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

I second the motion. In the dying minutes of tonight, I just want to support this motion and to give a blame-free account of what we're doing in quarantine, which means standing up for the work of state governments and recognising that, while always more can be done, there are three issues that are very germane to the motion that has been moved by the member for Warringah. The first one is that, to fix something like the uncertainty around COVID, particularly with new strains emerging, it's very hard to give a clear road map deep into the future. The only way you can make the road map slightly clearer is through more evidence and information, and with that comes science. To quote Matt Damon in my favourite movie, The Martian, this is about sciencing the heck out of this problem. I would argue there's not enough research being done in Australia, which is actually an ideal place to study the effects of hotel quarantine and the potential movement of infected cases. On 22 January we instigated antigen testing for everyone getting on a plane to come here, to make sure that we're not transporting infected returnees directly into hotel quarantine and overly stressing what the previous speaker said is already a suboptimal mechanism of quarantine.

Secondly, it is absolutely the right of the opposition to push for faster rollout, but I do want to note that, as of 26 May, approaching half a million of the most vulnerable people in New South Wales and Victoria have had at least their first jab. There are 345,000 people in aged-care facilities who have already had at least one jab, if not both jabs. The utilisation of vaccines, in excess of 80 per cent, by the major states is very impressive. It is a little low in Queensland and the Northern Territory.

The third point I want to make is: if you really want to know whether someone is protected, there is no test, but we can do serology. It's currently available. Rapid lateral flow immunoassays can be used to show that someone has some level of immunity, either as a result of previous infection or one or two jabs. I'm simply asking this question. I wrote about this in the middle of last year in both Fairfax and The Australian. We've got to be creative about quarantine, not be paralysed. I got that sense from the previous speaker—where's this going to head? We can raise these caps if we can prove we can do it safely. The proof is not there yet. I don't yet think that exchange through air conditioning is the biggest concern we have. Certainly in South Australia, the potentially simultaneous or near simultaneous opening of doors is leading to aerosol spread. Let's take that at face value, if that's what the CHO says. The answer is: for goodness sake, in hotel quarantine, don't put an infected person on the same floor as someone who has no antibodies and hasn't even been vaccinated. There's simple stuff to do to reduce the appalling cost Victoria is facing. It is not a political comment. It's devastating that something that happened in South Australia has had such an impact in Victoria. We have a member right here in the chamber wearing a mask as a result of what has happened.

Let's start saying that, if you are going to return to Australia, and your booking is two weeks ahead, for goodness sake, go and get vaccinated. Why not turn up at the airport with serology, as evidence that your immunity is on track, that your IGG is at least there. Having antibodies to spike protein doesn't guarantee you will not be infected, but it's sure as hell better than having nothing at all. If someone has no immunity whatsoever, they are a clear and present danger, both where they are and of course on being thrown into hotel quarantine, where there might be an infected case. Let's use some common sense. Let's try and define a gold standard and let's try and achieve that.

There are 23 rapid lateral flow immunoassays available. These don't cost much to do. You could simply say: 'Get them before you get on the plane. If you work in an aged-care facility, let's prove that your jab actually led to an immunogenic response.' I appreciate you can have some innate response, but we're trying to prove that there is a response to a vaccine. Marylouise McLaws has said that, after full, double vaccination, between 13 and 20 of people are not adequately protected. I think those people have a right to know if they're a reservoir of potential reinfection. We don't know whether it's going to transmit the disease. But serology is a damn good start, and it's not happening at the moment.

See this speech in context