Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1) expresses grave concern about the outbreak of the Ebola virus in, and its impact on, West Africa, in particular Liberia, Guinea, Sierra Leone, and beyond;

(2) recognises that the peacebuilding and development gains of the most affected countries concerned could be reversed in light of the Ebola outbreak, underlining that the outbreak is undermining the stability of the most affected countries concerned and, unless contained, may lead to further instances of civil unrest, social tensions and a deterioration of the political and security climate;

(3) determines that the unprecedented extent of the Ebola outbreak in Africa constitutes a threat to international peace and security;

(4) expresses concern about the particular impact of the Ebola outbreak on women;

(5) takes note of the:

(a) measures taken by United Nations Member States of the region, especially Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone, as well as Nigeria, Côte d'Ivoire and Senegal, in response to the Ebola outbreak, and recognises that the outbreak may exceed the capacity of the governments concerned to respond; and

(b) letter dated 29 August 2014 to the United Nations Secretary-General from the presidents of Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea, requesting a comprehensive response to the Ebola outbreak, including a coordinated international response to end the outbreak and to support the societies and economies affected by restrictions on trade and transportation during the outbreak;

(6) emphasises the:

(a) key role of United Nations Member States, including through the Global Health Security Agenda where applicable, to provide adequate public health services to detect, prevent, respond to and mitigate outbreaks of major infectious diseases through sustainable, well-functioning and responsive public health mechanisms; and

(b) control of outbreaks of major infectious diseases requires urgent action and greater national, regional and international collaboration, stressing the crucial and immediate need for a coordinated international response to the Ebola outbreak;

(7) expresses:

(a) deep appreciation to the first-line responders to the Ebola outbreak in West Africa, including national and international health and humanitarian relief workers contributed by the Member States of diverse regions and non-governmental organisations such as Médecins Sans Frontières and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies; and

(b) appreciation of the United Nations Humanitarian Air Service for transporting humanitarian personnel and medical supplies and equipment, especially to remote locations in Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone, during the outbreak;

(8) takes note of the:

(a) WHO Ebola Response Roadmap of 28 August 2014 that aims to stop transmission of the Ebola virus disease worldwide, while managing the consequences of any further international spread; and

(b) 12 Mission Critical Actions, including infection control, community mobilisation and recovery, to resolve the Ebola outbreak; and

(9) notes the United Nations call that Member States:

(a) facilitate the delivery of assistance, including qualified, specialised and trained personnel to contain the outbreak to the affected countries and, expresses deep appreciation to the Government of Ghana for allowing the resumption of the air shuttle of United Nations Mission in Liberia from Monrovia to Accra, which will transport international health workers and other responders to areas affected by the Ebola outbreak in Liberia;

(b) provide urgent resources and assistance, including deployable medical capabilities such as field hospitals with qualified and sufficient expertise, staff and supplies, laboratory services, logistical, transport and construction support capabilities, airlift and other aviation support and aeromedical services and dedicated clinical services in Ebola treatment units and isolation units, to support the affected countries in intensifying preventive and response activities and strengthening national capacities in response to the Ebola outbreak, and to allot adequate capacity to prevent future outbreaks;

(c) mobilise and provide immediate technical expertise and additional medical capacity, including for rapid diagnosis and training of health workers at the national and international level, to the affected countries, and those providing assistance to the affected countries and to continue to exchange expertise, lessons learned and best practices;

(d) maximise synergies to respond effectively and immediately to the Ebola outbreak, provide essential resources, supplies and coordinated assistance to the affected countries and implementing partners, and encourage all relevant actors to cooperate closely with the Secretary-General on response assistance efforts; and

(e) commend the continued contribution and commitment of international health and humanitarian relief workers to respond urgently to the Ebola outbreak and seek all relevant actors to put in place the necessary repatriation and financial arrangements, including medical evacuation capacities and treatment and transport provisions, to facilitate their immediate and unhindered deployment to the affected countries.

I move this motion today because the window to tackle the Ebola crisis is closing fast and unless Australia joins the international community in attacking it at its source in West Africa, the opportunity to contain this outbreak may be lost forever.

A fortnight ago the United Nations warned we had just 60 days to bring Ebola under control, or face what it called an 'unprecedented situation for which we do not have a plan'. The number of cases now exceeds 10,000 and the number of fatalities 5,000. In just the last few days we have seen Ebola spread into a sixth West African country, Mali, and a doctor confirmed in New York as the second confirmed case of Ebola in the United States.

The way that we protect Australians from Ebola is not by waiting for it to appear in our region but by fighting it in West Africa, as a public letter earlier this month by 60 Australian health professions made clear:

We are all stakeholders in this epidemic and it is in our urgent national interest to contribute to the response with deployment of skilled personnel.

Let me repeat that point: 'our urgent national interest'. If we wait until Ebola reaches our region, many of our neighbours will find their health systems overwhelmed and, as the World Health Organisation has said, the consequences could be huge.

That is why, for well over a month now, Labor has been arguing that Australia should facilitate sending some of our world-leading health professionals to join the international effort to tackle the Ebola outbreak. Our call has been echoed by the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, the UN Security Council, Medecins Sans Frontieres, the International Crisis Group, the President of Sierra Leone, Oxfam, the Australian Medical Association and the Public Health Association of Australia. And it follows calls from the UK and the US governments. Indeed, six weeks ago the Abbott government co-sponsored a UN Security Council resolution which called on the world:

… to facilitate the delivery of assistance, including qualified, specialized and trained personnel and supplies, in response to the Ebola outbreak …

In fact, the motion that I have moved today uses exactly the words of the UN resolution.

It is unfathomable to me that Australia could recognise the risk, identify the solution, stand with the rest of the world in supporting this and then do so very little. The government has argued that Australia could not join with the international community in sending health personnel and other resources because Africa is too far away. This has always been a red herring. No-one—not Labor, not the AMA, not the aid agencies—has ever suggested that any of our aid workers who fall ill should ever be placed in the circumstances where they would be getting the best medical care by having a 30-hour flight back to Australia. And everyone agrees that, if we do send any Australians into West Africa, we need to ensure that they have access to decent care and treatment should they contract Ebola. What is now clear is that such arrangements can be negotiated when we have a government with the will and commitment to achieving this.

Australia has nothing but the highest regard for our health workers and the officials working to plan Australia's response should Ebola arrive in our region. But the best way for Australia to ensure that this does not happen is to join with our friends and allies in sending expert personnel to contain this outbreak at its source If we do this, we know we can succeed. This is not a hopeless cause. The way we can contain Ebola is well understood and, given adequate resources, it is possible to quickly achieve.

Many of you will have seen the dire warnings from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that, if the Ebola outbreak is not contained, the number of cases could exceed a million by January. But that same report has also forecast that, if the international community quickly tackled the crisis by sending health workers and resources to the region, the Ebola epidemic would be contained by January. I do not think that anyone in this parliament wants to look back in January and think that we could have acted as a country to engage with the international community on what is an unprecedented crisis and that we stood by and did nothing.

Australia is rightly respected for our generous and rapid response to humanitarian crises around the world. It is time we lived up to our reputation and joined our friends and allies in fighting the Ebola crisis in West Africa. It is not only the right thing for Australia to do in the face of such a humanitarian crisis; it is also indisputably in the best interests of Australia that we act. We know we can save lives. We know, that through our efforts internationally and with the international community we can shut the Ebola crisis down in West Africa. It is well past time that the Australian government acted.

Christian Porter (Pearce, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

David Coleman (Banks, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a very important matter and I appreciate the opportunity to contribute to the debate. We have all seen in recent weeks the situation with Ebola in West Africa. The images of the virus that we have seen on our TV screens and elsewhere are heart-rending. The spread of the virus is obviously an issue of the greatest concern. This is an issue that should be beyond politics in this place. It is a humanitarian question and one that we should think of very much in that way. Nobody has a monopoly on caring. We are all very concerned about the spread of Ebola, and certainly the government is very concerned and has acted strongly in this area.

The first area where the government has made a very substantial response is through financial and humanitarian assistance. Indeed, it has contributed some $18 million towards the fight against Ebola, $10 million to the UN Ebola Response Multi-Partner Trust Fund. This was a very large donation to that fund and, in fact, it was the largest of any nation. So much so that the UN Special Envoy on Ebola, Dr David Nabarro, noted that it was exactly the kind of quick and effective response that the UN is asking of member states. We have also contributed $3½ million to the World Health Organization's regional response; $2½ million to the Humanitarian Partnership Agreement to address in a practical way the virus in Africa; and $2 million towards supporting front-line services in Sierra Leone, principally through the agency of the UK. So we have made a very substantial response—swift, without bureaucracy, and getting money to the source where it is most required.

We turn then to the specific medical actions that the government is taking, through the Department of Health and others. Of course, we must ensure that we are well prepared here in Australia for any instance of the Ebola virus. The Secretary of the Department of Health, Martin Bowles, in testifying before a Senate committee last week, said:

From a domestic perspective, the country is well prepared to deal with Ebola. I want to make that very, very clear. States and territories have been training their staff and running exercises in the designated hospitals for a while now.

The Chief Medical Officer is talking regularly across the states, and the general level of preparedness in Australia is high. We are also ready to deploy teams into our region. There are some 20 people, based at the National Critical Care and Trauma Response Centre in Darwin, who are trained to deal with the virus and who are ready to be deployed into our region to provide some of the best medical care in the world, as our people always do, should that be required.

We have the question of West Africa, and it is absolutely incumbent upon the government to ensure the safety of Australian health workers. There is no greater responsibility on the government than that. West Africa is 30 hours from Australia. There are not procedures in place to enable those workers to be safely evacuated with surety, and, understandably, the government is not going to rush into that sort of situation. We cannot forget that we have seen health workers infected. We need to be cautious and ensure their safety whilst working across a suite of areas to help to address the Ebola virus.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is obvious to any sensible health worker and any person that understands the modern world that Australia should be doing more to respond to this Ebola crisis. It is in our urgent national interest that we do so, as the member for Ballarat said in her opening remarks.

A couple of facts about Ebola up front: firstly, the treatment for Ebola is actually to let the body fight the disease. Like a bad case of the flu, it is a case of resting, recuperating and letting the body's immune system fight the disease. Secondly, contracting the disease is not like the flu where it can be transmitted through the air; it would be a case of bodily fluid transmitting the Ebola from one person to the other. So unless you are around and treating a person and you do not have the appropriate protective clothing, there is almost no chance that you would receive this disease.

The world knew about this outbreak at the end of 2013. We knew it was having an impact on Australian government matters as early as March this year. We had a notification that somebody in Africa could not go to an Ebola area to investigate a visa. The government has had plenty of time to prepare an appropriate response. Sadly, the member for Banks touched on the fact that he was a bit surprised that we were not bipartisan on this. Well, the government's response was basically to send cash and do nothing. It is hard to be bipartisan about doing nothing. We expect Australia to step up. We are a middle to large power in the context of the nations of the world and we have a lot of African citizens in Australia who have been lobbying me about this and its impact on their communities. We do need to do more. The simple things we can do, like sending people to Africa who can educate and manage the response to people that are affected by Ebola early rather than later, can be very effective.

Obviously it is distressing for anyone if they are put in a situation where their immune system is unable to successfully fight the disease and they are going to die. Dying in isolation is not something we would wish upon anybody. But obviously letting someone die in their community where the disease can then be spread because of their condition and the treatment of the fluids is problematic. So we do need to educate people.

Interestingly, we have been asked strenuously by many countries including the US and the UK to assist. The US has sent 3,000 military personnel off. The United Kingdom, France, China and even Cuba have sent off people to combat this disease because they understand that it is better to cut it off early rather than later. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said Ebola could reach as many as 1.4 million people by early 2015. We need to work now. We need to send our skilled personnel that can work in logistics and, obviously, health professionals as well. The World Health Organization said it wants 50 Ebola treatment centres so that the disease can be contained.

Sadly, those opposite, the government, have taken the same approach to Ebola as they have to climate change—like direct action but it is neither direct nor involving acting. They are basically saying, 'We do not have to worry about it; it is not going to affect us at all.' The reality is: waiting for it to be on our borders will be way too late. The member for Banks said that nobody has a monopoly on caring. But he needs to understand that caring involves doing. The dollars committed are a good start but we have expertise in managing hospitals and responses to diseases. Training can be given to any normal GP or nurse to have them ready and able to combat disease in Africa rather than waiting to treat it on our borders with Papua New Guinea or Indonesia or somewhere else in Asia when it comes close, especially in these days of international travel.

We saw in Senate estimates that we are not quite ready to fight Ebola on our borders and that is why we should be going to the source of this disease and doing what we can. We have people ready, willing and all but able—with a little bit of training—to combat this disease and I would hope that the Prime Minister would be facilitating that. (Time expired)

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

Obviously the response to Ebola is a worldwide concern. But is it only me noticing the rank hypocrisy of turning this into a party political issue? There is virtually general agreement about the management of international infectious disease. There is good advice coming from the highest levels of the Chief Medical Officer and associated organisations that advise health, immigration and foreign affairs. To second-guess them politically is, I think, brash enough but to come with a fairly pathetic excuse that we are treating this like climate change is patently ridiculous.

Obviously there are a couple of ways that developed economies can assist and the first one is financial. There is an Ebola multi-partner trust fund where all of that resource is completely directed towards the response in the three countries of Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone. That there is not an enormous amount of either physical or cultural connection between Australia and these three nations is best exemplified by the fact that there are only probably about 20 people Australian citizens in those three countries delivering services at the moment, so it is quite a manageable number.

Of greater concern to me and to Australians would be the level of awareness, surveillance and early intervention that is currently in place. I note that at the moment travel to those three countries is under a 'reconsider your need to travel' status from DFAT but, increasingly, I think we would have to agree, we are moving to the point very soon of recommending a 'do not travel' status to these three countries.

It is also self-evident that Australia will play an important resource role in supporting larger and more proximate economies to West Africa. For anybody here who has worked in a developing economy, the last thing you want is every country running around with their own little operation. The last thing we want is someone there spray painting a gold kangaroo on bags of rice and medical equipment and saying, 'That is the Australian tent over there.' No, no, no, in this era of donor coordination, what we need is a multi-partner trust fund and a series of WHO sanctioned activities that are completely coordinated. It is not helped by having the national emblem spray painted all over medical gear and making sure that everyone knows what Australia is doing. I know it is parochial. It is very tempting, but in the end we do no better than to give our most gifted, talented, capable and trained medical and public health professionals to the WHO and to associated entities and organisations, either bilaterally through national agreements or directly to NGOs, and have them work within an existing structure.

I do not need to teach anyone geography. We are a long way away from western Africa. That is not an excuse not to help. But what we do have to do is work in partnership with large, capable organisations that have the evacuation routes in place and understand how things work on the ground. If an Australian team were sent over to these three countries, they would be flat out working out their way from the airport to the CBD. They are not countries Australia is closely connected to. We can send highly skilled individuals. We can embed them in teams and they would work under the conditions of these organisations. No-one would disagree with that. We have donated, at the moment, around $18 million. That has gone to support UK efforts; that is appropriate. Other European countries that have direct, cultural, historical links to those countries need all the help—and they will get all the help—that they request. We have front-line services being delivered through NGOs. That is appropriate as well.

I want to make the observation that we still have an arrangement that, when you land in this country having flown in from overseas, you are ticking boxes saying whether you have been to South America and whether you have been to rural areas, but we are still not identifying pre-emptively people who have been to these at-risk areas. Ebola is not highly infectious, despite what everyone is saying. It has a fairly high mortality rate. It is usually only spread through fairly intimate and direct contract. Knowing that, we do have a chance to intercept early potential cases where symptoms may not appear for between two days and three weeks. In that intervening period the last thing I expect is to be, in a commercial aviation service, sitting in the seat next to someone who is potentially at risk of Ebola. That is not good enough. They should not be getting on aeroplanes unless we know where they have been. They should not be landing in this country unless we know where they have been. It needs to be mandatorily identified before they take international travel. That is not to cause hysteria; that is to make sure that we treat people appropriately on the ground when they arrive.

I concede you can travel to these countries, not contract symptoms and not need to activate the public health system, but being forewarned is forearmed. I predict that the next move will be closer surveillance of people moving into this area, recommending that they do not go unless they are with organised groups—through WHO and other bilaterals or other NGOs—and lastly that they cannot get onto an commercial aviation service leaving another country for our shores without us first knowing their exposure and their travel.

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Infrastructure) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To the member for Bowman, who in his contribution made some passing criticism of Labor members for bringing this issue into the parliament and criticising the inaction of the government, I merely recite words of the great John Curtin, who in his time as Leader of the Opposition offered bipartisan support to the then government on the issue of national security but warned that this did not negate his obligation for patriotic criticism. In this respect, we all know that the clock is ticking and the government is not doing all that it ought be doing in relation to this international crisis.

The number of Ebola cases exceeded 10,000 this week and the number of dead—a mortality rate of about 50 per cent—has exceeded 4,900. Statistics like this have moved the UN Secretary-General, Mr Ban Ki-moon, to describe it as 'a humanitarian crisis of unprecedented proportions'. The UN Security Council has deemed that this is indeed 'a threat to international peace and security', and the US Centre for Disease Control has said:

Without additional interventions or changes in community behaviour, CDC estimates that by January 20, 2015, there could be up to 1.4 million infections.

At a mortality rate of about 50 per cent, we are looking at well in excess of 750,000 people dying between now and the end of January next year. The Secretary General of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies has said that the outbreak could be contained within four to six months if the right steps were followed. It is these steps that the member for Ballarat's motion addresses. We think that with Australia playing a part alongside other countries we can be a part of the response that is needed to stem the spread of the EVD.

The US Ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power, has said that the international response to Ebola needs to be taken to a wholly different scale than it is right now. That is a message that needs to be directed at our Minister for Health, our Prime Minister, along with all of the other countries who are not doing enough. We know that China is sending medical personnel; the UK, military, logistical and medical personnel; the US, several thousand medical personnel and military personnel; the EU are sending mobile labs; Israel is sending a team of doctors; the African Union, obviously closest to home, is sending over 1,000 health workers; and Cuba is sending over 250 medical personnel. Regrettably, Australia is not on the list and we on this side of the House believe we should be.

It is simply not true, as the minister has attempted to say, that for us to be sending health workers into West Africa to confront the spread of this virus is somehow reckless or antipatriotic. Nothing could be further from the truth. We know that, as we speak, there are already Australian health workers on the ground working for volunteer and international aid agencies. What is needed is greater coordination and a greater role for the government. The government enjoys our bipartisan support for the $18 million of funds which have been contributed to the international effort, but we know that this is absolutely not enough. We would simply say to the minister, who as early as this morning was on ABC radio dreaming up even more and fantastic ways to demonise or criticise the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the shadow minister for health: instead of expending your mental energy on these sorts of public insults, direct that to the problems that are before us. It is not reckless or hysterical to be saying a great nation like Australia can be doing more and should be doing more. It is rational and it is humanitarian. The Australian volunteers who are already over there doing their bit to fight this terrible disease enjoy our support. They are not reckless or hysterical, nor are we on this side of the House in saying that we can do more. We can coordinate the voluntary efforts and we can do more in respect of our government efforts as well. I support the motion.

Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no question that the Australian government shares the international community's concerns about the outbreak of Ebola in West Africa. We further recognise and laud the courage and selflessness of our first-line responders from non-government organisations such as Medecins Sans Frontieres and the Red Cross. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a greater personal commitment.

The Australian government takes the outbreak of Ebola and its impact on the people of West Africa extremely seriously. That is why Australia responded so quickly when asked by the UN to make a financial contribution as a matter of urgency. Indeed, our quick response with $10 million immediately made available was lauded by the UN as exemplary. In total, we have already committed $18 million in response to the Ebola crisis. This consists of a figure of $8 million to front-line services and the aforementioned $10 million to the UN Ebola Response Multi-Partner Trust Fund. This is in addition to the $40 million that the Australian government has already contributed to the World Health Organization.

The government, though, is not stopping there. We are examining other ways to contribute, including investigation and actions to equip military aircraft for medical evacuations. However, regrettably, we cannot at this time facilitate the delivery of specialised personnel as we do not have the means to evacuate our citizens. We cannot fly the distances to execute an extraction of Australian personnel, and as yet we have been unable to secure guarantees that our personnel would be extracted and treated by others in the event of becoming infected.

The responsibility of a government is first and foremost to protect its citizens. This means that we need a real and credible evacuation plan in place before our doctors and nurses are sent overseas by our government to help with the crisis. This is the only responsible decision. Those opposite would have us send our own citizens into West Africa into real danger, without the logistical backups that those personnel should responsibly insist upon.

Let us be clear: the flight from West Africa to Australia is so long that it actually would put the Ebola victim at serious risk and it is extremely difficult to secure a stopover when you are carrying an infectious patient. This makes a flight back to Australia very unsafe and simply unfeasible. In addition to this barrier, there are in existence only a very small number of aircraft that are actually equipped to support a patient with Ebola and we do not as yet have access to such extraction capabilities.

We, as a government, are still working hard on negotiating with other countries for them to fly Australian citizens to their respective countries for treatment or to be able to use their treatment services on the ground. We are talking with both Great Britain and the United States. We have also set up a committee with representatives from the Department of Health, Defence and DFAT to examine feasible possibilities for assistance. So far, though, we have been unable to secure agreement. We are, though, ready and capable of acting within our region should the crisis come to our region.

There are 20 people who are trained and ready for deployment from the National Critical Care and Trauma Response Centre in Darwin—four doctors and 16 nurses ready and able to be deployed. This is critical for our region and critical for our preparedness. We are also, of course, making sure that we have the appropriate arrangements in place when people come into Australia to make sure that they are appropriately quarantined if they have been exposed to this virus. So pragmatically and responsibly, Australia must now act in concert with established organisations such as the Red Cross and Medecins Sans Frontieres. There are currently 20 to 30 of our own citizens on the ground with such organisations and we commend their efforts and applaud their courage.

Let me reiterate: Australian health workers cannot be put at risk without a credible treatment and evacuation action plan. Military and health advisers have both said that the best form of assistance Australia can give at this point is financial. So we have done so. We agree Ebola is an international safety and security risk. However, we cannot and we will not, as this motion might encourage us, send Australians into harm's way without an appropriate safety net. We will always take the right choices in the best interests of our nation and our nation's citizens. We will be responsible in those choices. We will not politicise this issue as those opposite have tried to do. This issue is too important to score political points and I urge those opposite to be responsible, given the briefings they have received.

Matt Thistlethwaite (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Ebola outbreak in West Africa is a looming humanitarian disaster. The World Health Organization declared overnight that the number of cases of Ebola has risen to 10,141, with the death toll reaching 4,992. Eight countries have been hit by the virus since its outbreak in December last year and some predict that the number of Ebola cases will reach 1.4 million by 2015.

About three weeks ago, Catherine King, the shadow spokesperson for Labor on health, and I met with representatives of Medecins Sans Frontieres here in Canberra. We met with a couple of nurses who have been working in West Africa, Australians who have been volunteering their time to help out with this looming disaster. They described the Ebola outbreak and what they saw, and the people whom they treated, as a tsunami that comes every day. Hundreds of people turn up to the clinics in the mornings with symptoms of Ebola, only to be turned away from the clinics by health officials. These health officials expressed their disappointment and heartbreak at having to turn people away who come with the symptoms simply because there are not enough specialist medical staff and treatment facilities on the ground to deal with the numbers coming every day. That is why Ebola is spreading. That is why we are facing 1.4 million people being infected by 2015, with enormous ramifications for the rest of the world if it gets outside Africa and, in particular, for the world economy. The world economy would grind to a halt if Ebola got to places like China or South-East Asia where population densities are so high. That is why Australia needs to be doing more.

Labor has supported the Abbott government's $18 million contribution but money alone is not enough. Experts say very clearly that experienced personnel are needed on the ground, too. The United Nations Security Council passed a resolution on 18 September 2014, which calls on all nations to:

... Facilitate the delivery of assistance, including qualified, specialised and trained personnel and supplies, in response to the Ebola outbreak will.

Australia co-sponsored that resolution. We were the ones who put the resolution to the United Nations Security Council but we have gone on to completely ignore the call for more resources on the ground. You can picture this resolution going through the United Nations Security Council and then the UN official saying, 'We have passed the resolution. Let's sit down and talk about what we can do to meet this resolution, the resolution which was co-sponsored by Australia.' And then you see Australia tippy toeing out of the room, trying to hide from the fact that we have a responsibility to act.

The International Monetary Fund, the President of the United States and the President of Sierra Leone have called on Australia to do more. The President of Sierra Leone said this month in a letter to our Prime Minister, Tony Abbott:

While we are doing everything possible to stop the outbreak, further support is urgently needed from your friendly government to scale up our national response with ... education efforts, as well as infection control measures.

That response from the precedent of Sierra Leone is really a desperate plea for assistance from the Australian government. The Public Health Association of Australia has called for Australia to do more, as has the Australian Medical Association and Medecins Sans Frontieres. Even Greg Sheridan, the foreign editor of The Australian has said:

... I do really think the government has not done enough here.

When Greg Sheridan is on the back of the government, you know something is wrong. Australia needs to be doing more. We have expert AUSMAT medical teams which are trained and specialise in infection control. They can be deployed quickly. In respect of the evacuation plan issue, I find it a convenient excuse on behalf of the government. No-one is suggesting that we would ever put Australians at risk but at the same time I cannot accept that the United Kingdom or the USA would reject a plea from Australia for one of medical our staff to be treated in their facilities.

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As this lamentable motion points out, there is no doubt that the Ebola virus does pose a grave threat to the health and security of the nations in West Africa and the wider world. From the government's perspective, in dealing with this matter we have three main objectives: firstly, to ensure we are prepared to deal with any Ebola threat in Australia; secondly, that we are prepared to deal with any threat in our sphere of influence in the region; and thirdly, to assist in the global effort to combat the virus. We are fortunate that the chances of an Ebola outbreak in Australia are low. Indeed, as Australia's Chief Medical Officer, Professor Chris Baggoley, pointed out, there is no epidemic threat to Australia and that our border procedures are sufficient enough to deal with any possible threat. The chief medical officers from around the country have also recently met with the health minister and discussed the importance of ensuring our hospital system is well prepared to receive any Ebola patients should the need arise.

From an international perspective of course, the most important fact is that we ensure we are ready to deal with any threat in our region. In this respect, the government has confirmed that a team of 20 health workers, as mentioned earlier by my colleagues, are available to be dispatched from Australia as an immediate response to our regional neighbours, should there be an outbreak. In terms of the broader international effort to combat Ebola, the best and most effective way that Australia can contribute to the response this time is by doing our bit to fund international organisations and frontline health services.

To date, we have contributed $18 million, which includes $10 million to the UN Ebola Response Multi-Partner Trust Fund, $3.5 million to the World Health Organisation's consolidated regional response; $2.5 million for frontline health services through NGOs such as Caritas, World Vision, Plan International Australia and Save the Children; and an additional $2 million to support the UK's delivery of front-line medical services in Sierra Leone. This is, of course, in addition to the $40 million already provided to the World Health Organisation over the past 12 months. Let me remind members opposite who glibly get up to the dispatch box and say we are not doing enough that the UN Special Envoy on Ebola, Dr David Nabarro, praised the Australian government's additional contribution of $10 million, stating that, 'It was exactly the kind of quick and effective response the UN is asking of members states.'

World Vision CEO, Tim Costello, has also acknowledged the government for the grant made to his organisation who have been doing such wonderful work on the ground. It is therefore disappointing and quite frankly frustration to see Labor trying to point score on this humanitarian issue. This has been most starkly highlighted by the final and most substantial part of this motion—that is, that Australia should send health workers to West Africa at this time. As has been outlined by the Prime Minister, we are of considering requests to send Australian health workers to West Africa, but we will only accept such a request if we can guarantee the safety of our workers. Unlike the irresponsible approach of the Labor Party we will never order Australian personnel to travel to West Africa, potentially being exposed to Ebola, without an iron clad ability to provide world-class medical, treatment for those who would be sent. It is not good enough to stand at the dispatch box and say, 'I'm pretty sure the UK or the US would treat an Australian health worker,' as the member for Kingsford Smith glibly said. No. The government will send Australian workers to West Africa only if we can absolutely guarantee them and their families that, if they were to contract Ebola, we have either appropriate on-the-ground medical treatment for them and in, the absence of that, an ability to evacuate them to a place where they can get world-class medical treatment.

The Labor Party have absolutely no answers for that, so to get up at the dispatch box and argue for this ridiculous motion, saying we should send Australian health workers into harm's way in West Africa, is an absolute outrage. (Time expired)

Debate adjourned.