Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

That is very kind of you, Member for Bowman. When I was Human Rights Commissioner, people regularly came to talk to me about so-called human rights abuses that occurred as a consequence of this policy. But I have to say that the arguments presented to me were farcical. Firstly, adults have a choice about what they decide to put in their bodies; people of sound and mature mind can put themselves in a position to make judgement calls. That has not been the case with children. We have always had different laws applying to children and we should have different laws that apply to children, because of their lack of maturity and their lack of understanding.

In terms of their capacity to do things, this means that, for instance, we do not allow them to drink at a certain age. We do not allow people, let's face it, to vote for the people in this parliament until they are a certain age. We have to make sure that parents take a degree of responsibility and guide children as part of the nurturing journey towards adulthood. So policies like No Jab, No Pay are not in the framework of human rights. In fact, if you want to go down the international legal path—which, I have to say, I am not a big fan of, but that is a separate point—and if you look at human rights, they essentially apply to adults. When you talk about the rights of children—particularly around parents of children, that includes the right of children to be raised in the traditions and customs or culture of a family's background; equally parents are able to make decisions in the best interests of their children, particularly when it comes to issues around health. So this is not a human rights issue in the way some people would like to frame it. It is about making sure we take care of children and about making sure that children are in the best position not just to make their way to adulthood but to do it in a healthy way.

Since the implementation of the AIR Act from 1 January 2016, feedback from a range of health professionals has indicated that this means highly qualified specialists, such as paediatricians, infectious disease physicians, public health physicians and clinical immunologists are required to refer back to GPs for assessment and medical exemptions recognised by the Immunisation Register. This can create complex pathways of care, including multiple practitioner visits. Based on that feedback, this bill proposes to address these two issues by amending the act to extend the range of specialists who can provide assessments and medical exemptions recognised by the AIR, making it explicit that only recognised vaccination providers can provide vaccination information to the AIR and not members of the public or parents.

This bill will affect paediatricians, public health physicians, infectious disease physicians and clinical immunologists who will be able to have assessments of medical exemptions recognised by the AIR for family assistance payment purposes and in addition to general practitioners. This will streamline the way individuals are assessed for a medical exemption. Through the above-mentioned, medical practitioners will also reduce the time taken for a small number of individuals who retain a medical exemption for immunisation through these medical specialists. I am sure—I hope—all members of parliament will recognise the simple reforms proposed in this piece of legislation are not only consistent with government policy and our collective commitment to taking care of children, but it is also a pathway to make sure we are implementing sensible, practical policies to improve the lives of children, so they can have the best chance of growing up to be healthy, happy adults.

See this speech in context