Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Firstly, I commend the member for Macarthur for bringing this matter of skin cancer before the house for debate. As someone with lifelong medical experience, I believe that this House should take note of his comments in respect to this matter and his general wisdom when it comes to medical procedures more broadly.

Every illness or disease is extremely debilitating and disruptive, and I'm sure the member for Parkes, who talked about his own situation, would attest to that. It's emotionally and financially draining. For people who suffer from a serious illness, I suspect that very little else matters to them until the illness is under control. Their focus would be solely on that, so that they can get back to normal life. The reality is that so many illnesses are indeed preventable, including melanoma and other skin cancers. We've seen over the years that we can get good results with campaigns, such as with smoking, bowel cancer, asbestos awareness and even the 'slip-slop-slap' campaign, which I have no doubt has made a difference and saved lives.

Melanoma is a serious cancer and, again, I think we could do a lot more. It costs lives, and apart from the fact that it costs some $400 million each year, the reality is, as the member for Pearce quite rightly pointed out, that each year some 17,500 people are diagnosed with the illness. Of those, 1,225 or thereabouts will not get past the first five years. If you put that into a more understandable series of statistics, every day around 48 people are diagnosed with melanoma and, of those, somewhere between three and four will not survive it. When you look at it like that, you realise that this is a medical issue that affects a lot of lives. Just as importantly, it's a medical issue that I believe we as a society can do more about. Again, the member for Pearce has quite rightly pointed to the $14.8 million over four years to the melanoma Institute of Australia that was announced by this government and that would deliver some 35 nurses across the country, and also the $10 million of funding over two years for skin cancer awareness campaigns. That builds on a previous $10 million. Again, I welcome those commitments and I commend the minister for them, and I believe that they will make a huge difference.

But I want to go to the substance of this motion, and I will just read three parts of it, because I think they go to the heart of what we're debating here today. The member for Macarthur moves that 'Australians require more equitable access to skin cancer checks with the need for greater access through general practitioner clinics and dermatologists'. That's (1)(b). Then (1)(e) goes on to say 'diagnosis is being inhibited by the costs involved in GP and dermatologist skin cancer checks', and part (2) of the motion 'calls for the consideration of a separate bulk-billed GP and specialist item number for skin cancer checks'. Those three points of the motion I think go to the heart of what we're debating, because they highlight the fact that we need more skin checks and that that's the way to prevent more people not only from getting melanoma but from perhaps dying from it.

Secondly: the cost, and the member for Macarthur, again, referred to the cost when he quoted the statistics from his own research only today. I know from speaking to people literally every day that medical costs do stop people from going to see doctors to have regular check-ups that they should be having, not just for this illness but for many others, which could save their lives. But they won't do it because they simply cannot afford it in many cases, and other priorities take over.

We have to try to overcome that. Therefore, the member for Macarthur provides a suggestion that we consider a separate bulk-billed GP and specialist item No. 4 for skin cancer checks. My view is that, if we can do that, the cost that we bear upfront will be more than offset by the savings further down the track. Regrettably, and I have made this point in respect to a number of other health matters, governments—of all persuasions—always look at the upfront cost without factoring in the economic savings right along the line and at the end. It's time that we started to do that, because, if we did, my view is that the process and procedure that the member for Macarthur is suggesting is actually affordable and fundable. It's fundable by looking at those savings, and I commend this motion to the House.

See this speech in context