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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 1 Hansard (20 February) . . Page.. 189 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

There is another factor that the committee really must consider. If you are going to immunise against diseases because that is in the best interests of the community as a whole - we know that there is a small risk associated with that immunisation; that a small number of people, maybe even one in 100,000, have significant adverse consequences - whose responsibility is it to look after the one in 100,000 who suffer adverse consequences? This is a fundamental issue that must be taken into account. At the moment, the people who wear the consequences of that are the parents who have immunised their children in the community interest. It is a community interest issue, and to me that responsibility should lie very clearly with the community. There is a whole range of issues that are then generated by an admission that we, as a community, are responsible for such things. Somebody will be saying, "This is a side effect of immunisation" and somebody else will be saying, "No, it is not a side effect of immunisation; that is just the way it was. Unfortunately, perhaps the brain damage that has occurred to your child is the result of something else".

Where, and how, do we place the responsibility? I think these are very complicated issues that require a very thoughtful approach. Unfortunately, the debate in the media at this stage has been largely, "Oh, dear! We do not have 100 per cent immunisation. This is terrible". What the debate ought to be is, "When should we immunise? Which particular diseases should we be immunising against? What are the community's responsibilities? What are we really trying to achieve in terms of health outcomes? Are we achieving those health outcomes in the most effective way in terms of immunisation?".

Instead of this Government spending $400,000 on immunisation, we may get far better health outcomes if we spend $100,000 in some other way - on nutrition, for example. We know that nutrition is a factor. You may recall a time, not so many years ago, when schools provided milk to children to ensure that children had some nutrition at the beginning of each day. In some ways, it was probably a very effective program. It probably meant a few extra kids with allergies that we were not expecting. But, by and large, it did provide for expenditure based on a positive way of dealing with health rather than with diseases. When you have expenditure on getting your community healthier, then the resistance to many of the childhood diseases is much stronger. We know that from comparing what happens with Third World countries with what is happening in First World countries. There is a great deal of data around on that. I think it is a major challenge for a committee to deal with these issues. I hope that the members will go back to look at the literature on the issue at first hand and not be bogged down by simple views that have been put in the media.

I suggest, Mr Speaker, that the committee consider approaching the Chief Minister, as Minister for Health, to second an officer to assist with immunisation research. I think a research component as well as a community consultation component of this inquiry would be a very positive aspect. I recommend to the chair, Mr Osborne, that he approach the Chief Minister for a seconded research officer to look at that - to dig out that first-hand research and to provide it to the committee. I think it would enhance the report and give the report a much better standing. It would ensure that members of this Assembly were better informed when we came to make our decisions.

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