Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to support the motion of the federal member for Dickson, the shadow minister for health and ageing. In doing so I want to note that the government members opposite seem to be avoiding the central issue of the motion, and that is the concerns of key stakeholders in relation to the price reduction of the chemotherapy drug docetaxel and its potential broad impact on the treatment of cancer patients.

Members opposite have failed to understand that this is a concern of the sector, including the private sector, which provides up to 50 per cent of all cancer care in Australia. More than 13,000 lifesaving infusions are prepared and dispensed by community and private hospital pharmacies for cancer patients each week.

Central to this issue is cross-subsidisation. The member for Robertson mentioned the report of the Senate Community Affairs References Committee, and I want to refer to the additional comments from coalition senators—the member for Robertson should read them. Their comments noted that there is not a good understanding of cross-subsidisation, which is what is at the centre of this motion today. Nobody is saying that cross-subsidisation is the best system possible but continually this government interferes in an area, it ignores the advice of a sector, it blunders on through with a noble objective and it ends up doing a lot of damage to everybody. That is exactly what has happened here. We are hearing that from the sector itself. The sector says, quite clearly:

The largest provider of private day oncology services on the North Shore and northwest Sydney—

near my electorate—

the Sydney Adventist Hospital, said the funding approach could lead to “cessation of all chemotherapy infusions, provision of a limited range of treatments and pharmacy staff reductions”.

Nobody would want to see that. If the sector is telling us that if cross-subsidisation is removed and we do not have anything better to replace it with that could lead to the cessation of treatment, then obviously you have to do something about it. Of course we do not want to be here today discussing a motion in relation to cancer treatment and chemotherapy drugs—nobody wants to politicise these issues. These are not political footballs. But the sector is saying they cannot convince the government, and they cannot convince the member for Robertson, about this issue—that they have a problem. So we have put forward a reasonable and measured motion that calls on the government to consult with the sector, that says to negotiate on the price about this.

If the government do have a noble and objective intention of saving taxpayers' money—they will not get any argument from me about saving taxpayers' money—they must have something to replace it with that is better. You must have a better alternative. It is not right to leave people in serious health situations in the lurch. That is what we have seen here. Last year, in November, we saw Senator Nick Xenophon, an Independent—no friend of the opposition's—side with the shadow minister for health to say what an issue this is. Even the Greens offered their support. Maybe the government could have a look at that and say that if all these people are saying there is a concern, there might be a concern.

The government itself has basically acknowledged the problem. In its recent announcement on 5 May 2013 it said it would initiate a funding review into chemotherapy and provide $29.7 million in the 2013-14 budget to provide an additional $60 for each chemotherapy infusion for only six months. This was basically an admission of failure that what it attempted to do last year was never going to work, that the patients in the sector are saying this is not going to work, and it took the government six months to respond. That is the criticism we have of this government—it is not rigorous with the detail; it is not across the detail. When those opposite attempt to do something with the highest and most noble of intentions, they never have any understanding of what it is they are trying to do—of the follow-through that is necessary and how to ameliorate the impact it will have on people on the way through. In other words, they are not good change managers and they certainly cannot manage change effectively to deliver competent government policy across a range of sectors.

The opposition senators, who examined this issue rigorously, said that the failure to satisfactorily resolve this issue early was a demonstration of policy ineptitude and laziness in the government. It does not matter whether you are listening to the Pharmacy Guild or the Clinical Oncology Society or the San hospital in Sydney, or any of the constituents of mine, whether it is Kay from West Pennant Hills, Bronwyn from Castle Hill or Christina from Castle Hill—I have dozens of letters—they all express serious concerns about what the federal government was doing late last year with the future funding of chemotherapy drugs. How is that a good situation? Of course we acknowledge that cross-subsidisation may not be the best outcome but, if you are going to replace it with something, have something better to replace it with before you go and make the lives of people demonstrably worse.

See this speech in context