Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Manufacturing) Share this | Hansard source

The Social Services Legislation Amendment (No Jab, No Pay) Bill 2015 adds to previous reforms which have linked immunisation to the family tax benefit end-of-year supplement payments. This legislation takes that measure even further and ties immunisation to child-care benefits, child-care rebates and the family tax benefit part A supplement, which I referred to a moment ago. I understand that the changes will commence on 1 January 2016.

Before I get into my general comments about the legislation and for the benefit of anyone listening, I want to say, as other speakers have made clear, there are exemptions to this legislation where it ties receiving government assistance to having children immunised to what we call Australian standards. The exemptions tying immunisation to those payments—whether they are child-care benefits, child care rebates or family tax benefits—are based on the child or the family having a valid medical reason for why the child should be exempt from being vaccinated. That valid medical reason might be that it will have ill effects on the child or it is contraindicated by the doctor. Clearly, it has to be a decision made by the family doctor. There is also an exemption if the child has a natural immunity to the particular disease. The child might have contracted the disease at an earlier stage in life and developed a natural immunity to it. Alternatively, if the child has come from overseas and has had an equivalent vaccination in an overseas country then, again, that child would be exempt from the measures in this legislation. I also note that there is a temporary exemption for a child who might be part of a medical study of some sort—it has to be an approved study—or if the vaccination is temporarily unavailable. Those exemptions are also only temporary.

I also note, as the previous speaker, the member for Shortland, did a moment ago, that in future the vaccination requirements will apply to children of all ages, whereas currently my understanding is that a vaccination status is only checked at ages one, two or five years with respect to its application to the family tax benefit part A supplement, which I referred to at the beginning of my comments, and up to age seven for children receiving child-care payments. I believe that applying the age extension right through does have some merit. If you are going to apply policy then I am not quite sure why it would be limited to those age groups in the first place.

Australia has a long and strong record of publicly funding immunisation programs. Indeed, almost for as long as I can remember there have been government funded immunisation programs available. In my own state of South Australia, in addition to the family doctor being able to provide the immunisation required, there were also what we referred to as mothers and babies centres where a nurse would come along and similarly provide the service. Local councils also provided immunisation services in many parts of South Australia. Indeed, there was a debate between local government and the federal government some years ago about the amount of money that was being reimbursed to the local councils for providing that very service. However, it was generally accepted that immunisation was part and parcel of Australian life. Just about all families immunised their children and very few people ever questioned it. In more recent years, I understand that Medicare Locals assumed much of the responsibility for ensuring that immunisation programs were carried out throughout the community. Since the closure of Medicare Locals, I understand that responsibility has been passed on to the Primary Health Networks.

The value of immunisation has and will continue to raise questions and lead to differences of opinion in the community. I suspect that has become the case more so in recent years than it was in years gone by. I have been contacted by several people in my electorate about this legislation. These people oppose the legislation and they wanted to speak to me about it. I have met with some of them. I have also read all of the material that has been sent to me on i I make it clear that I do not dismiss the concerns that those people have raised with me. Similarly, I do not dismiss the concerns, which I consider to be very often valid, with respect to the health effects that occur from a whole range of prescription drugs and agricultural chemicals that are used throughout our country. I accept that all drugs and chemicals will have adverse consequences and that there will be individual examples which provide living proof of the risks and the consequences.

I suspect that, for a whole range of reasons—more people in the world, more drugs being used, perhaps more pollution everywhere, and changes in our diet and air quality—there are all sorts of ailments and illnesses that are occurring and that are perhaps compounded by some of the chemicals and drugs that are already on the market. Indeed, I have a constituent who has become a tireless campaigner against drug companies not disclosing all of the information that they have about drugs before releasing them and putting them onto the market. I believe that her campaign has a lot of merit, particularly given that she has been permanently affected by a drug that was prescribed to her several years ago. She will most likely never entirely overcome the effects of that drug. Her claim is that the manufacturers of that drug were aware of the particular side effect that she suffered but yet did not make that information available to the public at the time. I suspect that with all drugs trials there is information that is not necessarily released at the time it should be. So, again, I do not dispute what people are saying to me about the risks when it comes to any form of medication. This is in respect of real people that I talk to and affects their lives in ways that are clearly apparent to me. I, therefore, do not deny or dispute what it is that they are saying.

I am sure that other MPs have had similar representations made to them about this legislation. Again, it is a matter that, quite rightly, ought to be debated in this place. Can I say to those people that make the representations to me: it seems to me that the real argument and the real debate should be taking place within the medical industry and that the real convincing needs to take place within that sector and the pharmaceutical sector, because that is where the real experts are, that is where all the testing is done, and that is where the people with the most experience do their work each and every day.

Governments also have a responsibility to make decisions for the greater good of society. In fact, I struggle to identify any legislation—be it medical or otherwise—that serves everyone's needs and does not create an unfair or unnecessary burden on some people somewhere in the community. I am equally conscious of the rights of children to participate in all forms of community activities and community events—such as kindergartens, schools, sports activities, childcare centres or wherever—in the knowledge that they will feel absolutely safe and be at no risk of being infected by someone else that participates in the same activity. It is noteworthy that the parties who are most affected by this legislation—that is, the children—do not get a say in it. There might be good reason for that, but the reality is that they do not get a say in it. They rely on the good judgement of their parents and of governments to do the right thing by them. They, too, have a right to grow and live healthily and be able to fully participate in society. We, as parliamentarians, have a responsibility to ensure that we protect them in the best way that we can. I am sure that governments—with respect to this kind of legislation—rely on the advice provided by the medical fraternity when it comes to what is in the best interest of a child's health. I am sure that—in respect of the immunisation programs that we have conducted in this country for decades, as well as those that are being conducted around the world—that is the underlying premise on which that immunisation is carried out.

This morning I attended a briefing on the global fight against polio. I notice that the member for Shortland and the member for Sydney both referred to polio. The briefing, in my view, brings context to this very legislation. If I can just quote some of the statistics that were provided to us this morning: in 1988, when the global polio eradication initiative commenced, some 350,000 people a year were affected by polio; by 2013, the number of cases had reduced to 416; by 2015, it had reduced to 359; and to the end of September of this year, there were just 44 cases, and only in two countries. There were only two countries this year where polio was detected. I commend all of the people who were involved in the global polio initiative, because quite frankly to see its effects on a young person really is disheartening, I also take this opportunity to commend Rotary International for the work that they have done for years and years as part of the polio eradication program and for the support that they have provided to that program.

Along with polio, other diseases or illnesses like smallpox, yellow fever, measles, diphtheria, mumps, rubella, tetanus and so on have also been either entirely eradicated or nearly eradicated. Certainly, the world has changed markedly from the years when those diseases were feared by community members around the world. I have no doubt that that is because of the vaccination programs and the vaccines that have been developed over those years. Yes, there might be other factors—and better education also helps in eliminating many diseases, as does having better water and food supplies—but I have no doubt that vaccination was at the heart of eliminating or reducing those diseases around the world.

My understanding is that presently over 90 per cent of all Australian children are immunised in accordance with Australian government recommendations and that only about two per cent of the parents do not comply, because of concerns that they have about immunisation or, perhaps, because of their religious beliefs.

The remaining four or five per cent of parents—and, again, I noticed that the member for Shortland touched on this point, and I commend her for doing so—do not have their children fully immunised because, primarily, they do not have access to immunisation programs. I can think of many reasons why that could be the case, and so I accept that that is a reality. It would, therefore, seem that, if we want to make an even greater difference to the health of our children, the focus should be on that four or five per cent rather than on the two per cent and that the emphasis of our efforts and government efforts should be on trying to overcome the barriers that are stopping that four or five per cent I refer to from having their children immunised. Nevertheless, even with the two per cent, I go back to the comments that I made earlier: in my view, every child has the right to be protected in the way that the government thinks it is providing the best possible protection and, quite frankly, in the way the parents think they are providing the best possible protection for their children.

This legislation imposes a financial penalty on parents who choose not to have their children vaccinated. That is the bottom line to it. Parents can of course still choose not to have their children vaccinated and wear the penalty. That is a choice the parents can still make. It might be an unfair choice, but it is still a choice they can make. Time will tell whether this legislation will have the desired outcomes or not. I will certainly watch with interest what happens in the years ahead.

See this speech in context