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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 04 Hansard (Wednesday, 31 March 2004) . . Page.. 1407 ..

age, especially in those who have chronic lung, liver and kidney disease with or without alcohol abuse.

Roughly one quarter of the serotypes involved are not covered by the seven-valent conjugate vaccine. As with hip disease, the incidence of invasive pneumococcal disease in indigenous children is not uniform. Attack rates in Northern Australia are lower than in Central Australia and lower in urban regions than in rural remote regions. Ear disease starts early and its pattern around the country varies. In remote areas, otitis media is more likely to be associated with perforated tympanic membrane with purulent discharge.

The federal government’s vaccination funding program covers the cost of vaccine for some but not all groups. According to a media release from the then acting minister for health, Julie Bishop, I understand that the federal government is providing $2.23 million for free pneumococcal immunisation program for 91,000 children at most risk, including all children living in Central Australia, all children of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander descent, and children with medical conditions that place them at increased risk from the complications of pneumococcal disease.

Funding for a universal program is under consideration. On the specifics of the motion, as far as I can ascertain, the National Health and Medical Research Council did not recommend that the pneumococcal vaccine be provided free to all Australian children. It did endorse a new Australian vaccination schedule on 18 September 2003, but this does not discuss funding at all. According to the NHMRC they do not make recommendations on funding. I question the points made in this motion by Ms MacDonald.

The AMA, however, did recommend that the health minister fully fund the childhood immunisation schedule as a matter of urgency. In that media release Dr Rice said that the most significant omission from the funded schedule is the vaccine that prevents pneumococcal disease in young children. They also recommended that, at the very least, free pneumococcal immunisation should be available to all children in childcare. Ideally the vaccine should be funded for all Australian children in an effort to eradicate the disease.

The AMA in this press release also questioned the attention to meningococcal C over this particular bacteria. This is a serious question. We do not want serious decisions about public health to be guided by political imperatives such as the need to appear to be responding to a new scary disease. However, I cannot say that I have enough information to say that that is what is happening.

As Mr Corbell pointed out, both these vaccines are on the recommended schedule. The simple fact of the number of deaths may cover the complexities of disease transmission, susceptibility and the effectiveness of the vaccine.

Ms MacDonald has also noted criticism of the new vaccination schedule by the AMA saying, I think, that the AMA has withdrawn its support for the new schedule. I am not sure what this means for this debate, given that it is reliant on the authority of the schedule. But maybe I misunderstood what Ms MacDonald was saying; she is not here so she cannot clarify.

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