Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 1 Hansard (20 February) . . Page.. 188 ..

MR OSBORNE (continuing):

This is a very topical subject at the moment. There has been talk, both locally and federally. Mr Speaker, I think it is a great opportunity for us, as an Assembly, to investigate the issue. I am prepared to go into this committee with a very open mind. I look forward to hearing especially from the AMA, who have been very vocal in their support of compulsory immunisation. Also, I see this committee as being a great forum for that percentage of people out there who are very passionate the other way. I think it is a great opportunity for continued debate and for the Assembly members to be provided with a full and frank report.

Mr Speaker, I would suggest that there is only a very small percentage of people out in the community who are passionately opposed to immunisation and that the vast majority of people who do not immunise their children perhaps do not do it because they are forgetful rather than being vehemently opposed. I think that by having a committee looking at this issue and reporting on it, we will raise the awareness and give us all the opportunity to hear from the experts on both sides. I hope that I have the support of the Assembly on this, Mr Speaker, and I look forward to hearing from other members and also to having some input from other members during the running of this inquiry.

MR MOORE (10.55): Mr Speaker, I rise to support the motion to refer this matter to the Standing Committee on Legal Affairs. I think it is entirely appropriate that that is the committee that looks at it, because the fundamental issues fall into two categories - a population health issue and a civil liberties issue. There is a considerable overlap of those two issues, and it is appropriate that this committee look at the issue of compulsion. I will just say to members that, when they are looking at the issue of compulsion in terms of immunisation, I believe that it is very important for the committee to distinguish between the notion of immunisation against life-threatening diseases and the notion of immunisation against childhood sickness diseases. There is a very big difference between the two and between what we should and should not be prepared to compel.

On the one hand, there is a tremendous amount of time, money and effort put into immunisation processes by pharmaceutical companies, and quite rightly so. They have two interests - first of all, to ensure that the appropriate drugs are available to prevent sicknesses, and also to ensure that they make the greatest profits they possibly can. Mr Speaker, I think it is very important for the committee members to keep those factors in mind as they look at immunisation, but particularly the distinction between what is life threatening and what is not life threatening.

Mr Speaker, there are several other issues that are important for the committee members to consider when they are looking at this issue in general. I am sure that those issues will come before them as people present their views. Mr Osborne suggests that the lack of immunisation at the moment is probably due to the fact that people are quite forgetful or that there are very few people out there who are vehement in their opposition to immunisation. That may be correct; but it is also correct to say, from my own experience and my own discussions with people who oppose this, that they are not vehement; they are just not going to immunise their children, because they look at the health outcomes. That is the other thing that you have to look at - not at how many people are immunised and what they are immunised against; but at what are the health outcomes from this particular process.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .