Mark Butler (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House of Representatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister keeps describing Australians who've only received a first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine as 'vaccinated'. Given the Prime Minister knows full well that these vaccines require two doses, why does he continue to use such misleading language about such a serious public health issue?

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Members on my left! The Prime Minister will pause. A question has been asked. It is ridiculous that people behind the questioner start yelling out what the answer should be. I'm not going to warn anyone again. I'm now issuing a general warning. Your behaviour is appalling.

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the member would know, whether on a first dose or the completion of two doses, one of the great attractions of the AstraZeneca vaccine is the medical evidence that a significant level of protection against serious disease is afforded by that first dose. So to suggest that someone who has only received a first dose is not afforded any protection from that vaccine would be misleading. That would be misleading, and I think the member is being misleading by putting it in that way. But I will ask the minister for health to add further.

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am respectfully but deeply concerned by the implications of the shadow minister, implying that a first dose does not provide significant and fundamental protection. That is the case around the world. As members may know, one of the fundamental decisions which the United Kingdom made was to stretch out the second doses in order to ensure that as many people as possible received a first dose at the earliest possible time. They settled on a 12-week difference between first and second doses, on the basis that the medical advice was that it would provide the maximum protection to the maximum number of people at the earliest possible time. This has been a global strategy, but it was reaffirmed in the advice of the Therapeutic Goods Administration in their decision to recommend a 12-week differential, which serves two purposes. It is deemed to be the optimal period of time at which the doses should be given, but it also serves the purpose of ensuring that as many people as possible, as early as possible, are vaccinated with the vaccine.

I understand that on many occasions the opposition have done their best to assist the vaccine rollout. But this particular question, I have to say, must be a source of deep disappointment to many, because it is implying that there is inadequate protection, it is implying that a first vaccine does not work and it is implying that a dosing strategy based on medical advice is not the appropriate thing to do. There are many things that the opposition has done to assist, of which they should be proud, but this is not one of those moments.