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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 04 Hansard (Wednesday, 31 March 2004) . . Page.. 1411 ..

As I mentioned in the speech to the motion before we got to the amendments, I think that the motion is well intentioned but, for the sake of accuracy in terms of what we do as an Assembly, it needs to be modified slightly. The amendments achieve a number of things. The hand-written amendment, which has already been circulated, will now be varied to include the words “provide pneumococcal vaccine”. That altered amendment will be circulated shortly.

In paragraph 1 we need to remove the word “accept” and ask the federal government to “consider quickly” the recommendation. There are two ways you can address this: immunise everyone in the hope that it does not hit anyone, or concentrate with greater resources on those areas where this disease is felt at its worst to reduce the effect on those most adversely affected.

The amendment would then remove the words after “Council”, so that the amended paragraph 1 would read:

(1) calls on the Federal Government to consider quickly the recommendation of the National Health and Medical Research Council to provide pneumococcal vaccine;

It is then just to be considered.

Paragraph 2 is not true. I do not believe that the federal government has taken a decision not to implement the council’s recommendation. If you consult the website—and I am happy to show it to members—the vaccine is being considered for future funding now. From my discussion this morning with the federal minister’s office it is quite clear that a decision has not been taken not to implement the council’s recommendation. Therefore we should delete paragraph 2, as it is simply not true.

Paragraph 3 can stand. What we do need to do is insert a new paragraph 6, simply to show that there is a debate out there. Some groups are certainly in support of it; some groups are not in support of the vaccination going to all Australians. While we have that level of debate among medical professionals and clinicians, I do not think it is up to us to force the federal government to do something that the jury is still out on. In that regard I think the motion gives a more balanced view. It calls on the federal government to make a quick decision, it recognises the severity of the pneumococcal disease and it says that the jury is divided at this stage about what the effect will be. I commend the amendments to the house.

MR SPEAKER: For the sake of clarity, one of the amendments is handwritten and headed “Revised amendment notice No 1”. The other one is a typed document, which contains three parts. Is everybody clear on that?

MS MacDONALD (12.18): I am reasonably clear about what Mr Smyth is trying to do. He is basically trying to cripple the motion. I am sorry that I did not get up before and speak to Ms Dundas’s amendment. Anyway, I will not reflect on the vote.

With regard to changing “accept” to “consider quickly” in relation to the recommendation, the Howard government has changed the ground rules. It has decided

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