Anti-vax tax could be a solution to COVID policy muddle

We seem to be in a policy muddle right now, unsure what to do about the 10-15 per cent of the adult population who are likely to refuse the jab. Is it time for an anti-vax tax?

There are those who would like the refuseniks to be forcibly jabbed. Advocates point to seatbelts and bicycle helmets as policy examples. Both have been tremendously successful at saving lives, reducing severe injuries not to mention the need for hospital beds. Controversial when they started, everyone takes them for granted today.

Mandatory vaccination advocates point to seatbelts and bicycle helmets as policy examples.Credit: iStock

But it is one thing to require people to put a belt over their chest or a helmet on their head. It is quite another to force them to have something injected into their bodies.

Others reckon we should pay refuseniks to take their medicine. The problem with this is that it would be a huge waste of money to pay all of those who have already got the jab, while it would be mightily unfair just to pay those who are proposing otherwise to do the wrong thing.

So what might be a good alternative?

Taxation might just do the trick. And we have some good examples to follow. Think tobacco which has taken a massive hit from a whopping tax surcharge that keeps growing. Tobacco excise revenues have surged from $2 million back in 1975 to around $12 billion today, generating cash that can be put toward health promotion. Prices have more than trebled since 2004 alone, while consumption keeps on falling.

Cigarette consumption has dropped since the introduction of a tobacco tax.Credit: Shutterstock

We could require anti-vaxxers to pay for their choices. The refuseniks are the ones who will be the most likely get sick or die, taking up expensive staff, equipment and hospital beds along the way.

The anti-vax tax or AVT could be a surcharge to the Medicare levy, to be paid by all those without double jabs as documented by their myGov account.

Funds could pay for more hospital wards, as well as more medical staff and equipment. Once that second jab appears on someone’s myGov account, the AVT would disappear in recognition of a job well done. Cash could even be set aside as a bonus payment to those who get vaccinated.

To be fair, an AVT could only be introduced once everyone has been offered the double jab. Our tortoise-like vaccine rollout means we won’t reach that point, probably until December. The federal government could announce well in advance that the AVT is on its way, giving an extra incentive to be double jabbed. Those who genuinely can’t get vaccinated for medical reasons would of course be exempt from the tax.

Taxing the unvaccinated might help increase vaccination rates while helping to fund treatment of those who get COVID.Credit: Eddie Jim

Some will say this is too tough. People should be free to choose. And not all of those who decline are anti-vax as much as apathetic or have been enticed by other values or dodgy YouTube clips that keep them away.

Well, sorry, irrespective of their motives, by choosing to be unvaccinated the refuseniks will generate many costs that without a policy intervention will be worn by innocent third parties.

Much of the policy work for an AVT has already been done. Back in 2017, then federal treasurer Scott Morrison attempted unsuccessfully to introduce a Medicare levy to help pay for the NDIS. Set at 0.5 per cent, the surcharge would have cost low-income earners an extra $175 annually, while those at the other end of the spectrum would fork out more than $1000. The AVT could be set initially at that low level with a promise to double it by June, and quadruple it by December, as an added incentive to have a change of heart.

The 0.5 per cent surcharge was tipped to raise $2 billion a year, but it would be far less than that today because it will only be levied on those unwilling to get vaccinated. Nevertheless, $200 million to $300 million a year could be a handy sum, bearing in mind the amount raised is likely to fall the more successful the AVT is at changing behaviour, but so too will the costs.

Raising $200 million to $300 million a year could be a handy sum.Credit:

No doubt we will need more than just a new tax.

We might not want to force restaurants, bars and cafes only to serve the double vaxxed, but we should let customers know with whom they might be rubbing shoulders.

We might develop a traffic light system. Red lights are for establishments that serve the unvaccinated.

Yellow lights are for those that have vaccinated staff but don’t check who comes in. And green lights are reserved for those who only employ and serve the double vaxxed.

Green lights bring with them government support for the extra security needed to keep out the uninvited, using the AVT revenues to cover some of the costs.

Measures like these will help. But let’s face it they are not likely to work without an AVT, which by targeting anti-vaxxer’s hip pockets might ironically just be the trick to get them to roll up their sleeves.

Professor David Hayward is emeritus professor of public policy at RMIT University.