Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I will commence my contribution to the debate on the National Health Amendment (Immunisation) Bill 2006 with some comments on Q fever, following the remarks made by the member for Riverina. I was going to discuss Q fever as part of my contribution to this debate, but I think it is important that, given the comments previously made, I continue on and discuss Q fever. As I am sure all members know, Q fever is a bacterial infection which has similar symptoms to the flu, but its long-term effects can be a lot longer lasting. It can damage the liver, heart and bones.

The people who are at risk are people who work with cattle, sheep, goats and wild animals. We are faced with a shortage of Q fever vaccine. Prior to 2006, CSL manufactured a sufficient quantity of Q fever vaccine based on the historical uses. The vaccine was funded under a government program. This program will come to an end in most states and is only scheduled to continue in Queensland, Victoria and South Australia.

It was thought at the end of 2005 by the Howard government that there would no longer be a need to fund the vaccine for Q fever. I am pleased that the government has realised the error it made and is covering Q fever in the bill that we are debating today, but I think it is very important to put on the record that the shortage of the vaccine for Q fever has occurred purely and simply because of the government’s ineptitude and the fact that it was trying to save money—cost cutting—and, as such, decided that the vaccine would not continue to be produced.

I think most honourable members of this House and people in the community who have had any contact with a person that has suffered from Q fever would know of the devastating impact of the illness and how it creates quite serious symptoms that incapacitate the person that has it. This bill contains a minor administrative amendment to preserve the current funding arrangements between the Commonwealth and the states and territories with respect to the continuation of activities in the light of shortages of the Q fever vaccine, as I have just discussed, and distribution arrangements for the national immunisation program. The purpose of the bill is to amend the National Health Act 1953 to ‘allow the provision of goods and services that are associated with, or incidental to, the provision or administration of designated vaccines’. These goods and services ‘could not be provided under the act following amendments to the act made by the National Health Amendment (Immunisation Program) Act 2005’.

The amendments made by the act were enacted to change the way in which vaccines were listed under the national immunisation program as announced in the 2005-06 budget—and I will be talking a little bit more about that. The amendments made by that act did not give the minister the power to continue the current arrangements with the states and territories as to assistance in procuring goods and services related to vaccine provision—for example, vaccine storage and delivery. The amendments also prevented the government from providing funding under the act for essential pre- or postvaccine requirements under the current arrangements, and the example that I just gave related to prevaccination screening tests for Q fever. The effect of the principal amendment in this bill will allow the minister to make arrangements to provide goods and services which are essential for the provision and designation of vaccines. The bill will have no financial impact.

It would be appropriate to refer to immunisation per se in relation to this bill. Australia has some of the highest immunisation rates in the world. The state that has the highest rate of immunisation of children between the ages of 12 and 15 months is Tasmania, where 93.8 per cent of these children are fully immunised. Since the introduction of childhood vaccinations for diphtheria—in 1932—and the widespread use of vaccines to prevent tetanus and whooping cough and poliomyelitis—in 1950—and measles, mumps and rubella—in the 1960s—the number of deaths in Australia from preventable disease has declined by 99 per cent. That is an incredible figure given that in that period of time the Australian population has increased by 2.8 per cent. There has been an absolute association between vaccination and the decline of these diseases. Diphtheria, whooping cough and tetanus vaccinations have saved a total of 70,000 lives and prevented untold life-threatening symptoms or ongoing morbidity. Poliomyelitis and measles vaccinations have prevented a further 8,000 deaths. Poliomyelitis was still common when I was young. In fact, my paternal grandfather had poliomyelitis. He was quite debilitated by it. He had a number of the problems associated with having suffered from poliomyelitis and he died at what I consider to be a relatively young age. Since that time we have learnt that there is a postpoliomyelitis syndrome. If what is now known was known then maybe he could have been treated differently.

I am examining a very interesting graph. In 1932 the school based diphtheria vaccination program commenced. At the time there were over 1,000 deaths per year. After that program commenced there was a dramatic decline—and remember that the coverage of that vaccination program would be nowhere near the level of coverage of the program that we have in Australia today. In 1939 tetanus vaccination was introduced. Once again, there was a decline in the number of deaths of children suffering from this preventable disease. It fell to around the 500 mark. Vaccination against whooping cough or the pertussis virus was introduced in 1942. Poliomyelitis vaccination was introduced in 1955. In 1970 measles vaccination became widely available. All these vaccination programs have had an enormous impact on mortality and morbidity in Australia, particularly amongst infants. No matter what political party has been in power in Australia, we have had a very strong government commitment to vaccination and research into new vaccines. So I think that governments of all persuasions, both Commonwealth and state, have been very committed to vaccination programs and to ridding our society and nation of these diseases.

In 2005 we supported the government’s new vaccine policy, but we did have some concerns at that time. The concerns related to the expanded role of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee and their expertise in evaluating vaccines that were to be funded under the National Immunisation Program. That evaluation had previously been performed by the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation, ATAGI. At the time, we on this side of the House were most concerned that that function was being taken away from the body that had the expertise, the knowledge and the experience in evaluating which vaccines should and should not be listed. That role was taken away from ATAGI purely and simply because it had recommended that the government fund the meningococcal vaccination. It was pure payback. I do not believe that the government should act in such a way. It should really look at which is the best possible body to decide what should and should not be listed.

On this side of the parliament we have been very committed to funding new research into vaccines—new research that will immediately impact on those diseases that we believe can and should be prevented. While I am talking about that, I have to take to task the government for their decision in 2003 when they refused to consider the recommendation that they fully fund the meningococcal, chickenpox and injectable polio vaccinations. I think that that was a missed opportunity. The Minister for Health and Ageing dug his toes in and said that he would do nothing. It took the Labor opposition in May 2004 to announce a commitment to fully fund these vaccines for the minister to be shamed into announcing funding for the meningococcal vaccine. All members in this parliament will know the level of fear that exists in the community about meningococcal, and they will know that parents were depending on the government to announce the funding of this vaccine. It is being funded now and I believe that that is a very positive outcome. I think it also demonstrates very aptly how an opposition can position a government to change its policy. I am quite sure that without the opposition’s input into that issue the vaccine today would not be funded and all those young children would not be receiving the vaccine.

I referred a moment ago to the government’s reaction to the recommendation by the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation, ATAGI, that the government fund this vaccine. The government chose to ignore that recommendation. ATAGI are independent experts on immunisation, as I have already highlighted. I believe as a direct result of ATAGI’s recommendation, and of the government being so reluctant to fund it, the minister, in a bloody-minded action, decided to transfer many of ATAGI’s functions to the PBAC. I suppose that is fair warning to any government agency or anyone who is giving advice to the Howard government. If you give independent advice you are in danger of being punished—payback. ATAGI gave independent advice to the health minister and they suffered the consequences of his bloody-mindedness.

The vaccine manufacturers are a little bit concerned about some of the changes that are taking place, but I would like to put on record my strong support for the new vaccine against cervical cancer. I think it is imperative that the vaccine routinely be given to young women. I think it is a very important health issue and that a member’s or a minister’s personal beliefs should not influence decisions in relation to the overall good—the overall health needs—of a community. This is one vaccine that has the potential to make an enormous impact on the health of young women in this country, and older women because of its flow-through effect.

I will conclude where I started—that is, by saying that this bill makes only minor administrative amendments and will preserve the current funding arrangements between Commonwealth, state and territory governments. I would like to conclude with a very strong supportive statement for our national immunisation program. I commend all governments since 1932 for the development and implementation of vaccines, which has changed the face of our society. We have a society in which disability relating to certain childhood diseases and deaths from those diseases are no longer apparent in our community. Vaccination programs are the best form of medication that Australians can have. Prevention beats cure any day.

See this speech in context