Deborah O'Neill (Robertson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak this evening on a matter about which I am quite passionate and also concerned—the impact of cancer, particularly brain cancer, on individuals and their families. I want to thank Michelle Rowland, the member for Greenway, for seconding this motion when it went before the Selection Committee, and I also thank the members for McPherson, Cowan and Capricornia in advance for speaking on this debate this evening and for their contributions to a balanced and careful discussion of an area of emerging interest and emerging research to which I think we should be paying some considerable attention.

I put on the record here also that Senator Catryna Bilyk will put this matter on the record in the Senate. As a brain cancer survivor herself, and as the chair of the parliamentary friendship group for brain cancer research, Catryna Bilyk is undertaking the very challenging work of being a senator here in this parliament. Catryna's own story is one of full recovery and full participation in the challenging workplace that is part of the life of a parliamentarian. I think her story of full recovery is a story of really significant hope that we need to put on the record in this debate here this evening, because families who have somebody who is diagnosed today or tomorrow or was diagnosed yesterday with brain cancer face an uncertain future, and it is important to know that people do manage to get past the challenge that cancer can provide.

Officially, I put on the record again the exact notice of motion. It is that this House notes five elements, firstly:

… the release by the World Health Organisation's cancer research report by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) which says that radio frequency electromagnetic fields generated by mobile phones are 'possibly carcinogenic to humans' and asserts that heavy usage could lead to a possible increased risk of glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer …

Secondly, I want the House to note the warnings of Dr Charlie Teo. He is one of Australia's leading brain surgeons and a former Australian of the Year finalist. He states that 'there is an increasing body of evidence that there is an association between brain tumours and mobile phones'. Thirdly:

… the Australian Government, through the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA), welcomes the report and considers that the classification by IARC corresponds to the current ARPANSA advice, including its advice on practical ways in which people can reduce their exposure to the electromagnetic fields produced by wireless telephones …

Fourthly:

… the methods to reduce exposure include:

(a) limiting call time;

(b) preferring the use of land line phones;

(c) using hands free or speaker options;

(d) texting instead of making voice calls; and

(e) using phones in good signal areas which reduce power levels for communication…

The fifth thing is:

… that ARPANSA has also recommended parents encourage their children to use these methods of reducing exposure.

They are the five things that I really want to put on this public record and note on this day in the middle of 2011. My hope in bringing this matter to the House is to continue the public debate which surfaced earlier this year and to share information about the increasing body of evidence that indicates there is a possible link between brain tumours and heavy mobile phone use. In essence, this speech is my way of doing what I can do right now to prevent the risky behaviours that make brain cancer more likely. But there is also an intensely personal reason that I do this. My brother, Sean Patrick O'Neill, was born 41 years ago just three days before St Patrick's Day—I often think that if my mother had not allowed the doctor to induce her he would have been a 17 March St Patrick's Day birth. Sean was diagnosed with stage 2 glioma at the end of last year. In fact, at 10 o'clock, when I was signing the caucus book, my brother was having an MRI and they were finding that brain cancer. When we found out a little bit more information I was with him in the surgery of Dr Charlie Teo. He found out after his surgery that he was fortunate to have a level 2 glioma and that he did not have to have radiotherapy or chemotherapy, which was a great blessing and a great relief to our family. We are close, Sean and I, and when I suggested that I might put this matter before the House he gave me great encouragement to put it on the record. He is all for sharing his story and his experience if it can encourage other people to make choices that will decrease their chance of contracting brain cancer.

Sean and his wife, Jacqui, have already lost a great deal to cancer. They lost their beautiful daughter Lucy to liver cancer in March 2003. They still have four wonderful children, Eilish, Rosie, Jack and Meg, but that family know too intimately the challenges that cancer presents to families to love and care for the ones that they too often lose. Right now Sean and his whole family are learning to live a little differently while Sean gets on with getting better and strives each day to get back to his business and to full health. Sean is working hard on his recovery and every day my family and I are very proud of him, but I am sure he would rather be cancer-free, and we would certainly rather it was that way too.

What is the purpose of my speech here this evening? What do we know right now, and how should we respond? What we know right now is that, courtesy of the World Health Organisation, a body called the International Agency for Research on Cancer Classification of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields, the IARC, exists. We have a monograph from that group that is the product of work they undertook earlier this year in Lyon from 24 to 31 May. It involved 31 scientists from 14 countries. They examined and assessed the peer reviewed scientific evidence on mobile phone use in relation to increased risk of cancer. Importantly, at this time when there is so much debate that involves science and scientists are so maligned, I want to put on the record that there is a really significant difference between a matter of opinion and a matter of research. These scientists were looking at research that has been generated and not just created by somebody out of personal interest and a description without any review. It is not as if it is an internet site where somebody can put up something and they can simply make a claim; the evidence that this IARC group looked at was peer reviewed research that had to be published in journals where people's reputations demand that they apply most rigorous scientific standards and expectations. So we have a body of scientific literature on which to draw here. To be clear, they did not actually assess the level of risk associated with particular levels of exposure, but they did note an increasing body of evidence indicating that there is a possible link between glioma and the use of mobile phones.

In response, here in Australia, the government through the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, ARPANSA, will continue to oversight emerging research such as this. What we do know is that there are four levels in the IARC's evaluation of carcinogenic risks. Group 1 includes things such as tobacco smoking and solar radiation. Group 2A relates to the risk of carcinogens from diesel engine exhaust and UVA and UVB. Group 2B includes things which are possibly carcinogenic to humans, such as magnetic fields, gasoline and fibreglass insulation, and it is in this group that the research currently indicates that there is a link between mobile phone use and possible glioma.

Critically, the group in their analysis had shown that in one study there was a 40 per cent increased risk of gliomas amongst the heaviest mobile phone users, which they categorise as people who use their phone for 30 minutes a day over 10 years. I just look at your reaction there, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I know that but it is not what we would think of as heavy use. 30 minutes is very common use. I think many Australians put ourselves in the heavy use category all too promptly.

What do we do with this information? My hope is that we can change our use and that we can certainly change it in our children, because that is ARPANSA's recognition of what we might do at this point as a responsible response to the information. So, where possible, use a landline. Use a hands-free or a speaker option. Text instead of making a phone call and use your phone in a good signal area. I commend this motion to the House. (Time expired)

See this speech in context