Search

Objective: Governments use vaccination mandates, of different degrees of coerciveness, to encourage or require childhood vaccination. We elicited the views of well‐informed community members on the public acceptability of using childhood vaccination mandates in Australia. Methods: Four community juries were conducted in Canberra, Launceston, Cairns and Melbourne, Australia between 2021 and 2022. We recruited 51 participants from diverse backgrounds, genders and ages through random digit dialling and social media. Two juries were held in metropolitan areas, and two in regional/rural settings. Outcome measures included jury verdicts and reasons in response to structured questions. Results: All juries were concerned about collective protection and individual rights but prioritised the former over the latter. A majority in all juries supported mandates but juries disagreed with respect to the appropriate mandate types. All juries endorsed using the least restrictive or coercive means to encourage vaccination (providing incentives or education, e.g.) before imposing penalties such as financial losses and school exclusions. The overriding view was that it is fairer to place a direct burden on parents rather than children and that mandates should be designed to avoid inequitable impacts on less advantaged groups in society. Many jurors found conscientious objection acceptable as a controlled option for resolute refusers, provided that overall vaccination coverage remains high. Conclusion: This paper gives policymakers access to the reasons that Australians have for supporting or opposing different mandates under conditions of high knowledge, understanding and deliberation regarding policy options. Sustaining high rates of vaccination requires high levels of co‐operation between governments, public health actors and the public. Our findings highlight the importance of considering public values in the design and implementation of vaccination mandates. Patient and Public Involvement: We sought input from individuals who did and did not vaccinate during the study design. The views and perspectives of nonvaccinating parents were presented in the evidence to juries. We deliberately excluded nonvaccinating individuals from participating, as the divisive and often hostile nature of the topic, and their minority status, made it difficult to ensure they would feel safe as members of the jury without overrepresenting their perspective in the sample. Two related projects engaged directly with these parents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Academic scholarship analyses how citizenship law reforms such as longer residency requirements and tougher language tests reinforce culturally exclusionary national narratives. Citizenship ceremonies however, have largely escaped scholarly attention. Drawing on Australia as a case study, this article addresses that gap. After examining how Australian citizenship is performed at ceremonies, this article argues that although the government states that citizenship ceremonies should welcome new citizens, deep suspicions about the cultural diversity of migrants are also conveyed. This paper contributes to an understanding of how citizenship ceremonies reinforce culturally exclusionary national narratives, even where the legal criteria for acquiring citizenship status is non-discriminatory. This paper also illustrates how citizenship ceremonies are important sites for the construction and communication of legal identities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Australian and Indian legal systems share much in common given their shared colonial history. However, despite the similarities, both jurisdictions have adopted vastly different approaches in protecting their people under the auspices of constitutional guarantees and the protection of fundamental human rights. This paper will discuss how each jurisdiction protects the fundamental human rights and basic freedoms under their respective constitutions and whether these protections are adequate. The few constitutional guarantees that exist in Australia will be contrasted to the robust fundamental rights enshrined in the Indian constitution. It will be concluded that India sets a stronger example than Australia when it comes to constitutional rights and guarantees for three main reasons; first, the different vision of the constitutional framers of India and Australia; second, India's Constitution is easier to amend and therefore better placed to evolve and reflect changing societal norms; and finally, the divergent approaches of the Judiciary illustrate the broader interpretation of the scope of constitutional rights by the Indian judiciary. India and Australia can learn much from each other and the ways in which each country protects fundamental rights and basic freedoms are no exception to this. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]