Mr LEE(11.47 a.m.) —Before I make my remarks, I thank the members present for their cooperation when we thought that another debate in the House of Representatives chamber was going to cause some need for me to be in two places at the one time. I appreciate the arrangements that people made in the interim.

The opposition welcomes the government's introduction of the Health Insurance Amendment Bill on childhood immunisation. We welcome this decision because, in effect, it continues the previous government's initiative in childhood immunisation. The Labor government's original legislation established the national childhood immunisation register with the aim of improving our national performance by setting up a national system to remind parents about the timing of the necessary immunisations for their children.

The legislation also places appropriate privacy controls on the immunisation information and, very importantly, allows some parents to opt out of the system if they so choose, although the aggregate information will still be collected for public health purposes, which is commendable.

Although we strongly support the continuation of this national register, it is important to draw a contrast between this legislation and the government's policy in other areas. We have heard in recent months that, because of overlaps between federal and state responsibilities, the federal government intends accelerating the process of handing over powers and responsibilities to the states, not least aged care and some of the other responsibilities of the Minister for Family Services (Mrs Moylan).

One of my concerns about the government's decision to accelerate the handover of these responsibilities to the states is the difficulties that have arisen in the last decade as the states took on additional responsibilities in childhood immunisation.

We found that when states had full responsibility for funding community health initiatives, state treasuries were quick to look at ways of making cutbacks and shutting down community health centres and baby health centres, which ultimately affected the nation's ability to ensure that as many of our Australian kids as possible were properly immunised.

The fact that both sides of politics are supporting this national childhood immunisation register demonstrates that when there is a real need in health, education or transport, it is often only the national government that has the resources to respond. Through the national childhood immunisation register both sides of politics are trying to address this need in our community.

It is important to also remember that the former government not only funded the register but also agreed to meet the cost of some of the vaccines. That is also something which only the national government could have done and demonstrates once again that when important issues arise you often need the financial power and ability of the Commonwealth to deliver a service to every Australian wherever they may live—and that often makes the difference.

Clearly, the present government also agrees that it is critically important that the Commonwealth take over this vital area of public health and that is why we have the concerns that I have already mentioned. We do not want to see different standards and levels of care develop whether it is for aged care, education or lists of drugs available under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme.

Perhaps the worst recent example of the government's appalling record in trying to hand over responsibilities to the states has been the decision in this budget to abolish the Commonwealth dental health program with the ridiculous claim that state governments would pick up the slack.

Ms Worth —It has always been the states' responsibility.

Mr LEE —Certainly before 1993 that was the case. In dental health care, as in childhood immunisation, the states cannot do enough on their own. In 1993 a report showed that disadvantaged people were twice as likely to have teeth extracted rather than filled or repaired. There is probably no better argument in favour of the Commonwealth continuing to be involved in that area of public health than the fact that so many people were not getting access to what most of us would consider a basic right—that is, to have your tooth repaired and maintained rather than simply pulled out.

Since the budget, state health ministers, Labor, Liberal and National, have made it clear that they certainly will not be topping up the funds, replacing the federal funds that have been withdrawn in dental health care. The same would happen if the federal government sought to hand over childhood immunisation responsibilities to the states.

I would like to make a couple of brief comments about some recent media stories about immunisation. The Quantum program on ABC television ran several stories warning the community about some of the risks associated with immunisation. An organisation such as the ABC with its proud record of many stories on public health issues also has a responsibility to be careful about some of the stories it broadcasts. It has to be careful not to needlessly alarm the public about the risks associated with immunisation.

I have some concerns about whether or not balance was achieved in that Quantum program. But I certainly commend the ABC for Dr Norman Swan's subsequent program on Radio National which presented a more balanced attitude to some of these issues.

I think that all of us accept that when people receive injections, or take medication, there is always a certain amount of risk that they could have a reaction to that medication, or the vaccine. But the chances of their health being affected in a negative way are more than outweighed by the benefits that young children, in particular, receive from immunisation. So we can only hope that all elements of the media try to take a responsible attitude in reporting these issues.

In conclusion, we in the opposition welcome the bill. In particular, we welcome its recognition of the crucial role of the Commonwealth government in making sure that national health priorities are met, and we urge the government to reconsider its intentions to give funding and control of a large number of other vital community health programs to the states that clearly have a demonstrably poor record on many of these issues.