Page 4846 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 11 November 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
can test any of the babies to reassure the parents that their newborn is free of infection as the tests in babies and children are completely unreliable. The side effects of the medications are very nasty, particularly the isoniazid. Transmission of TB depends on the infectiousness of the organism, the proximity of the contact and the duration of the contact.
She goes on in some detail. But it gives a bit of context as to how distressing this is for a parent who has had their baby exposed in this way. I think that we need to keep the real distress in very stark focus as we debate this issue. Anyone who has had children, particularly anyone who has had premature babies, as my family has, knows that they are just particularly vulnerable. All babies are vulnerable but the more premature they are, the more susceptible they are to all sorts of things and the more of a battle they face in those first few months. Of course this has signficiantly added to that distress.
There have been comments floating around that you could be exposed in a shopping centre or at a bus stop. Those are the kinds of comments, if anything, that are going to cause concern in the community because, as Ms Gallagher said, it is prolonged exposure that is the key and prolonged exposure in a confined space, as was the case here, is the difference. It is not casually passing someone in a shopping centre that we should be concerned about; it is prolonged exposure.
The misinformation that has underpinned those kinds of statements not only seeks to deflect what the real issue here is, it also potentially has the possibility of causing more concern in the community than is warranted. This is about prolonged exposure. We are dealing with a potential breach of protocol and breakdowns in systems that have led to this.
In seeking to defend their position, we have had members of the government, people representing the government, making comments that are unhelpful and do not, in any way, enunciate this. The health minister has acknowledged as much in her statements about the fact that prolonged exposure is what we are talking about—that is the key—and prolonged exposure in a confined space, as we have seen.
We have also seen—and this has been a pattern for the health minister—the rush to absolve everyone from any sort of blame. Without an analysis, without an investigation, we see that. And we see a contradiction actually between the amendment moved by Ms Gallagher and her public statements in the Canberra Times on this issue. We had a report that, on the day, 7 November, health minister Katy Gallagher said she was satisfied with how ACT Health had handled the exposure. Once again, she said she was satisfied. Yet, in her own amendment, she calls on herself to review the circumstances of the recent case where newborn infants were exposed to tuberculosis and identify whether any policies and protocols were breached. If you are satisfied that nothing is wrong, why would you seek the review?
Why do we see this constant lack of questioning from this minister? She has a situation brought to her and instead of saying, “This is a concern. It is a concern to me that this exposure has occurred. I want to get to the bottom of why it has occurred. I will have an investigation to determine whether there have been any breaches of protocols, whether it has been handled well or whether it could have been handled better,” she says, “I am satisfied.” She accepts now that she should investigate.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video