Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Further 2008 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2008. The memorandum was circulated in the chamber earlier today.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to make some short comments in relation to the issue of vaccination. I know we will be dealing with the more contentious parts of this legislation in relation to veterans entitlements later. On the issue of vaccination, I think it needs to be said that, whilst there is an obvious and clear public benefit from and compelling public health reasons for vaccination, it is also clear that there are some instances—and I emphasise that they are rare—where individuals have sustained an injury as a result of vaccination.

I think we ought to consider what occurs in some other jurisdictions, particularly in Quebec in Canada, where a child injured through vaccination is able to obtain compensation through a no-fault scheme. You need to show a causal link between the vaccination and the injury, and it must be grave and permanent mental or physical damage caused by any vaccine to a child or an adult. This scheme arose after the Lapierre case in Quebec and in response to the general failure of the tort system to compensate victims of immunisation. That was enacted in 1985 in Quebec. This needs to be considered and I think it is inevitable that it will eventually need to be considered in this country. There is an overwhelming public benefit from vaccinations, but I think we may be able to learn from the experiences in Canada, particularly in Quebec, with respect to their compensation system in the very rare cases where there has been an injury that is linked to vaccination.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move government amendments (1) to (7) together:

(1)    Clause 2, page 2 (table item 6), omit “1 January 2009” (wherever occurring), substitute “1 July 2009”.

(2)    Clause 2, page 2 (table item 7), omit the table item.

(3)    Schedule 2, heading to Part 2, page 18 (lines 2 and 3), omit “1 January 2009”, substitute “1 July 2009”.

(4)    Schedule 2, item 5, page 18 (lines 9 to 18), omit subsection 38(2AA).

(5)    Schedule 2, item 5, page 18 (lines 23 to 26), omit subsection 38(2AC), substitute:

  (2AC)    A person’s eligibility under paragraph (1)(b) or (g) does not cease under subsection (2AB) if:

             (a)    the person has reached pension age; or

             (b)    the circumstances specified under subsection (2AD) exist in relation to the person.

Note:   For pension age see section 5Q.

  (2AD)    The Commission may, by legislative instrument, specify circumstances for the purposes of paragraph (2AC)(b).

(6)    Schedule 2, item 6, page 18 (line 28), omit “, (2AA)”.

(7)    Schedule 2, item 7, page 19 (lines 9 and 10), omit “if the person has reached pension age”, substitute “in certain circumstances”.

Essentially, these first seven amendments, and also amendment (8), are putting into effect the amendments I outlined in the summing-up speech of the second reading debate. I think they are well understood by everyone in the chamber and I commend them to the chamber.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the minister has indicated, the reasons for these amendments are well known. We have certainly had a suite of submissions from stakeholders in this area, and I am quite sure there is not a member of parliament in this place or that other place who has not received some very passionate and well thought out submissions effectively criticising the government’s initial position. As I said, in this place I always commend good work, and I have to congratulate the government on coming to their new position. I do not think it is a situation of too little too late. But this is of course what happens when you have a bit of policy on the run: you send out the razor gang and you say, ‘Who’s next?’ and everybody has their little area that they have got to have a cut out of. But veterans’ affairs is a very sophisticated matter. You cannot just make an arbitrary decision to cut a particular area without having a very clear understanding of the consequences of those issues. Consultations with stakeholders are a pretty good start but clearly, judging by the outcome from the government, that was obviously not something that was extended to a large degree.

I have a number of questions with regard to the government exemptions provided in proposed sections 38(2AB) and 38(2AD). Would the minister be able to tell me approximately how many people will not actually be caught by the exemptions? In other words, how many people do you think will still now move to Newstart?

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand that 87 people will be exempted in the first year. I do not know that that particularly answers your question.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Eighty-seven?

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Eighty-seven will be exempt in the first year.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to get that clear: out of the total number of those people who would have originally been forced onto Newstart—and now that the government have brought amendments forward—we only have 87 who will remain on their existing circumstances rather than being moved onto Newstart? That was the answer I was looking for. I just want to make sure that that is right.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In answer to your question, that does not also include illness separated people. I think that during question time we may be able to take some time to get some very clear answers to your questions. Question time being close, if there are other questions that you would like us to give specific answers to, now might be an opportune time to ask them.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Perhaps the minister could include in those investigations the total number of people. Whilst you have brought these amendments into this place to ameliorate the circumstances that both the opposition and the stakeholders have said very clearly are going to happen, I just want some calculations about what the effect of the amendments will be terms of those people on the exemptions. If you are going to include those people with illness, as you have said you are, there may well be some other areas or demographics within that, so perhaps while you are there you could address those as well. Some of the material may be somewhat dated, and I know that there are some new amendments and some material which came on only last Thursday. Perhaps the senator would also be able to have a close look at the impact of the amendments—specifically, what savings can you indicate and in what area are they? In other words, the minister has quite rightly identified some demographics within those exemptions, and I wonder if the minister would be able to provide, by the time we get back to this matter, the amount of savings that have been allocated to each of those demographics.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will certainly take that question and provide an answer in due course. By way of assistance, can I point Senator Scullion to the additional explanatory memorandum; that may be able to provide some of those answers to the questions that he is asking.

Progress reported.