Andrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I welcome the contributions from both sides in this important debate on the Australian Immunisation Register Amendment (Reporting) Bill 2020. This is an opportunity to talk about vaccinations and immunisation schedules more broadly. Australia has a unique record worldwide for high levels of immunisation coverage. The great work by ATAGI to approve vaccinations in a prompt fashion, fund some of the most expensive vaccines in the world and make them available rapidly is something Australia can be truly proud of. So my intervention today is necessarily brief.

I am a medical practitioner who has worked to introduce new drugs into this country, including, remarkably, the three non-viral treatments have been explored for COVID-19. I led the first trial of azithromycin in Australia after a brief series of case studies in donovanosis introduced that drug to Australia back in 1992. So I know very well the issues in introducing a new drug as a treatment. Azithromycin is now a breakthrough and recommended standard treatment for an ocular disease. Of course, we know that science moves carefully, cautiously and slowly. The observation I simply want to make today—and I do depart from some of my medical colleagues in this respect—is that continually screaming at contrary views may feel good but it won't make them go away. My belief is that it actually amplifies them. It is important to put a line in the sand about the importance of science, but you aren't going to succeed in muzzling people in this chamber. In a vibrant, strong civil democracy you need to accept that there are contrary views. There were contrary views on Australia Day last week. They are not going to be muzzled. Those views are here to stay, and I support both sides.

On immunisation, you are right: there is a scientific consensus that brought this great nation to where it is today. There is an antiscientific undercurrent and it needs to be called out, but that needs to be done respectfully and it needs to be done with evidence. What I am frustrated about is the reluctance by the other side to engage the evidence. If those opposite sense something is misinformation, spell it out in detail. Don't accuse someone with broad slander in an effort to silence, because I am just telling you—through the chair—they will not go away. They are not going to go away. I can tell you that someone who has a page of 86,000 will rapidly have 96,000 after a completely unnecessary exchange in this chamber. Unlike the Labor member, I speak as someone who has worked on approving new breakthrough treatments for this country.

I will tell you the information that the Labor MP doesn't have. I know the percentage of Australians who are going to accept COVID vaccination when it becomes available. It is around 75 per cent of young Australians in their 20s and around 75 per cent of Australians over the age of 60, but it falls to around 60 per cent for Australians in their 40s and 50s. There is a very significant core of Australia in that age group that has genuine reservations about the COVID-19 vaccine. That needs to be addressed clearly and with information, not with broad and personal attacks on people with whom you don't agree. If you want to attack someone, attack them with the science. That means reading scientific papers.

See this speech in context