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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 1 Hansard (20 February) . . Page.. 190 ..

MS TUCKER (11.02): I support some of what Mr Moore said. I think it is a very complex issue. As parents, my husband and I decided to make a so-called informed decision. I can assure Mr Osborne that he has a lot of reading ahead of him, because the arguments are complex and they are medical. We looked at the medical arguments for and against immunisation. I would have to say that, at the end of it, I do not think I was able to make an informed decision, because there were medical arguments in opposition to each other and we were obviously not qualified to decide which medical practitioner or practitioners were correct or which line of argument was the correct one. It was extremely difficult.

The other interesting thing that came out of the compromise that we made, as parents, was that there were certain questions we asked which no-one could particularly answer; for example - Mr Moore alluded to the timing of immunisation - why was a child of two months immunised against three diseases in one hit? Basically, the answer was something like, "It is hard enough for parents to organise themselves to do it once, let alone three times". That was not a satisfactory answer to us. Some of the medical arguments against immunisation say that, if you stagger them, the child's body has a greater opportunity to deal with each particular disease that they have to develop antibodies to. I think that they are also issues that the committee should look at seriously.

So, it is not just a matter of saying yes or no - immunise or do not immunise - it is also about how the immunisation process is made available and what choices parents have if they choose to stagger them, which we were able to do but only because we had a doctor who was sympathetic and was prepared to take that trouble. There is another critical issue in this discussion, which is the right of people to decide what medical treatment they will give to their own children. Obviously, that is a huge ethical dilemma, and it is one that the committee will have to look at as well. I think you have taken on a huge task; but it will definitely get debate going in the community. I know that there are a number of people in the ACT who have severely disabled children and who believe that this is the result of immunisation. I am sure that they will come to speak to your committee. I wish you good luck.

MR WOOD (11.05): Mr Speaker, my knowledge of this debate is fairly simple, because it is only the knowledge I have gleaned as I have followed the public debate and it is contained to newspapers and television. Therefore, that does not tell me a great deal. I am aware that there is a significant number of people in the community - I do not know how many - who are concerned about immunisation. My whole background has been strongly supportive of immunisation; but I am interested in and supportive of this reference, as a new member of the Legal Affairs Committee, because it will give me the opportunity to listen to all the arguments, to assess all the evidence, to get into this subject rather more deeply, and then to come back and make a considered report to this Assembly and to the wider ACT community.

I am intrigued by some of the similarities with my first inquiry as a member of this Assembly, which was the inquiry into fluoride - - -

Mrs Carnell: Do not make it like that!

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