Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The contribution by the member for Perth was an interesting one. I am a strong supporter of science and science-based evidence for any sort of medical procedure. I also put on the record that I do question the fact that many drug companies fund research in Australia. Unfortunately, government does not fund research to a level that would enable research to be undertaken independently. When it comes to immunisation, for every one paper that condemns vaccination there are 10 or 100 or maybe even 1,000 that support it. Some research asserted that immunisation led to autism, although I did not come into this place ready to talk about the scientific research in that area.

The Social Services Legislation Amendment (No Jab, No Pay) Bill in no way makes it mandatory for parents to immunise their children. This legislation makes it essential that parents immunise their children if they want to receive family tax benefit. I have thought about this very seriously. When my daughter was having her children immunised she researched the issue and talked to many people. As I said in a speech last week, I have a niece who has done leading research in the area of autism and she has worked with many people. We asked her what she thought about the connection between autism and immunisation, and she said to us that the risk from not immunising is much, much greater than the risk from immunising.

Vaccination has been one of the most effective interventions to prevent disease worldwide. I had a grandfather who had polio, and now polio has been eradicated in Australia. It has almost been eradicated worldwide, except for countries like Pakistan and a couple of other places. It is a preventable disease—if you are immunised against polio you do not get it. You do not have the epidemic that existed when my grandfather contracted polio; you do not have the epidemic that raged here in Australia postwar, in the late forties and fifties, when so many people had their lives changed. We do not have epidemics that see survivors of polio coming into this parliament with the late effects of that disease. Polio sufferers survived and led normal lives; in some cases they may have had a level of disability but as they aged the effects of the polio might have become much greater. It is estimated that immunisation prevents approximately 2.5 million deaths a year. How can we argue against immunisation? This legislation, as I have already said, does not prevent parents from choosing not to immunise their children, but I would encourage them to immunise their children. It not only gives their children protection but also gives protection to the whole community. It is a major public health issue and immunisation is a practice that we as a nation should be embracing.

Labor members who have spoken in this debate have made it quite clear that we will be supporting this legislation. It was part of the 2015 budget measures and it is one of a number of measures being put in place to ensure that children are fully immunised. It will commence from the beginning of next year, 1 January 2016.

However, included in this legislation is a clause that says that, where there are valid medical reasons for not vaccinating a child—where a general practitioner has certified that vaccinating a child would be medically contraindicated or it is unnecessary because the child has a natural immunity, having already contracted the disease in question—such children will be exempt. Australia has one of the best immunisation records in the world. Nationwide, around 92 per cent of children are immunised, and we should do anything we can to encourage an increase in that number. Other children who will be exempt are those in approved vaccine studies or for whom the vaccination is temporarily unavailable. I think that is a common-sense approach. A family should not be penalised because the vaccine is unavailable, but that would be on very rare occasions.

Immunisation requirements will also be extended to include children of all ages. Once again, that is very important. Just because you are an older child, it does not mean that you do not need to ensure that your vaccinations are up to date and that your immunity to such diseases is still in place. Last year, I think it was, there was an outbreak of measles within the community; even in Canberra, there were cases of measles. Measles, whilst it may have been considered a common childhood illness when I was younger, can lead to a very significant level of disability or even death. Now that children are immunised against measles, they no longer face this potentially disabling and life-threatening illness.

In the lead-up to the 2013 election, Labor supported tightening up requirements around immunisation. As such, we were very supportive of these measures when the government announced them in the budget. There is one point that worries me, though, and that is that the budget projects that this will lead to savings of $508.3 million. I see this as a good public health initiative. It is not a budget savings measure; it is a measure that should be put in place to ensure that children are immunised. I think that there should be a backup as well, to make sure that it is not just a cost-saving measure and that it really is a sound public health initiative. Those are the grounds on which I support it—as a sound public health initiative, not a cost-saving measure.

Professor Brian Owler from the AMA said he was concerned that such large savings were expected from these measures:

… it indicates that a number of people aren't going to vaccinate their children. What we should be saying is we need to make sure that we do get all those children vaccinated and we should be aiming to actually continue to spend the same amount on those sorts of Family Tax Benefits.

So, along with No Jab, No Pay, there should be initiatives put in place that will educate and encourage people to have their children vaccinated, and make them aware that their children may be due for immunisation but they may not have followed through.

Quite often, it is the people whose lives may be little more chaotic, who have a lot of things on their plate, who may not have access to a GP or to medical services at the same level as most Australians, who will fall through the cracks. They may not even pick up on the fact that they are not being paid their family tax benefit. I put on the table that I am very concerned about that group of people. So I think that, rather than looking at this from a cost-saving perspective, we should be looking at it from the perspective of using No Jab, No Pay as an incentive to parents to ensure their children are immunised, while at the same time making those parents aware of the fact that the reason they are not receiving their family tax benefit is that their child did not have the jab.

We on this side agree and, I think, every member of the House would agree that parents should have the final say on this. We live in a free society, and whether or not to immunise a child is a decision that ultimately rests with the parents—but there have to be incentives in place to encourage parents to ensure that their children are properly immunised. Also, we need to make sure that the registers are up to date. We need to make sure that the information going to parents is adequate. We need to make sure that those parents who may have missed their child's immunisation because of some sort of oversight are made aware of the facts which I referred to a moment ago. We need and do support a national immunisation register to enable adults to keep up to date with their vaccinations. I do not know how many members of this House keep track of their vaccinations, but as a group we probably do so more than others. Many Australians believe that once they have been through their childhood immunisation that is where it ends; it is not the case. There needs to be more information and more education around immunisation.

The case for vaccinations, the case for immunisation, is very strong. There are a small number of people for whom it is contraindicated, and this legislation covers that. There needs to be ongoing scientific research. I do not think any member of this House would approach the issue of immunisation and health with a closed mind. We are here to ensure the common good of all Australians. We are here to ensure good health outcomes. If research shows that one form of immunisation should be abandoned then we should seriously look at it.

I support this legislation. My only concern is that the $508.3 million worth of savings should be put towards education and ensuring that parents do not miss immunising their children simply because of an oversight.

See this speech in context