HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)
2020-04-07 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

South Australian Public Health (Early Childhood Services and Immunisation) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 5 March 2020.)

The Hon. C. BONAROS (16:20): I rise to speak in support of the South Australian Public Health (Early Childhood Services and Immunisation) Amendment Bill. It is, indeed, very timely that we are debating such a bill. We are in the midst of a global pandemic unlike anything any of us have seen in our lifetime. Worldwide, more than 1.3 million people have so far tested positive for COVID-19. The death toll to date has exceeded 74,000 and we are still counting, and there is worse to come with the US bracing for a spike over the next two weeks. Tragically, the unforgiving brutality of the virus hit even closer to home this morning, with SA Health confirming the death of the first South Australian from the insidious virus, and SA Health has warned the community of the likelihood of more deaths.

Scientists all over the world are in a race against time to develop an effective vaccine for the novel coronavirus and the world will not be able to rest easy or return to any semblance of normalcy until a vaccine is developed. In the past, vaccines have afforded us many freedoms that we have up until now taken for granted. They have given us freedom to interact with others and the freedom to live without fear of disease when doing so. The World Health Organization estimates vaccines save between two and three million lives every year. Many diseases are on their last legs thanks to worldwide vaccination programs. It is rare for many amongst us in this chamber to have seen these diseases firsthand because of these sorts of programs.

The current childhood immunisation program, as part of the National Immunisation Program, provides free vaccines against a range of diseases. The schedule includes vaccines for hepatitis B, tetanus, whooping cough, pneumococcal, meningococcal, rotavirus, measles, mumps, rubella and chickenpox. It also includes a vaccination against Hib to protect against diseases caught by Hib such as bacterial meningitis. I am not even going to attempt to—actually I will because it has Greek origins—haemophilus influenzae type b is the long term for Hib.

The program also provides vaccines against lesser known diseases such as diphtheria, a serious bacterial disease causing inflammation of the nose, throat and windpipe; and polio, a viral infection causing nerve injury leading to a partial or full paralysis. Many of these diseases are now extremely rare thanks to vaccines. In fact, today many doctors have never seen a patient suffering from many of the diseases I have just listed, but of course they do exist and that is why vaccines are important. In 1980, smallpox was officially eradicated by the World Health Organization certification and it is the only disease, I understand, to have been completely eradicated from the worldwide population by a vaccine.

This bill follows the introduction of the no jab no pay legislation, which was introduced at a federal level in January 2016 and links a child's immunisation status with some family assistance payments through what has become known as the no jab no pay legislation. That legislation changed what is a valid exemption to immunisation. Immunisation objections based on conscientious, personal, philosophical or religious beliefs are no longer valid exemptions from immunisation requirements for payment purposes.

Under the scheme, a permanent vaccine exemption can only be recorded for the following reasons: anaphylaxis following a previous dose of the relevant vaccine, anaphylaxis following any component of the relevant vaccine and significant immunocompromise for live attenuated vaccines only. A temporary vaccine exemption can only be recorded for the following reasons: acute major illness, significant immunocompromise of short duration for live attenuated vaccines only, or if the individual is pregnant, for live attenuated vaccines only.

Since the introduction of that legislation, New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria and WA have all gone on to implement no jab no play laws—laws that were initially introduced in this state by the opposition, and I think the opposition would agree that they were stifled by the government at the time. I certainly commend the work of the opposition on this most important issue, and I do so because immunisation programs save lives and we all have to do our bit. But their effectiveness, of course, depends on participation.

According to the federal government, nearly 95 per cent of five-year-old children in Australia are now vaccinated, and I agree wholeheartedly that this figure needs to be as high as possible. As the mother of a preschool-age child, my hope is certainly that the vaccination rates for preschool-age children in South Australia and nationally will increase above that 95 per cent mark, thereby achieving a stronger herd immunity. The herd immunity that we have been hearing a lot about lately in relation to COVID-19 occurs when such a large portion of the population is immune to infection that they indirectly provide protection to others, including babies and young children too young to be vaccinated, cancer patients, pregnant women and children and adults with low immune systems.

Other Australian states that have implemented the no jab no play legislation have seen an increase in vaccination levels, and they appear to have achieved their objectives. I congratulate them on doing so because they are saving lives. For those parents and guardians who conscientiously object to their preschool-age children participating in the childhood immunisation program, their child will have to wait to have access to an education basically until they start school. That is the choice that those parents are making on behalf of their children.

I, for one, commend the introduction of this bill and those parents who have immunised their young children, not just for the sake of their children but for the sake of others. Vaccines are not just for today: they not only protect our children but will protect our children's children and even their children. With a little bit of luck and a lot of knowledge, expertise and tireless work by our very talented scientists, we will see the same occur in relation to COVID-19.

I think it is clear that I am a vaxer. As soon as my son was old enough, I took him straight to the GP and requested whatever extra vaccinations were available to protect him, especially against meningococcal disease. I supported, and was genuinely relieved, when the government finally rolled out the Meningococcal B Immunisation Program to provide free vaccinations to eligible children and young people. I appreciate especially that up until that point not all families would have been able to access those vaccinations, even if they wanted to, based on financial grounds. I know that when I visited the doctor to vaccinate my own son—and I only have one child—it came with a hefty cost. So those families with two, three or more children would find it difficult to cover the costs otherwise.

The importance of that program really rang true for me earlier this year when the teenage son in a family I know found himself fighting for his life after contracting meningococcal. Once his organs started to fail, he was placed in an induced coma and underwent a series of what were ultimately life-saving operations. It is something that resulted in many of my own family members being tested and subsequently vaccinated against the deadly meningococcal disease.

It was a very close call for this young man, a close call that I know his family and my family never want to relive but one that will stay with them forever nonetheless. In terms of recovery, there is no question that it was slow and scary. He has required lots of ongoing medical treatment, but he is indeed one of the lucky ones when it comes to meningococcal.

By the same token, I completely accept and indeed believe that it is critical that there is always some wriggle room for those of us who, for medical reasons and medical reasons only, are not able to take advantage of certain vaccination programs. It is the reason why I was supportive of measures implemented in 2017 that enabled the class of medical practitioners who could actually grant an exemption for vaccinations to be broadened.

When I met with various opponents of the bill a while back, I listened and agreed with many of the arguments that they made in relation to their stance. I agree that there are some children who simply will not be in a position to safely access vaccinations, but for my part, if those reasons are not based on qualified medical grounds, then with the greatest respect to those parents I cannot support their position.

I am not referring to those children who are not vaccinated because they cannot be; I am referring to those children who are not vaccinated because their parents or caregivers choose not to have them vaccinated. There is no question whatsoever that there is a massive amount of misinformation remaining in our community. It is rampant when it comes to vaccinations, especially as a result of social media.

I think an Australian model just a couple of days ago was heavily criticised in relation to COVID-19. She has a number of followers and promoted a message from somebody who clearly was not a medical practitioner. I believe it may have been about using the health benefits of a celery product—I am sure it was celery—in guarding yourself against COVID-19. That is part of the misinformation that families find themselves reading on our social media posts and various other means.

I think sometimes, depending on what it is—in this instance, I think celery was a bit of a stretch for anyone—it makes us nervous and it makes us think twice about what we are exposing our children to and the need for it. It points to the fact that we should all be very responsible in terms of the information that is spread publicly throughout our communities, that families find themselves relying on when choosing not to vaccinate their children. There comes a point where we must place our trust in the hands of experts. When it comes to my family, I will rely on the good word of science and all the miracles it and it alone has left us with.

I will leave you today, Mr Acting President, with the words of one social media commentator who I think has hit the nail on the head in relation to the current situation we all find ourselves in. His name is Mr Carlos A. Rodriguez. I do not know this gentleman. I do not know if they are his words, but I know that the thoughts he shared on social media and the sentiment behind that message have been shared by many of us and repeated in one form or another by many commentators in recent months in the current COVID-19 pandemic gripping the world.

They are: 'For those who wanted a world with no vaccine, here's a world without one vaccine.' As one person recently said to me, 'This has to be one of the most profound statements of the century.' Right now, Mr Acting President, I am praying, along with the rest of the world, that science will once again prevail and save us from what can only be described as the most catastrophic events most, if not all of us, in this place have ever had to live with. With those words, I indicate our overwhelming support for this most important piece of legislation.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL (16:35): I rise today to speak on the South Australian Public Health (Early Childhood Services and Immunisation) Amendment Bill. Let me say at the outset that this contribution by me today was prepared by my colleague the Hon. Tammy Franks, who has responsibility for this bill on behalf of the Greens. She is unable to attend parliament today but did not want to unduly delay proceedings. References in this contribution to personal opinions, meetings, briefings and quotes from constituents refer to the Hon. Tammy Franks and her office but, to be clear, I do agree with her.

I want to begin my contribution today by making it absolutely clear that the Greens support vaccination as an evidence-based approach to population health. We recognise that vaccination is the easiest way we can protect everyone from vaccine-preventable infectious diseases. The Greens have a long track record of advocating for a science-based approach to public health and vaccinations. In fact, our health policy calls for an increase in funding for education and programs that promote the benefits of mass immunisation.

However, the Greens also have a significant history of standing up for the right to education and of standing up for people who are being left behind. While we intend to support this legislation, we have some significant concerns that we would like to raise. I recognise that the bill is intended to signal the government's strong stance on protecting people from vaccine-preventable diseases and on community responsibility to protect those who cannot be vaccinated. However, it is some of these people—children—who cannot be vaccinated who might end up excluded from early learning opportunities as a result of this legislation.

The bill will mean that children who are not up to date with vaccinations in South Australia will be banned from attending formal childcare facilities or participating in kindergarten. Children and families are already penalised by the government if they are not vaccinated, as they are ineligible for the childcare benefit, the childcare rebate or family tax benefit A supplement. Many other states have introduced similar legislation, yet ours is not uniform, and there are other options.

One such example is Queensland's legislation, which instead of flat-out banning unimmunised children, childcare and early education providers have the power to refuse enrolments to unvaccinated children. I have also had many concerned parents contact me in my office not because they are against vaccination—in fact many were health workers themselves—but because they are some of the handful of people who have needed to seek a medical exemption from vaccinating their children and are deeply worried and frustrated by their inability to do so. They are now being forced to choose between potentially putting their children's health at risk or pulling their kids out of child care or kindy.

There are significant difficulties faced by parents and children with a history of autoimmune diseases and who have previously had adverse reactions to vaccinations. Under this legislation the government is proposing to use the same system and criteria for exemptions as is used federally. However, as I have raised with the department and as has been raised with my office on multiple occasions, it is almost impossible for parents to be granted a medical exemption, even in the face of severe reactions.

I would like to share some of those stories with you all here today. These are from parents who have contacted my office and whose children will be affected by this legislation. They are not anti-vax, but they are enormously concerned for their children's wellbeing. This legislation will not change their minds on vaccinating their kids, but it will mean that they will have to take their children out of day care and kindergarten and many will leave their jobs. I do not think this is the intended outcome of this legislation, but it is an outcome that we need to be aware of and that we should address.

With the permission and, in many cases, up-front encouragement of the families that have contacted me, I would like to share some of their stories and experiences and their words on how this legislation will impact them and their families. Agata wrote:

I was paralysed as a child following vaccination. Now that I am an adult, I see that this reaction is listed on the manufacturer's insert for certain vaccines...

I have two young children and following an attempt to vaccinate our eldest that resulted in unwanted reactions, I have come to the decision to cease further vaccination for the fear they will develop lifelong side effects. My decision was not made lightly and was in consultation with three separate General Practitioners...

I ask that you advocate for people such as my children who are unfortunate enough to have inherited my genetics and do not respond well to being vaccinated and allow them the basic human right of an early education.

Nicki wrote:

My husband and I are both hard working professionals with three happy and healthy children. Our oldest child is now in school and my two younger children are cared for at home by myself or my husband between our busy work schedules. They also attend occasional care once a week. My middle child is also due to start kindergarten next year. Due to a family medical history of vaccine injury and autoimmune disease my children cannot be vaccinated. They cannot obtain a medical exemption in South Australia either. Due to restrictions on medical exemptions in this state my children would literally have to die, twice, before an exemption was granted. If we lived in the United States of America my children would be medically exempt.

I am an allied health professional and put good health practices above everything in my home, my children have never been sick with anything more than a sniffle and they are vibrant, healthy, and happy. I am not against vaccination for the community but the risk: benefit ratio for my children with their particular family medical history is too high. To risk their lives in order to prevent a self-limiting childhood illness is not an option and legislation like this will not change my child's medical history and therefore not change our decision to not vaccinate our children. I know many families in similar situations that will not be coerced by such aggressive legislation.

Finally, Natasha wrote:

I have worked in the Early Childhood sector for 8 years, and my husband is a hard working business owner. I don't have dread locks, practise witch craft or bathe my kids in herbs and spices. We are a normal family, and it just so happens that we don't vaccinate, anymore.

My oldest child is fully vaccinated according to the schedule. She is a bright, energetic 6 year old girl that loves to dance.

My younger child is a cheeky, very vocal 2 year old little girl. She is vaccinated up until 12 months according to the schedule. She was born with a kidney condition that required her to have half of her right kidney removed at 5 months old. It was absolutely heart wrenching. She spent the first year of her life on antibiotics, and has overall been a very sick little girl. She reacted to every single set of vaccines she received. For whatever reason, her little body cannot handle these vaccinations. And getting an exemption in 2020 is not possible, unless your child has quite literally died. After her 12-month immunisations, we decided it was not in her best interest to continue. It is my job as her mother to protect her.

She has been attending play group at the Early Learning Centre connected to the private school her sister attends, the school she will be attending. This has been so great for her as she doesn't like interacting with other children, as we don't receive childcare subsidies, she doesn't attend childcare. We have made so many lovely relationships with the families and educators at this centre. The plan was for her to start the Kindy program there once she turned 4.

If this bill passes, this will stop her from attending Kindy. I'm worried about how this will affect her developmentally, she won't have the same learning opportunities as other kids her age. Emotionally, I don't know how she will cope once she starts school. She will have had no preparation, and I worry about how her teacher will cope with this while being responsible for the rest of the class. Socially, will Winnie be socially excluded due to her vaccine status? We will be outed if she doesn't attend Kindy. How will she learn to socially interact with other children without the opportunity of Kindy?

Child development is my background, I know the benefits and I understand how detrimental it will be for a child to miss out on Kindy.

And lastly, this will mean I will have to forfeit my work commitment of 8 years. The sitting arrangement I have currently isn't a long term solution, and I had planned on finding her a space in family day care.

I am begging you to reconsider. My daughter deserves the right to early education.

To conclude, I would like to reiterate that, while the Greens will be supporting the bill, we do have some not insignificant concerns which we hope the government will address as they implement the legislation. We must remember that if we are introducing coercive health measures, we must have mechanisms in place to support parents through this process and to alleviate their concerns.

The Hon. S.G. WADE (Minister for Health and Wellbeing) (16:45): I would like to thank the Hon. Kyam Maher, the Hon. Connie Bonaros and the Hon. Mark Parnell, channelling the Hon. Tammy Franks, in relation to this bill. I will start by addressing the issue the Hon. Mark Parnell raised.

The government is very mindful of the right of children to education. That is one of the key reasons why we insisted that this legislation go out to consultation. To be frank, there was strong advice from people from an education background supporting the vaccination program because children have the right to education, but they also have the right to safety in that education. So by supporting vaccination programs we support the right of children to be protected from vaccine-preventable diseases as they attend school.

The Hon. Mark Parnell raised the issue that there would already be an impact of the no jab no pay legislation in terms of people who might otherwise be reluctant to vaccinate their children. I make the point that this legislation applies to all parents and therefore might be seen as complementing the no jab no play legislation for more wealthy parents and families who do not have access to childcare benefits.

I would like to thank the Hon. Connie Bonaros for her contribution and for putting this bill in its contemporary context. The COVID-19 pandemic, as the honourable member says, shows us a world without a vaccine, and it is a scary place. This bill is all about supporting public health. We have seen through the COVID-9 pandemic that a failure in public health threatens all of us in a way that individual health never will.

So if there is ever a time to recognise public duty, it is the duty of the public to support the mutual benefit of public health. To refer to my own political heritage, John Stuart Mill reminds us that individuals should have the right to act with individual freedom, but they should not do so if to do so is to harm others. Surely, COVID-19 and the threat of vaccines demonstrates the public duty on citizens to be vaccinated against vaccine-preventable diseases.

The Marshall Liberal government is unashamedly a vaccination government. We were the government that introduced free flu vaccines for children under five. We were the government that introduced meningococcal B vaccinations, not only for children but the first government in the world to introduce meningococcal B vaccinations for young people. Now we are the government that will implement no jab no play legislation. We do that because we fundamentally believe that public health and the protection of community from vaccine-preventable diseases has, as the Hon. Connie Bonaros reminded us, very strong science and very strong public benefit.

I thank all members who have spoken. Even though there are, if you like, notes of caution from the Greens, I accept their general support for the legislation, so I welcome that. It is an opportunity for the parliament to come together to affirm our mutual commitment to strong public health in this state.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I have a few general questions that I might ask at clause 1, and I indicate that there will be no more questions after that. Can the minister confirm that there was a period of consultation in relation to this policy, or this bill particularly?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The Marshall Liberal government developed a public consultation paper that outlined various options for the second stage of the no jab no play legislation. I have consulted with the relevant government departments, especially those involved in education and child protection services, medical professional groups, early childhood education providers and the general public. The government received more than 800 responses to that consultation paper.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: When did the consultation period end?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am advised that the consultation concluded at the end of June last year.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: If the consultation period concluded at the end of June last year, why has it taken so long for this legislation to be introduced into the parliament?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The outcomes of the consultation were considered by government, and the legislation was prepared.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Can the minister indicate what preparatory work will be undertaken in the coming months, particularly with early childhood services, in preparation for the full rollout of the second stage of the policy?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Before I get further advice, I would make it clear that this is a staged implementation. From 1 January, early childhood service education providers are required to collect immunisation records. It was always intended that this be a staged implementation. We want to make sure that parents are aware of their obligations and that providers, in an orderly way, can prepare for the full implementation. SA Health is planning education programs for affected services, so that they fully understand their obligations.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Can the minister outline if there are also education programs in place for parents, ahead of what I think has been described as a staged rollout?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Yes, I am advised that there is a media and a communications plan for parents as well as for providers.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The minister mentioned a staged rollout. When is it envisaged that this legislation will be in full effect?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Considering we live in a COVID world, I am a bit cautious to respond. It was the intention of the government that it be introduced from 1 July, but we may need to assess that in the context of the pandemic.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I was expecting the caveat put on that, and that is, of course, understandable. Was the intention for the phased rollout to be started or for the full rollout to be finalised by July?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Sorry, let's be clear: this is the culmination of the rollout. Stage 1 in my view is what was introduced from the beginning of this year, and this is the culmination of that implementation.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Has there been any pushback from early childhood service providers in cooperating on the implementation of this policy and, if so, how is that being managed?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: If the honourable member is asking me whether there was unanimous support for the option, the answer is no.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: For example, has there been any resistance, any action needed to be taken in the form of warnings or penalties regarding the first phase of the legislation?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Sorry, I may have misunderstood the honourable member's question. You are referring not to discussion about this bill but rather to the response to the legislation that is already in place—if you like, stage 1?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am asking about this one before I am asking about phase 1.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am advised that we are not aware of any noncompliance in relation to stage 1.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Following on from that, is the minister aware as to whether 100 per cent of childcare centres are now collecting immunisation records in full compliance with the legislation?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: My understanding is that compliance in relation to this legislation primarily will be delivered through education service accreditation processes. I would assume that, if there was noncompliance, we would be aware of it.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: In terms of compliance for parents or guardians, what penalty would a parent or guardian face if they forged an immunisation history statement or otherwise mislead about their child's immunisation history?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The potential penalty under this legislation is $30,000.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The bill allows for the inclusion of additional vaccines to be added to the state government's list over and above the federal requirements: has the state government actively considered adding any other vaccinations to the no jab no play reforms via regulation?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Not at this stage. The legislation is designed to be flexible. For example, the legislation requires parents to provide immunisation records to early childhood services at a frequency specified by the Chief Public Health Officer in the Government Gazette. As the national immunisation program is frequently changing, the government's view is that it is important to be able to change the specified times as needed. The specified times are intended to reflect the current vaccination schedule points during early childhood.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I am channelling my colleague. At the outset, can I thank the minister and his staff for the provision of some questions that my colleague put on notice. There were 10 questions, and I will refer to one of them in a second. Just referring to the questions that the Hon. Kyam Maher was asking, I have a copy of the public consultation summary and analysis of responses, which was published in October last year, and it is a document that does, I think, show some of the perils of public consultation mechanisms, because at first blush the numbers for or against the bill (if we can put it like that) look to be about fifty-fifty, but then when you go to the analysis it was unclear how many were not from South Australia, how many people might have responded multiple times and how many people might have responded through multiple channels.

I do not mean that as a criticism of the government, which clearly has used a number of different mechanisms. There is the Survey Monkey, YourSAy and then unsolicited emails and letters, and that came to the nearly 800 or so to which the minister referred. I make the point that the government's own analysis shows that it is contentious. I see that, in terms of what we might call peak bodies and agencies, the bulk of them support the model that has been adopted in the bill.

One notable exception was the Public Health Association, which did not support this particular model because they did not support efforts that would disadvantage individual children socially or financially, or impede access to health or education, but the bulk of other agencies supported what the government was doing.

The question that I propose—and I will not go through all of the 10 questions and supplied answers—is a question that my colleague asked, related to the case studies that I read onto the record, and that was those parents who believe that their children are special cases, if you like. They believe that immunisation is bad for their particular children and they complained that it was virtually impossible to get an exemption. Of course, if you could get an exemption and then try to enrol in kindy or child care you have an exemption certificate as opposed to a vaccination certificate. My colleague asked the following question, question 5:

How many medical exemption requests have been approved or refused in the past three years? On what basis are the exemption approvals granted? How many have been rejected and how many have been appealed?

The response that came back is not adequate, in my view, and I ask the minister to expand on it. The government's response was:

The South Australian legislation will follow the exemptions in place under the commonwealth's no jab no play requirements for family tax benefits. This is to ensure consistent requirements for parents. South Australia does not have access to data in relation to the number of exemptions approved, refused or appealed.

The government did not answer the question about the basis on which exemption approvals are granted, so I would like the minister, if he can, to address that. However, it also suggests that the state government has absolutely no idea how many South Australians might fall into a category of having applied for an exemption and then been granted, denied, refused or whatever. Could the minister please address that and, in particular, the basis on which the exemption approvals are granted?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I will have a go, but I may be corrected. My understanding is that about 95 per cent of South Australian children would be immunised. There are about 2 per cent who are medically incapable, and we are advised by the commonwealth of those children. We are talking about 2 per cent or 3 per cent of other children. As the answer said, we do not have access to that data but the member raises an interesting point and I am more than happy to write to the federal minister and seek access to any data he might have in relation to South Australian children.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I thank the minister and I am happy for him to take that question on notice. I will not ask any further questions at this stage. I prefer the phrase 'physical distancing' to 'social distancing' because we are not supposed to be socially distant from people but we are supposed to be physically distant from them. Perhaps that is a question for question time tomorrow and I give you advance notice. It is going to be difficult to go through a lot of technical information so I am happy if the minister will take that on notice and I look forward to a response.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I would like to address one of the points that the Hon. Mark Parnell just made in relation to the contentious nature of the debate with the almost fifty-fifty split in the consultation process. Just to confirm, minister, 95 per cent of children, according to the federal government, have been vaccinated. There is a further 2 per cent who are medically incapable, so effectively putting aside the consultation, we are talking about 3 per cent of children in total. Is that correct?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: That is correct. I just make the point that the national aspirational target for immunisation is 95 per cent. For example, with physical distancing, as the honourable member likes to refer to it, we could have an effective public health response probably with a compliance rate that falls short of 95, but the herd immunity, the nature of immunisation, the national aspirational target is about 95 per cent. Every 2 or 3 per cent matters, so we do not apologise for making the extra effort to get the last couple of per cent.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I thank you for not apologising for attempting to get the last 2 or 3 per cent. I do have another question, which I raised during the briefing which I would like to raise with the minister, that is, vaccination rates amongst our teachers and teaching staff and the requirements that they be vaccinated given that they are, in effect, the ones who are with our children in our schooling system.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: It is a very good question and you will forgive me if it reminds me more of the debate within my own portfolio in relation to healthcare workers. There are some jurisdictions that will not allow healthcare workers to go to work if they are not vaccinated. Of course, the full suite of vaccines will not be available for adult teachers because some of them they might have needed to get when they were a child and that opportunity has passed.

The issue comes up every year with flu and, God willing, the issue will come up with the COVID-19 vaccine when it is available. I certainly believe that workers who choose to work in an industry need to maintain a safe workplace not only for the workers but also for the people they are serving. That applies in schools, that applies in healthcare settings. There are, of course, issues of workers' rights and the like and they will be hotly contested. I am aware that in some high-risk environments—e.g. intensive care units and emergency departments—there are facilities that expect their workers to be vaccinated.

The issue is also particularly relevant in residential aged-care facilities. I think the honourable member raises a very good point that, whilst in this legislation we are asserting basically a public duty to support public health by having your children vaccinated, that does not mean that we leave those responsibilities behind as we go into adulthood. I think as a community we do need to have a discussion about what responsibilities you have as a worker to support the health of the person you are caring for or providing a service to.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I am grateful that the minister indicated that these are the discussions he has within his own portfolio because I know they are discussions that we have had about your portfolio within our offices, regarding the requirement for staff in Health to be up to date in terms of vaccinations and so forth. I suppose, given that we know that there is no requirement in this jurisdiction for teachers to be vaccinated, subject of course to all the exemptions that would normally apply, is the minister willing to refer this matter—I am not sure if it would be the Minister for Health and Wellbeing or the Minister for Education—to get some response as to whether any discussion has taken place with teachers on this issue?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am not aware of it being an issue in the education setting but I will certainly refer the matter to the Minister for Education and perhaps, if the member is agreeable, I will provide a copy of the response.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I think that one of the other issues canvassed by the Hon. Mark Parnell was the access to education, or denying access to education. It is correct, I think, to say that because this bill is dealing with the early childcare setting it is not deemed to be a denial of access to education. That is the reason why, once a child reaches school age, if they have not been vaccinated there is no capacity for us to prevent that child from attending school.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I thank the honourable member for her question. She is certainly correct that this does not impede children's access to compulsory education, but that is not to say that I do not recognise that early childhood services can often have an important developmental opportunity for children. It is just the view of this government that, at that stage of a child's development, we need to give priority to public health.

Clause passed

Remaining clauses (2 to 6) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. S.G. WADE (Minister for Health and Wellbeing) (17:12): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.


At 17:13 the council adjourned until Wednesday 8 April 2020 at 11:00.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT