. And at the individual level “low material wealth and perception of low family wealth were associated with an increased likelihood of obesity and physical inactivity” (The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Volume 83, Issue 1, January 2006, Pages 139–145)

Furthermore, it is well established that lower levels of education is related to poor health literacy, which prevents the individual from adequately addressing health-related problems when they arise. A recent study found that “education and psychosocial characteristics do not only depict the cause for obesity but can also be seen as their consequence” (Kim, T., Roesler, N., & Knesebeck, O. 2017) They also found that higher psychological stress and lower social support are more likely in the less educated, these characteristics are commonly found in overweight and obese individuals. Although conclusively the study was unable to confirm that education is a direct cause of obesity, it shows that education and obesity are interrelated as the consequences of little education bring about behaviors that lead to unhealthy habits when it comes to diet and exercise.

In conclusion, we can look at the health determinants to see how our food habits may be influenced by our social, physical and economical environment. Having a competent level of education and a well paying job is shown to have positive effects on obesity rates, as individuals are more equipped to make better personal decisions regarding their health. Australia must intervene to tackle the obesity epidemic, by introducing affordable housing and ensuring that those suburbs with higher rates of obesity are given enough resources to enable individuals to be more physically active as well make educated health choices.

We seem to be ignoring that Australian’s obesity is rising and that it needs to be halted as soon as possible. Australia has to work together in order to curb this issue we have, one quote from the Australian Medical Association would be, “ Combating obesity demands a whole-of-society approach, requiring the participation of governments, non-government organisations, the health and food industries, the media, employers, schools, and community organisations.” Implementing sugar taxes is beneficial rather than disadvantageous to both citizens and government but don’t you think it’s better if our nation is healthy and able to have a longer life expectancy? I think it’s time to take a faster approach to this as not enough people are paying attention and stop this together.

Although consumers are wary of let’s say sugary drinks (I’m using sugary drinks as a controlled variable as they are held accounted of being one of the largest factors leading to obesity) being bad for health, people just don’t realise what external costs could affect them. External costs would include diabetes (Type 2 in particular), obesity and obesity related illnesses like backpain and tooth decay and statistics has shown that between the years 2017-2018, 67% of Australian were overweight or obese. Even if Australia ranks well in global health, it is true that more and more young people are getting obese, these young people can find it hard to cope with in the future and I’m scared for our nation on where this will go. Being frank, I have to say that just trying to avoid sugary drinks is the easier option but when it comes to people being addicted to it, it’s better to just implement a sugar tax as it is faster approach in stopping this issue. I’ve personally have had experience with diabetes, my father has had diabetes from drinking too much sugary drinks as a young teenager and now luckily, he only suffers from minor problems and not major as he had to change to a healthy lifestyle.

Sugary drinks are now classed as a demerit good as people are not aware of the many outcomes that could affect someone negatively, we could pretty much say that sugary drinks are the cousins of cigarettes and alcohol! Statistics has clearly shown the daily sugar consumption for an average Australian between the years 2011-2012 is 105 grams of sugar. You may say it was a long time ago, but I know for a fact that Australian are aware of the negative outcomes, but they continue to ignore it due to its addictive qualities. Sugar can lead to mood swings when the sugar gives a high but then it wears off and the body must produce more insulin and can only be solved by consuming more. Come on Australia we must try our best to avoid sugar in the first place and end this right now.

It’s funny how sugar taxes can raise revenue and support different issues as well. Coming from a teenage boy with no job experience, I understand how annoying taxes are right? Well if we were to implement a sugar tax we could reduce over taxes and use that money to fund growing health problems related to sugar consumption. Apparently if there were to be a 20% sugar tax in Europe, it can potentially raise approximately 1 billion pounds or 2 billion dollars. The point I’m making is that there isn’t a negative impact on sugar taxes raising revenue, I mean who doesn’t like the reduction of taxes. I personally think that a sugar tax wouldn’t really affect like the taste or anything, but it’ll be beneficial for us.

This review will use three studies from The National Immunisation Strategy, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare; and The Merck Vaccine Company. These have been undertaken to determine how the MMR Vaccine treats these diseases and minimises infection outbreak through immunisation children. Comment by NARAYAN, Sanjeev: More suited for evidence. Comment by angeletta demko:

The results of these studies will be compiled to investigate data that proves the three studies are incorrect and proves infant immunisation has diminished MMR related infection outbreaks.

MMR is indicated for simultaneous vaccination against Measles, Mumps and Rubella in individuals 12 months of age or older. The administration of the first dose of MMR at 12 to 15 months of age and administration of the second dose of MMR at 4 to 6 years of age. (Centre for Disease Control, 2019) In the National Immunisation Strategy, it saw significant gains have been made during the period 2013–2018. (Victoria State Government, 2019) Immunisation coverage is now above 90% for all monitored age groups, and 94.6% among 5-year-old children. This has significantly cut the rate of infectious outbreaks by up to 70% providing research that can be used to prove that the Measles, Mumps, Rubella (MMR combined Vaccine) treat the diseases through the vaccination process to minimise infection outbreaks. (Australia Institute Of Health And Welfare, 2018)

Also, The Australian Government’s No Jab, No Pay Policy, and No Jab, No Play policies implemented in some states, have supported vaccination uptake and improved immunisation coverage rates. (Australia Institute Of Health And Welfare, 2018)

Rationale

Measles is the most infectious of all vaccine-preventable diseases and can have serious complications. The MMR Vaccine offers protection against- Measles, Mumps and Rubella, these are three very dangerous diseases. (National Centre for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, 2019). Measles is not common in Australia but have had cases increase in Western Australia. When a child is twelve and eighteen months they are vaccinated against Measles, Mumps and Rubella through the National Immunisation Program. (Christian H. Ross, 2017) The vaccine is 99% protection against Measles, Mumps and Rubella and helps reduce the spread of this disease. (Victoria State Government, 2019) This brings to the attention of how does the Measles, Mumps, Rubella (MMR combined Vaccine) treat the disease through the vaccination process to minimise infection outbreaks? (Department of Health, 2019)

The immune system is made up of cells, proteins, tissues and organs that defend germs and microorganisms. The immune system keeps people healthy and prevent infections. Through a series of steps called the immune response, this is when the immune system attacks organisms and substances that invade the body system and cause disease. There are two basic types that combine to seek out and destroy disease-causing organisms or substances. (Australia Institute Of Health And Welfare, 2018) (Christian H. Ross, 2017)

Immunisation is one of the significant public health interventions of the past two centuries, and the National Immunisation Program (NIP) is one of Australia’s great health success stories. The National Immunisation Strategy aims to expand and improve the NIP. (Department of Health, 2019) The strategy is consistent with the World Health Organization’s Global Vaccine Action Plan. It is also consistent with Australian, State and Territory Government efforts to reform the health system by encouraging a greater focus on health rather than illness and improving Australia’s preventive health system. (Christian H. Ross, 2017) Its aim is to prevent disease and severe outcomes of disease by maximising immunisation coverage in people of all ages. (Department of Health, 2019)

Analysis and Interpretation

The state of having a detectable antibody against a specific antigen which is measles, mumps and rubella, as measured by a blood test (serologic test). This means that the infants have immunity to the disease and if followed through with the additional dosage they can become immune to the disease. (Lorraine Huxley, & Margaret Walter, 1998)

MMR vaccine is very effective at protecting people against Measles, Mumps, and Rubella; and preventing the complications caused by these diseases. People who received one doses of MMR vaccine as a child nearly all are protected for life and don’t need a booster dose. An additional dose may be needed if you are at risk because of a mumps outbreak. This means by vaccinating children for Measles, Mumps, Rubella (MMR combined vaccine) minimises the outbreak of MMR and gives children immunity to the disease. (Christian H. Ross, 2017)

A positive serologic test for measles-specific IgG will confirm that the person is immune and is not at risk of infection regardless of the multiple myeloma. Multiple myeloma is a hematologic cancer and is considered immunosuppressive, so MMR vaccine is contraindicated in this person. (National Centre for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, 2019).

On Measles Notifications compiled by Australian Institute of Health and Welfare shows the complex relationship between the rates of measles and the infection outbreak of MMR, through the introduction of second dosage of MMR Vaccine it has minimised the rate of infections. (Australia Institute Of Health And Welfare, 2018)

The Australian National Immunisation Program (NIP) has included a measles vaccination since the mid-1970s, though it had been offered by the states and territories for several years prior to this. The NIP first included measles mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine in 1989. The NIP provides MMR vaccine for infants and a combined MMR-varicella (MMR-V) vaccine for young children. As seen in the graph in figure two the rate of infection has drastically diminished through addition dosage. (Christian H. Ross, 2017)

Australia was declared free of measles in 2014, which means that there is no ongoing local transmission of measles within the population (although the infection can still be brought in from overseas), and a system is in place to detect cases. Although measles is now uncommon in Australia, vaccination is still important because travellers can be infected while overseas and can carry the virus back to Australia. Because measles is so contagious, most of the population needs to be immune to measles to stop it spreading. In 2017, 93% of Australian 2-year old were fully vaccinated against measles. (Australia Institute Of Health And Welfare, 2018)

Measles notification and hospitalisation rates from the Department of Health demonstrates how many notifications of Measles. It is by law for all jurisdictions to notify when someone has or is likely to have measles in Australia, they must be notified to health authorities. A confirmed case of measles involves laboratory testing as definitive evidence or clinical evidence. Alternatively, a probable case of measles requires clinical and laboratory evidence suggesting measles infection. Hospitalisation is data for measles using the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, these were obtained from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare National Hospital Morbidity Database. (Department of Health, 2019) Comment by NARAYAN, Sanjeev: Is this your writing or from the source you have data from?

This graph shows how from 2000 to 2011 the notifications and hospitalisations have diminished drastically; this is a result of the introduction of MMR Vaccines to infants and children. (Victoria State Government, 2019)

On deaths due to measles compiled by Australian Institute of health and welfare, demonstrates, there were 50 hospital admissions for measles in Australia. The number of measles deaths in Australia has fallen to near zero since vaccination was introduced for all infants. Between 1996 and 2016, only 3 reported deaths were caused by measles. Between 1976 and 1995, there were 98 deaths caused by measles, while in the previous 2 decades (between 1956 and 1975) there were 356 measles deaths.

From the introduction of the measles vaccine there has been a drastic drop of deaths due to the infection. Through the process of being hygienic and evolution of education into infectious diseases it has minimised the death rate to zero.

Evaluation

Limitations

Seroconversion rates, compares 284 children triple seronegative children for seropositive reported on If these children has a detectable antibody against a specific antigen which is measles, mumps and rubella, as measured by a blood test (serologic test). However, this research was conducted with only 284 infants aged from 7 months to 11 months which is the average age of a child when the first dose of MMR vaccine is given. 95% were seropositive for measles, 96% were seropositive to mumps and 99% were seropositive to rubella. However, a limitation of this data is lack of age range and number of participants. Consequently, leaving a large amount of data that could demonstrates how age affects the seroconversion. (Centre for Disease Control, 2019)

Measles notification, shows the complex relationship between the rates of measles and the infection outbreak of MMR. Through the introduction of second dosage of MMR Vaccine it has minimised the rate of infections. The graph supports from 1991 to 2017 and notifications per million population. It clearly demonstrates the MMR vaccine has caused the rate to diminish nearly entirely. Overall, a limitation of this data is the lack of evidence from previous years before the second dosage was introduced. This limitation may differ the final implication regarding whether the MMR vaccine has continued to decrease the prevalence of notifications in Australia. (Australia Institute Of Health And Welfare, 2018)

Notification and hospitalisations demonstrate from 2000 to 2011 the notifications and hospitalisations of MMR have diminished drastically because of the introduction of MMR Vaccines to infants and children. In 2009 it is seen a drastic increase in notification rates. A limitation of this information is that it is not stated whether these are notification and hospitalisation were proven to be measles, mumps and/or rubella. This limitation creates uncertainty and inadequacy. (Christian H. Ross, 2017)

Deaths due to measles demonstrates how many deaths have been caused by measles, mumps and rubella over 1907 to 2011. The introduction of the MMR vaccine and evolution of deaths throughout the years, throughout the start of the 1900’s it Is reassembly high until the introduction of the measle vaccine. A limitation of this set of data can be the vast information that is received through the graph, there is no age variation and is not a true representation of information in detail.

Justification Comment by NARAYAN, Sanjeev: Find other sections to distribute these.

Seroconversion Rates proves the claim that by providing a first dosage of the MMR Vaccine to an infant that nearly 100% of children had seropositive and demonstrated that MMR vaccine is highly immunogenic. Therefore, proving the research question that through the MMR combined Vaccine treats the disease through the vaccination process and minimises infection outbreaks by giving infants immunity through detectable antibody against a specific antigen of MMR.

Measles Notification Australia proves the claim and research question through the introduction of second dosage of MMR Vaccine in that it has minimised the rate of infections. It displays that after the introduction of second dosage of MMR that infection rates drastically drop. This proves that through the MMR combined vaccine, it treats and minimises infection rates. Therefore, revealing that an overall decrease in infection outbreaks of MMR dropped in Australia.

Measles notification and hospitalisation rates from the Department of Health demonstrates how many notifications of Measles. In this figure it proves that through the introduction of the MMR combined vaccine the hospitalisations and notifications have diminished. This proves that the MMR vaccine treats and creates immunity. (Christian H. Ross, 2017)

Deaths due to Measles approves the research question and claim through demonstrating that the number of measles deaths in Australia has fallen to near zero since vaccination was introduced for all infants. As a result, the MMR vaccine has treated the disease through the vaccination process to minimise infection outbreaks; henceforward, vaccines have reduced and, in some cases, eliminated many diseases that killed or severely disabled people just a few generations.

Overall Results

Through the research of The National Immunization Strategy, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare; and The Merck Vaccine Company, positive results have been given and therefore concluded the claim and research question that, “Vaccinations offer the best of hope to cure all disease” and the MMR combined Vaccine treat the disease through the vaccination process and minimises infection outbreaks. All the evidence and data collection were appropriate from government funded research. This research has enabled the following conclusion to be reached that vaccinations offer the best of hope to cure all disease and the MMR combined Vaccine treats the disease through the vaccination process and minimises infection outbreaks. (Christian H. Ross, 2017)

Further Investigations Required

There are more details to be examined and these include the properties of which demonstrate how vaccinations to young infants creates a lifetime of immunity to these diseases. Improvements might include better advertisement and media of the positive aspects of vaccinating, and better funding for free vaccination to the indigenous communities. It would appear reasonable to conclude that through better advertising and funding that the vaccination percentage can be increased to reach 100% of Australians vaccinated. (Centre for Disease Control, 2019)

Conclusion

In conclusion, the studies were chosen to recognise the significance of the MMR Combined vaccine has on the infection rates. The review used the three studies from The National Immunization Strategy, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare; and The Merck Vaccine Company. These have given positive results that the MMR combined Vaccine treats the disease through the vaccination process to and minimise infection outbreaks. Through attempts to have 100% of infants vaccinated against MMR and through the introduction of multiple dosages it has decreased the infection outbreak to zero. This data is reliable and valid as all data was collected by government research. There is a consistency with the result. Thus, in summary the MMR combined Vaccine treat the disease through the vaccination process and minimises infection outbreaks through multiple dosages as infants. (Lorraine Huxley, & Margaret Walter, 1998)

Reference List

1. Australia Institute Of Health And Welfare. (2018). Measles in Australia. [PDF]. Retrieved from https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/c828baef-75d9-4295-9cc9-b3d50d7153a2/aihw-phe-236_Measles.pdf.aspx
2. Centre for Disease Control. (2019). Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (MR) Vaccination: what Everyone Should Know. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/mmr/public/index.html.
3. Christian H. Ross. (2017). Https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/measles-mumps-and-rubella-mmr-vaccine. Retrieved from https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/measles-mumps-and-rubella-mmr-vaccine.
4. Department of Health. (2019). Measles mumps rubella (MMR) vaccine. Retrieved from https://healthywa.wa.gov.au/Articles/J_M/Measles-mumps-rubella-MMR-vaccine.
5. Department of Health. (2019). Australian vaccine preventable disease epidemiological review series: Measles 2000–2011. Retrieved from https://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/cda-cdi3901a.htm
6. Department of Health. (2019). National Immunisation Strategy. [PDF]. Retrieved from https://beta.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/national-immunisation-strategy-for-australia-2019-2024_0.pdf
7. Lorraine Huxley, & Margaret Walter. (1998). Biology. (3rd ed.). Victoria: Oxford University.
8. National Centre for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. (2019). Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (MMR) Vaccination: what Everyone Should Know. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/mmr/public/index.html
9. Paul, A. (2019). A Look at Each Vaccine: Measles, Mumps and Rubella Vaccines. Retrieved from https://www.chop.edu/centers-programs/vaccine-education-center/vaccine-details/measles-mumps-and-rubella-vaccines.

Introduction

Vaccination is one of the few ways you can protect yourself and others from infectious diseases. If you vaccinate it limits the spread of disease and could potentially wipe it out all together and it foregoing into the future. To make sure you and your family are up to date and fully vaccinated there is a National Immunisation Program schedule that is set by the Australian Government (‘Why immunisation is important’, 2019). By getting vaccinated you are not only protecting yourself, and your children but you are also protecting the community. See the outcome is if the more people who are vaccinated, the lesser people will be infect from disease and the less the disease can spread that is why vaccinations are so important. ‘Immunisation saves lives. As recent as the 1950’s, thousands of children died every year from disease such as the following tetanus, diphtheria and whooping cough (pertussis). It is now considered rare for anyone in Australia to die from these infectious diseases. And that is thanks to vaccinations which were introduced in the 1960’s and 1970’s’ (‘Why immunisation is important’, 2019). How vaccinations work is the vaccination uses your body’s immune system to increase protection to an infection before you come into contact with that infection. Vaccinations have been tested to demonstrate their safety and effectiveness in protecting against infectious disease‘(‘Why immunisation is important’, 2019).

There are many infectious diseases that are very rare or not even to be known to be active anymore once again thanks to vaccinations. However there are still a number of infectious disease outbreaks still happening around the world today. The history of modern outbreaks includes the following flu, chicken pox, whooping cough and measles they still have occasional outbreaks in Australia, mostly when introduced from overseas and could potentially make a strong comeback if the public stop vaccinating. ‘In January 2019, 62,225 measles cases were notified globally compared to the same period in 2018 when only 23,535 cases were notified’ (‘Why immunisation is important’, 2019). ‘In February 2016 the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the Zika virus an international public health emergency following outbreaks in Central and South America. There is still ongoing evidence of transmission throughout the Americas, Africa and other regions of the world. And as of 2018, there was a total of 86 countries and territories that have reported evidence of mosquito-transmitted Zika infection’(‘Why immunisation is important’, 2019). ‘The latest outbreak of Ebola virus disease started in Democratic Republic of Congo in August 2018, and is still ongoing. There have been a total of 584 deaths that have been confirmed during this outbreak’(‘Why immunisation is important’, 2019). ‘The first cases of HIV/AIDS were identified in the gay community in America in 1981 and, by 1985, at least one case had been reported from each region of the world. In 2017, more than 36.9 million people around the world were living with HIV/AIDS. Unfortunately there is still no cure however there are current treatments that allow patients to live long and healthy lives’(‘Why immunisation is important’, 2019). It is important to look at vaccinations from a sociological perspective because ‘the sociological perspective involves recognizing and evaluating the effect of social relationships and social structures and forces’ (‘How to Think Like a Sociologist’, 2019).

The sociological factors that we will be looking at are class, culture and age. For they are the most relevant sociological factors that have an effect on vaccinations.

Class

Middle class is a group of individuals in society who fall socio-economically between the working class and the upper class. Which is a nicer way of saying the poor and the rich. Middle class unfortunately can have a big impact on your health.There has been a significant improvement in vaccination coverage worldwide, the overall improvement is not equally distributed among the countries. ‘There is evidence that suggests that that there is a social gradient in child vaccination within countries. Parents who are well-educated, wealthy or living in urban areas their children have a higher rate to be immunised against disease. Social statues in vaccination can potentially ruin the global efforts to reduce the burden of disease in low/middle income class’ (Hajizadeh, 2018).Children from socioeconomically disadvantage backgrounds are generally at more increased risk of contracting infectious diseases and children are our future therefore the globe could be at risk. A non -vaccinated individual is the cause of millions of preventable child deaths each year in low/middle income countries. Studies show that socioeconomic inequalities are still a large barrier to children’s vaccination in low/middle income countries (Hajizadeh, 2018). Another issue is parents often don’t keep up to date with their children’s vaccinations. ‘The Unity Health Care clinic, patients are mostly low-income, mostly African-American patients. Patients often miss vaccinations because of struggles in their parents’ lives. The reasons include: ‘transportation, couldn’t get time off work, didn’t have health insurance and didn’t know that they could come in without insurance’ (‘NPR Choice page’, 2019). This happens a lot in the low/middle income class, for they are not educated on the importance of vaccinations. Indigenous Australians have been reported to be more social and economical disadvantage. Vaccine prevention diseases are amenable to rapid and cost effective prevention and have vaccination programs have been effective to reduce health risks but however the delivery of these programs like other health care interventions or promotions always depends on the culturally appropriateness health services. This comes down to sociological factors how class can affect individuals perspectives of vaccinations.

Culture

“Recent research has proved a number of broader cultural factors that may contribute to negative vaccination attitudes, which include an alignment with alternative/complementary or holistic health, anti-authoritarian world views, conspiracy ideation and certain political, spiritual, or religious beliefs’ (Browne, Thomson, Rockloff & Pennycook, 2019). Studies show that there are some specific health beliefs such as mistrust of medical professionals and vaccine efficacy and safety. Which affect attitudes and behaviour of individuals and result in negative attitudes against vaccinations. ‘Vaccinations from public opinion include a varied of beliefs that result in the tension between divergent cultural viewpoints and value systems. There are several key cultural perspectives on vaccination which include individual rights and public health stances towards vaccinations, religious views and vaccine objections and lastly suspicion and mistrust of vaccines among different global cultures and communities’ (‘Cultural Perspectives on Vaccination | History of Vaccines’, 2019). Public health stances and individual rights cause people of the public to want to protest for their rights not only to protect themselves but their children as well. This happens if the individual does not accept or believe the existing medical evidence about the safety of vaccines or in many other cases their own beliefs do not support vaccinations. Good public health policies can balance out both individual rights and the community needs. I believe that if health professionals recognized and respected the diverse of social and cultural differences of individuals and the perspectives towards the vaccination policies it would then help support their success and acceptance.

Age

Anti-vaccination is one of the biggest public health concerns. Parent’s attitudes and behaviours about vaccines can impact a child’s life dramatically. Refusal of vaccinations has multiple factors, which include family lifestyle, perceptions about the child’s body and immune system, risks of disease, how efficient is vaccines, side effects, negative experiences with vaccinations and social environment. The successes of vaccinations programs help prevent disease and have decreased. However there have been outbreaks in a number of countries and the population immunity will be threatened if more children do not comply with vaccinations schedules. ‘A recent nationally representative immunisation survey suggests that approximately 40% of parents in the United States may delay or refuse vaccinations for their children’ (Browne, Thomson, Rockloff & Pennycook, 2019).In Australia there was a online survey that was conducted of Australian parents in 2012 that would determine the associations between the vaccination attitudes and behaviours. ‘The 452 applicants were parents of children aged 18yrs and older. 92% reported their child was vaccinated and up to date, 52% of the applicants has concerns about vaccines. The factors associated with the anti-vaccine included ‘disagreeing that vaccines are safe’ and ‘obtaining information from alternative health practitioners’. 83% of the applicants had gathered vaccination information from their general practitioner’ (Practitioners, 2019).

Parents that were in this type of category are more likely to hold a negative perspective towards vaccination. This is normally due to the fact of the lack and knowledge of understanding of how importance of vaccination. Vaccination acceptance may include the willingness to trust advice from health professionals and ones trust in evidence of vaccinations. These findings will results in the area of reasoning and decision making that individuals reasoning is motivated by social and emotional factors. From this information there is an understanding of the evidence around vaccination is a result of a sociological stance. General practitioners can play a big role in educating parents and helping them understand their reasons for approaching alternative health practitioners without being judgemental. It is suggested discipline health practitioners and organisations through current arrangements for those who promote false and misleading information about vaccination. Also financial incentives have been proven to improve childhood vaccination uptake. The majority of parents are compliant and have a strong support for vaccinations however more then half of parents had some concerns in regarding vaccination of their child. General practitioners are the most used source for information when it comes to vaccinations. So it is their role and duty to communicate well with the parents regarding their children’s vaccinations and providing clear, evidence based vaccine information to help guide parents in decision-making.

Conclusion

In conclusion vaccinations are beyond beneficial for preventions of diseases in the community. They enable the public with the ultimate quality of life. Vaccines increase life expectancy but also minimize the spread of disease. Medicare covers vaccinations for children so there is no reason for children to not be vaccinated and meets the needs to care for the weakest individuals in the community. Vaccinations reduces global child mortality by being accessible universal for safe vaccines of evidence based is a moral obligation for the community as it is a human right for every individual to have the ability to live a healthy happy life.