Page 912 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 22 March 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
One of my main concerns about today’s motion is the quantifiable and easily anticipated negative impacts this would have on these children. It is well accepted that early childhood education care services provide an essential avenue of early identification of possible learning difficulties and developmental delays which have nothing to do with immunisation compliance. Exclusion from these services would greatly reduce the opportunities for early intervention of occupational therapists and speech pathologists, for example, with long-lasting implications for that child’s development and life educational outcomes, and ultimately place a burden on the limited resources of government services.
Children who do not attend early childhood education and care and preschool—as we know it in the ACT—suffer educational disadvantage, which can carry on for years in some cases, and require increased support and investment over and above other students. It can also greatly damage that child’s social skills development and self-esteem and further embed social isolation. The proposal may also severely impact on the ability of parents to work and, therefore, increase existing financial hardships and potentially compound disadvantage.
Some childcare providers already choose not to enrol children without full vaccination. Whilst this is not government policy per se, as commercial providers that is, of course, their right. Most providers, however, quietly accept these children, small in number as they are, in the recognition that there is a low risk of cross-contagion. Providers may also advise parents, regardless of the child’s vaccination status, of a fair policy of extended exclusion of infected children for certain periods of time to reduce the likelihood of exposure.
I also note that there are other ways governments can support those families who have not yet vaccinated their children. Childcare centres provide a great opportunity to interact with parents and provide information about the national immunisation program schedule. Governments can help facilitate the required liaison between health professionals, parents and childcare centres to ensure that children can catch up and receive any vaccinations they may need. Compliance with the national immunisation program does not have to be enforced through punitive measures because I believe the vast majority of parents would choose to vaccinate their children when provided with adequate information and logistical support.
The Greens would support the federal and ACT governments working together on targeted and consistent health promotion and education campaigns to promote the benefits of immunisations. The Public Health Association of Australia has been calling for the development and implementation of this sort of proactive public community strategy, especially in areas influenced by anti-vaccination groups and where coverage is low in specific age brackets.
The Greens know there are challenges with this approach. It is so easy for one piece of information to undo years of hard work, and Pauline Hanson’s comments earlier this month are a clear demonstration of this fact. But the unintended upside of Senator Hanson’s dangerous and uninformed remarks is that it has triggered a national conversation on the importance of immunisation. Now we must continue to reinforce the public health messages that have been so strongly highlighted these past couple of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video