Stuart Henry (Hasluck, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is without exaggeration that I say that Australians are currently fighting a war right here at home—a war that rarely makes the headlines yet claims more than 36,000 Australian lives each year and rates as newsworthy only when someone famous finds themselves in the fight. I am talking about cancer. I use the metaphor of war deliberately, although with the utmost respect to those who have literally experienced battles between humans. One in three Australian males and one in four Australian females will battle at the cancer front line before the age of 75. Among the rest of us, virtually everyone is affected. It kills more Australians than any other single cause of death. It accounts for 28 per cent of deaths overall and, tellingly, 35 per cent of all deaths under the age of 75. Many of these are slow, progressive, painful deaths that undermine the strength of untold numbers of families.

There are many Australians who have stepped up to fight this war. As a nation we are blessed with quiet armies of people who have the talent, care and commitment we need in the battle fronts of cancer prevention, cancer treatment and cancer care. One such quiet army is Silver Chain, founded in Western Australia in 1905. Today, over 100 years later, Silver Chain is a name of trust and compassion in our Western Australian communities. Silver Chain is a non-sectarian charitable organisation, which established an extension of its service deliveries in 1982 as a hospice care service, which is one of Australia’s largest community based palliative care services. Through this service, Silver Chain provides a holistic approach to home care for people who are terminally ill, for their families and for their carers. We should applaud its activities and offer our congratulations for the efforts of over 500 volunteers and 2,300 staff who provide this much-needed and caring service.

Another very much in the front line of cancer prevention is the 2006 Australian of the Year, Professor Ian Frazer. He has been on the front line in this battle for some 20 years, researching the link between papilloma viruses and cancer, seeking ways to treat these viruses in order to reduce the incidence of cancer. The professor has now developed vaccines to prevent and treat cervical cancer, which affects some 500,000 women, with some 300,000 losing their lives each year. In 2002 alone, 227 Australian women lost their lives to cervical cancer. A vaccine based on his research has been shown in worldwide trials to prevent papilloma virus infection and reduce pap smear abnormalities by 90 per cent. It has the potential to virtually eradicate cervical cancer within a generation. This vaccine will revolutionise women’s health across the globe.

Professor Frazer’s commitment to the fight includes his work as Chairman of the Medical and Scientific Advisory Committee of the Queensland Cancer Fund. He advises the World Health Organisation and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation on papilloma virus vaccines. Dr Frazer teaches immunology to undergraduates and graduate students of the University of Queensland. Professor Frazer also founded and leads the University of Queensland Centre for Immunology and Cancer Research. He was recently made a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Science and was awarded a Eureka Prize in recognition of his development of the vaccine.

It is a war and, while we recognise and acknowledge the great work and efforts of organisations like Silver Chain and people such as Professor Frazer, to fight this war we need a war office. That is where I believe this bill to establish a new national body known as Cancer Australia is a progressive initiative, and that is why I rise to speak to the Cancer Australia Bill 2006 today.

The National Cancer Control Initiative, or NCCI, put in place by the Hon. Michael Wooldridge, has battled well on behalf of us all since 1997. It has devised national strategies, informed government policy and done important work on diagnosis, prevention, patient care, research and knowledge sharing. But, with 462,000 new cases being diagnosed each year and more than 100 types of cancer together stealing around 260,000 potential life years from Australians each year, we need an agency with more power for the battle ahead. In fact, the NCCI itself realised this need for a national coordination, communication and strategic cancer agency. The NCCI worked actively to ensure the successful establishment of Cancer Australia. The government was pleased to respond by including the establishment of Cancer Australia in the Strengthening Cancer Care policy package we presented to the Australian people at the last election.

Cancer Australia will give us many tactical advantages as we fight against cancer. Most importantly of all, it will provide the national leadership and coordination we need to make the best from our resources and efforts. This leadership will focus on improving all three battle fronts: prevention, treatment and care. It will also coordinate, link and strengthen the wide range of health-care providers and community agencies connected to the battle. Some of these agencies are large and broad in scope; others are local and highly focused. We need all their efforts, and we need to do everything we can to help them be as effective as possible. To this end I can only endorse the mention by the Minister for Health and Ageing and member for Warringah, the Hon. Tony Abbott, that a national audit of cancer efforts is a key priority.

Cancer Australia will also guide government cancer policy and priorities and help with implementation, turning policies into action. This will include overseeing a special budget dedicated to cancer research. I was very pleased earlier today to hear the member for Prospect supporting the main thrust of the bill and much of the activity of Cancer Australia. Among the key work fronts for Cancer Australia will be efforts to facilitate and implement expanded support for Australians living with cancer; enhanced professional support for cancer care workers; improvements to screening and prevention services, especially for bowel, skin and cervical cancer; and enhanced research into the disease itself, as well as research into how we care for those who battle it.

The importance of these government initiatives is hard to overstate. Cancer is already our single biggest killer and steals far more potential life years than any other health issue. But our population is ageing and, as cancer occurs four times more often in people over 65, we are facing a dramatic rise in the number of cancer cases we fight each year. Yet, according to the Cancer Council of Australia, evidence suggests that even with current knowledge we can prevent up to half of all cancer deaths. I think that bears repeating: half of Australia’s cancer cases are already preventable.

Research now clearly links obesity, diet and physical inactivity with many types of cancer. Although the exact nature of these links is unclear, we do not need further research to tell us that Australia’s increasing body weight and decreasing physical activity levels are not good news for cancer statistics. And we do not need research to motivate us to respond now in the interests of the future health of all of us, including our fellow Australians who are more at risk of so-called ‘lifestyle’ cancers. Indeed, I cannot help asking myself whether perhaps it would help national discussions about this if we stopped calling them ‘lifestyle factors’ and started calling them ‘cultural factors’.

I was struck recently by Cancer Council figures which estimate that not only can we can prevent 7,700 deaths each year from cancers caused by cigarette smoking and 1,300 from skin cancers but also we can already prevent around 6,000 cancer deaths caused by inadequate intake of fruits and vegetables, obesity or lack of physical activity. A recent estimate that 60 per cent of Australians over the age of 25 are overweight or obese therefore makes for sobering thought for those concerned with our long-term health care needs.

It is important to note that, among the reasons driving the need for Cancer Australia to be established, it is often forgotten that the burden of cancer is not shared equally across the Australian community. Australians who already experience relative social and economic disadvantage have far higher rates of cancer diagnosis and tragically have higher rates of mortality. Indigenous Australians, for example, have by far the worst rates of cancer incidence and survival, dying from cancer at twice the rate of non-Indigenous Australians. Overall, cancer patients in remote parts of Australia are 35 per cent more likely to die from their disease than their fellow Australians living in major cities. Wherever we live, the evidence indicates that people with lower levels of education and less socioeconomic opportunity develop cancer and die from it at higher rates, which only reinforces the educational and economic disadvantages their families already experience.

But we must not think that all the news on cancer is bad—far from it. Overall, we have improved cancer survivability by 30 per cent even including the most lethal forms. We have made major progress in reducing certain cancers like those caused by smoking. We are performing much better at early detection of many cancers such as prostate and cervical cancers. Our ability to treat many cancers, including childhood, breast and colon cancers, is world-class and light-years away from just generations ago. Even more important for the long term is the progress we have made towards understanding how to reduce and manage risk factors.

In fact, this is perhaps our most exciting opportunity in the cancer war. We must continue to progress our treatment and care efforts, but now we have the capacity to match that with advances in prevention. This bill to establish Cancer Australia will go a long way to achieving that. Make no mistake: Australia is not alone in this war. In fact, every nation on earth is fighting with us. Cancer is a major problem for all humanity in the 21st century. Bird flu may grab the headlines but cancer already kills millions around the world each and every year. It hits without fear or favour—especially without favour. Read even a few reports on cancer in the developing world and the heartbreaking figures on incidence, access to treatment and survivability are salient reminders that we already have one of the world’s best cancer care systems in the world, from prevention to treatment to palliative care. There is so much to be grateful for and proud of.

But we cannot yet say that we are winning the war, only that we have had some successes and are currently at a kind of stalemate or detente of disease. Age and lifestyle issues loom large. Age, in particular, is cancer’s greatest advantage. It is great news that we are living longer, but this advantage brings with it the reality that our cancer rates will increase. In all likelihood this increase will be dramatic in the coming decades. The imperatives for this bill could therefore not be clearer. Already cancer directly costs us about $2.8 billion or six per cent of our national health budget. Indirectly it costs us far more in lost productivity, social capital, emotional health and missed opportunity. Yet even this cost is dwarfed by the immeasurable cost of losing 36,000 of our children, parents, siblings, spouses, friends, colleagues and neighbours each year.

The thinking and legislation behind Cancer Australia has already received broad support across the medical research and health care sectors as well as from the cancer sector itself. This bill should receive strong and unqualified support from all parties and political persuasions. It is one of those bills that show how things should work: sensible, well-informed policy guiding well-considered legislation that is responded to by all on its merits and capacity to benefit Australia and Australians. Between this moment as we sit in this chamber and Christmas Day, when we celebrate that occasion with our families, more than 27,000 Australians will lose their fight with cancer and another 340,000 Australians will be diagnosed. On behalf of them all, those who care for them and those who care about them, I commend this bill to the House. Foreseeing the bill’s passage into legislation, I wish the incoming staff and advisory board members of the new Cancer Australia all wind to their sails.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak tonight on the Cancer Australia Bill 2006 to particularly highlight the outstanding services being provided at the Austin Health service, a major teaching hospital in my electorate which serves not only the north-eastern suburbs of Melbourne but many people throughout Victoria and parts of Tasmania—and there are some specialised services that provide very important cancer relief to people in other parts of the country.

One of the terrific initiatives under way at the hospital is the Olivia Newton-John Cancer Centre. It is proposed that this be a unique, comprehensive and integrated cancer centre that will bring together research, patient care, cancer support and training. I particularly want to indicate my very strong support for this initiative. I know that a large number of people are barracking for it, but the most important person who is doing that is in fact the patron of this new initiative, Olivia Newton-John.

We expect that the total cost of this new centre will be $75 million for a new building at Austin Health. We anticipate that the private fundraising for this initiative should raise about $25 million, but that leaves the new service about $50 million short. We certainly have had some positive signals from other sources, and we hope that both the state and the federal government will see fit to come to the party to make sure that this outstanding service will get the funding it needs so that we can get this building under way.

It is already the case that the Austin Hospital is one of our nation’s busiest cancer centres, not only treating many people but also having a very significant partnership with the International Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research. The Austin is, in fact, the largest international clinical research site for the Ludwig—that is worldwide—and is the major international production centre for new reagents to be used in clinical trials. One of the very important good news stories from this relationship between the Ludwig and the Austin is that we get more than $US30 million of Ludwig money coming in from the United States for this partnership. It is the case that these biological reagents are produced for countries around the world. I think we can see what a significant contribution this hospital and the International Ludwig Institute are already making.

The Austin Hospital also houses a major research centre for positron emission tomography, otherwise known as PET scanning, and many people will be aware that this technology is now very important in investigating many cancers. We are very fortunate to have this technology at the Austin and for it to play a critical role not only in investigation but also in research. It is also the case that the Austin is a very big training centre for clinicians and researchers in oncology and in a large number of related specialties—cancer nursing, radiation therapies and other cancer and allied specialists. That is another reason why so many people at the Austin are very keen to get this new integrated cancer centre built on site, which will be called the Olivia Newton-John Cancer Centre.

We already have the north-east Melbourne integrated cancer centre program providing outreach radiation oncology and medical oncology services to Ballarat. I am sure that the member for Ballarat, who is here with me today, knows how critical that service is to her constituents. There are many other rural centres, particularly in Victoria, that also get the benefit of these outstanding services. There is a very large palliative care service, which is integrated with community providers to make sure that people who are dying of cancer are able to do so in the most homely environment but with the highest level of care available to them. I certainly know, from people who have spoken to me, about the very sensitive way in which that palliative care service does its job.

So we have at the Austin a very large cancer treatment service. It plays a national leadership role already in cancer research and the training of cancer health professionals. It certainly promotes and is intent on expanding integrated cancer treatment across the community and, as I said, in rural areas as well. That is why I particularly want to take this opportunity today to indicate to the government how worthy I think this project is of federal government support. I am sure that it will have support across the political spectrum. I do not imagine that anyone in this parliament would look at this issue from a political point of view. These are important services that are being provided to people, no matter where they live.

I certainly hope that, with support from the Victorian government and the Australian government as well as from those private donors who have already indicated their support, we can see this Olivia Newton-John Cancer Centre established, built and operating at the Austin Hospital in the very near future. I thank the House for the opportunity to indicate what an important initiative I think this will be and I hope that it will receive a very positive hearing from the government.

Kay Hull (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me great pleasure today to rise to support the Cancer Australia Bill 2006. As all other speakers in the House have mentioned, this is a fantastic initiative that is long overdue and widely welcomed right across Australia. Cancer Australia will be an umbrella organisation for various cancer groups to provide leadership, vision and support to consumers and health professionals and to make recommendations to the government about cancer policies and priorities. As the co-convener—along with the member for Franklin, Harry Quick—of the parliamentary cancer network, it gives me much pleasure to be able to stand here today and recognise that this national body will be of great benefit to all Australians. It will include new approaches to mentoring regional cancer services, a grants process targeted at building cancer support groups, a national awareness campaign for skin cancer, a new dedicated budget for research into cancer to be administered in conjunction with the National Health and Medical Research Council and funding for clinical trials infrastructure for cancer patients.

With one in three men and one in four women in Australia now directly affected by cancer in the first 75 years of their life, it is imperative to have as many support services available as possible, especially in regional areas. Support services have come a long way, particularly in regional areas, since I was first exposed to family cancer many years ago. When my brother aged 28 was diagnosed with melanoma, limited support services were available in country areas. We spent months and months in the Sydney Hospital trying to assist and do all that we could in research and in trialling drugs to save my 28-year-old brother’s life. Unfortunately, that did not happen and he passed away. I remember feeling at that time that there had to be something better in the system to assist him and the many other patients who came from regional Australia to confront this terrifying disease and to assist them to have a quality of life, no matter how short it was, while they were being treated. May I say that, with the grace of God and an enormous amount of work from people right across Australia and successive governments, we have seen that happening: we have seen the system change dramatically. With this organisation, we will now see a central point for managing services and support centres.

I congratulate the New South Wales Cancer Council and the Cancer Patients Assistance Society because they have done a magnificent job. I would like to make mention of the fact that the Riverina people decided to take charge of their own destiny. I have mentioned it many times in the House here, and I will mention it again today because I am extremely proud of the efforts made by the Riverina constituency, and those just beyond the Riverina as well, to establish the Riverina Cancer Care Centre. Through the great work and huge generosity of people across my electorate, we were able to launch a fundraising campaign to build a cancer care centre in order to attract a service provider to come into that centre and provide much-needed radiotherapy, and now public chemotherapy, in a quality environment.

Some really significant people have, along the way, put in much effort on behalf of cancer sufferers and their families. Sometimes that effort can be forgotten, because somebody will take on an issue and drive it, and the people with the vision, the passion and the dream sometimes get left behind. There is a lady who has had such passion and drive for over 25 years for all the patients in the Riverina. As a nurse, her commitment to her patients in administering chemotherapy and many treatments was absolutely outstanding and deserved reward. I speak of Ann Aichroy, a sister at the Wagga Wagga Base Hospital, who supported fly-in, fly-out cancer support services and provided the most extraordinary care above and beyond the call of duty. She came to me many times with a vision and a dream of having a cancer care centre dedicated in Wagga Wagga to the Riverina people that would provide the best treatment available.

Thankfully, in the honours list on Australia Day this year, I was successful in having Annie recognised for her enormous contribution to patients with cancer long before it became fashionable and long before it became an industry with so much help and assistance. She was out there striving and driving to deliver quality of life to people when their lives were short, and making every day a winner and every day count. She is an amazing recipient of that order. I am very proud of her and very proud to have nominated her for this award, to remember what she put in when others took this forward.

We built our cancer care centre as a testament to the dream and vision of people like Annie Aichroy and many people who have gone before us with this hideous disease. We are now servicing the Riverina and Canberra and many people beyond. We have some international people coming in for treatment.

I also thank the minister, the department, the minister’s office and Terry Barnes for assisting me through a process at the moment that will see even better and more reliable services delivered to far more people out of the Riverina Cancer Care Centre. Those negotiations are at the current time going along really nicely. I am hoping that they will lead to a fruitful end.

We had a significant amount of involvement when we raised the $3 million in 18 months to build our cancer care centre for our region. We did walks and dinners. We had great benefactors and great donations from people who had experienced cancer, but the community commitment was beyond belief. Then, when we had finished building that centre and had operators, providers, radiation and oncology services et cetera in that centre providing a fabulous treatment, there was the desire to build an accommodation facility. Through the combined efforts of the Cancer Patients Assistance Society, the Cancer Council of New South Wales and, again in the electorate of Riverina, the incredible drivers from the local wine clubs, Rotary and Apex clubs and general community members, we have built Lilier Lodge, which has 24 brand-new units. It is the most beautiful set of units. When you stay there, you are able to have your family with you at a very troubling time, when you are receiving the expertly and excellently delivered services and treatments of the Riverina Cancer Care Centre, with its staff absolutely committed to these treatment processes.

The one little glitch is in relation to IPTAAS, the Isolated Patients Travel and Accommodation Assistance Scheme, which is run by the New South Wales state government. It is a great scheme, a fabulous scheme, but the glitch was that you did have to travel in excess of 200 kilometres to qualify. That has now been reduced to 100 kilometres. I thank the New South Wales government for putting their attention to this. However, there is still a problem in that people from, say, Temora or surrounding areas just under those 100 kilometres need to travel to have treatment and need to stay over for their treatment. As we all know, when you are a cancer sufferer and you are getting treatment, it has a significant impact on your energy and health, and you are unable to travel much of the time during your treatment process. It would be great to see some sort of resolution that enabled people or gave them assistance to utilise Lilier Lodge so that they could experience a far better treatment, rather than having to hop into the car and go back to their homes of a night and travel back the next day. It is an enormous strain on them; otherwise, they have to attend Sydney before they can qualify for IPTAAS.

I commend the New South Wales government for lowering the distance, but it would be great if we could come to another resolution so that those people who are having treatment—because it is certainly impossible for them to travel after treatment—benefit by being able to claim IPTAAS to utilise facilities to make the treatment a little bit easier on them.

Moving to some of the issues where we have people travelling from more remote areas: it has been an absolute boon for patients, their families and friends to have such great services established in the Riverina—as I said, with the assistance of this government. We never, ever, thought it would be possible, but it has been made possible and we thank them enormously.

When someone is diagnosed with cancer, it is a difficult time for their family and friends. They need as many support services as possible. This bill is a vital step in ensuring that this is the case. Cancer Australia will translate into a new national voice with more research funding for cancer care, better support for those living with cancer, strengthened palliative care services and better support for cancer professionals. As I said, I have a lot of experience with cancer. Some years ago my 28-year-old brother became a victim of cancer—melanoma. Shortly after he died, my very best friend was diagnosed with breast cancer and lost her life. She was very young and had three babies. Shortly thereafter, my father was diagnosed with cancer and I lost him. Then I lost my mother with cancer shortly after that. It was a chain of events that has led me to feel that this bill is the best thing that could happen for those people who need support services nationally right across Australia, as they may not be as lucky as we are to have what we have developed in the Riverina.

I am aware that there will be an advisory council that will be appointed by the minister. I would appeal to the minister to ensure that consumers are represented on this council. All too often we get an enormous number of medical experts, particularly in cancer, because there are so many fields that require representation. With all the representation across the board from the various fields of cancer and the treatment, services, add-ons and ancillaries that are needed for cancer patients, consumers are often forgotten. I would urge the minister to ensure that consumers are represented on this advisory council, because, believe you me, nobody knows better about what is needed than a person who has been diagnosed and is living with cancer. It is not just a matter of being diagnosed and then being treated. We are so fortunate; we really have seen such a difference in the way in which we treat cancer. So many more people now do not have a death sentence; they often have a life sentence to a good life. That is due to the amount of money and expertise, commitment and passion that has been invested.

There are so many issues that confront patients and their families, because so many new challenges come into play after you are diagnosed, even if you are successfully treated—and thankfully many people are. There is now a greater percentage who are saved than who lose their lives. But, even if you have been diagnosed and treated successfully, you often have other conditions that come into play as a result of having had cancer in the first place. It is an ongoing management and maintenance task. There are a whole host of things we do not look at outside the initial treatment of this disease and the support whilst treatment is being made available. So I would urge the minister to include on this advisory council consumers who are across the whole host of long-term management problems and challenges for patients and families. It is absolutely essential.

Cancer Voices Australia is a cancer support group for people who have been affected by cancer. This is the sort of thing we have needed for so long. It often takes a group of passionate people to bring such a support group together. It is enormously needed, because it is a very lonely journey—a lonely journey with thousands of people around you, but enormously difficult in the steps that you need to take.

I would also ask the minister to consider a palliative care process when we are looking at how we take advice. Palliative care is an enormously important part of cancer management, particularly for the patient. Having cared for my brother, my father and my mother right through the palliative care stage to death, I really believe that palliative care has to comprehensively engage the family and provide hands-on advice on the day-to-day experience of a terminal patient.

While this is a fabulous bill and I support it entirely, I do seek to have as much influence as I possibly can to ensure consumers are not forgotten, because to me consumers are the experts. With respect to palliative care deliverers, far too often we take advice from those at high levels rather than from those involved in on-the-ground activity on a day-to-day basis. It is good to have grassroots people on expert advisory boards and councils because they bring us back to reality. Nobody could be more in touch with reality than consumers who have been faced with a diagnosis of cancer and those who provide palliative care services.

I commend this bill to the House. I commend the support that this government will make available to everybody across Australia in providing a national voice that can better coordinate treatment for cancer sufferers and the provision of additional services to them and their families now and in the future.

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak in the debate on the Cancer Australia Bill 2006. It pertains to an issue of great public importance not only to my electorate of Calwell but also to the broader Australian community. As many of my colleagues have indicated, cancer profoundly and personally affects almost every Australian family. There are very few people who have not come into contact with the effects and the consequences of this disease, which are felt in our homes, neighbourhoods, schools and suburbs. Cancer is a disease that cuts across age, gender, ethnicity and social groups. It has replaced heart disease as the biggest single cause of death among Australians, with some 36,000 deaths per year. Each week, an estimated 88,000 Australians are diagnosed with some form of cancer. That is almost 3¼ million cases a year.

Fortunately—and there is good news—cancer control in Australia is a largely positive story, with our survival rates being second only to those of the United States and the number of deaths falling every year. I understand that some 60 per cent of patients who will be diagnosed with cancer manage to go on and live long and happy lives. This significant progress is due to new and more effective treatments becoming all the more available and also to better and more targeted detection and screening procedures and a greater understanding of this disease and its symptoms.

This better understanding is the result of years of excellent and dedicated research by the medical and scientific community. We have brilliant scientists in this country who have been at the forefront of many breakthroughs in the treatment of cancer. They deserve our unqualified and unequivocal support because they have the potential and the capacity to help Australians and even, hopefully one day, to find the very cure that at this point alludes them.

However, the benefits of these improvements are not necessarily shared equally across the community, with disproportionate rates of cancer still occurring in disadvantaged groups including Indigenous Australians and those living in rural and regional areas. Reforms are also needed to ensure more efficient and effective use of resources and to ensure greater coordination between our talented and dedicated research community and those who are entrusted with the treatment of people suffering from cancer and also the many wonderful support organisations that the member for Riverina spoke so passionately about. This bill is an important step in this direction.

The bill seeks to establish a new national agency, Cancer Australia. Its stated aims include providing national leadership and coordination of cancer control in Australia to guide improvements in cancer prevention and care, helping to provide better support to those living with cancer and to cancer professionals and improving and strengthening palliative care services. Cancer Australia will also oversee a dedicated budget for research into cancer. It will make recommendations to the government about cancer policies and priorities and coordinate and liaise between the wide range of groups and providers who have an interest in cancer.

I support the government’s initiative in this bill, as I think would many members of the House. It is an initiative that has the potential to improve cancer care in Australia and to significantly ameliorate the quality of life for so many Australians. For too long, the lack of coordination of cancer funding, programs and councils has prevented Australia from reaching its full potential in delivering the best possible cancer care, treatment and research. However, it would be remiss for me not to make some criticisms of the manner in which the government has delayed the implementation of this essential agency.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Criticise the government—surely not!

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When the government is doing the right thing, we praise it; when it is doing the wrong thing, we criticise it. The government announced the establishment of Cancer Australia in a policy statement prior to the 2004 election and my understanding is that it was due to be implemented last year.

We in the Labor opposition recognise the immediate need to address and improve Australia’s efforts in cancer research and treatment. Our cancer policy announced prior to the last election includes $64 million for cancer prevention programs, $36.2 million to establish new multidisciplinary care for cancer, $12 million for the management of cooperative clinical trials to help develop new and better information about cancer treatments and patient care, and a nationally dedicated program to fund breast prostheses for women who have had mastectomies.

This was an issue in which I was particularly active in my first year as a member of parliament. It came to my attention that many women around the country who had had mastectomies were unable to get appropriate prostheses and were, in many cases, forced—and you may remember this: the famous ‘birdseed in the bra’ line that I used in my speech—to use alternative methods. In some cases, women were given the prostheses of women who had died from breast cancer. These things were actually happening in various places in Australia.

There is a problem with the funding of breast prostheses because it falls into the funding for general prostheses. I was involved with the many women in the various cancer support networks who were urging the government to either rebate the cost of prostheses on Medicare—something that the government refused to do—or look at alternative ways in which state hospitals allocate their funding—and once you have had a mastectomy obviously there are lots of other issues—to ensure that women who needed prostheses actually got them when they needed them. The government refused at that time to address this issue. It remains an issue and the opposition has a policy which will see us implement a nationally dedicated program to fund breast prostheses for women who have had mastectomies.

To return to the bill that we are discussing here today: we are pleased to see that the government has finally gotten around to implementing this aspect of its election policy. We do, however, condemn it for its delay and I understand that the delay in setting up Cancer Australia has had some unfortunate consequences. I refer to the untimely demise of the National Cancer Control Initiative, the key expert reference group which had been set up to advise government on all aspects of cancer prevention, detection, treatment and palliative care.

The work of the NCCI and its staff was originally planned to be subsumed into the new Cancer Australia when it was established. But the government’s failure to set up Cancer Australia in time has meant that the NCCI was forced to disband because funding ceased prior to the establishment of the new agency. Therefore, the staff at the NCCI and the expertise that had been developed there, which should have been seamlessly incorporated in Cancer Australia, have now been lost, given that many people have had to move on elsewhere.

The government’s shortcomings do not end here. Most of the government’s other commitments to cancer made before the last election, including programs to stop pregnant women from smoking and to enhance skin cancer awareness, have yet to be fully implemented. Other commitments, including the national screening program for bowel cancer, I understand have been discarded.

This is particularly regrettable, given that bowel cancer is the second most common cancer afflicting both men and women. All doctors and research experts will tell you that one of the fundamental keys to surviving cancer is its early detection. For many cancers—and there are some 200 of them—early detection is a matter of life or death for most people. Screening procedures are central to early detection and to wider cancer control and management, of course. In this context, the government’s retreat from the national screening program for such a common and dangerous cancer does not appear to make any sense and I think it seriously compromises the wellbeing of Australian men and women. Labor’s inquiries through questions on notice and Senate estimates have failed to reveal any reason for these delays and policy retreats. I would like to take this opportunity to ask the government, on behalf of my constituents, why this is the case.

Many government speakers have spoken very stridently about the government’s commitment to cancer treatment but there are still many outstanding matters that need the government’s attention and response. One example of an outstanding matter is the Senate Community Affairs References Committee report The cancer journey: informing choice, chaired by our colleague the late Peter Cook, himself a victim of cancer. This report, which offers a comprehensive analysis and appraisal of current cancer care and provides many concrete and critical recommendations, has languished on Minister Abbott’s desk since July last year. The government’s failure to act on these recommendations is a great loss to patients, to their families, to the many researchers and health care professionals, to support groups and generally to the Australian community.

As members of parliament we often come into contact with constituents who are dealing with many issues associated with a cancer diagnosis. As I said earlier, cancer affects virtually every Australian family in the country. Today I want to mention my constituent Sonia Barker, a young mother who was recently diagnosed with breast cancer. Sonia’s story is all too familiar; I am sure many members have heard similar stories from constituents or have come into contact with women like Sonia. One day she discovered a lump in her breast and within days was diagnosed with a malignant tumour, underwent a mastectomy and is now preparing for chemotherapy.

Sonia came to see me as a last port of call because she needed my assistance. She is one of the many women that we have recently been hearing about who are victims of the aggressive breast cancer type HER2. Sonia, like many of the other women who have this particular type of cancer, would benefit greatly from the very successful drug Herceptin.

Unfortunately for Sonia, Herceptin is not, as yet, listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. The only way Sonia can access this potentially lifesaving treatment is if she forks out some $60,000 to pay for the medication. It is a big ask for a woman who has just had a significant thing happen to her. And it is certainly a big ask for her family and, in particular, for her husband, the only person in the family who is working. This is not an unusual occurrence. Like many other families who want their loved ones to have the best possible chance of survival, Sonia and her husband will do whatever it takes to ensure that they raise the $60,000 needed for Herceptin. Sonia has a 15-year-old son, and she said to me that she wants to live to see him grow up.

At the end of the day, these are the real-life cancer stories. Behind the policies and the legislation—and I guess behind even the banter of opposition and government members and even the squabbling between the states and the federal governments on matters of health—lie real Australians with immediate and urgent concerns. It is our responsibility to respond swiftly and effectively to these concerns.

None of us is immune. Cancer strikes indiscriminately. I know that many of our colleagues have been diagnosed with this disease. Certainly in the time that I have been here a great number of our colleagues have been diagnosed with this disease. There may be genetic predispositions and environmental or dietary factors, but at the end of the day cancer does strike indiscriminately across all groups. As our population ages, it will strike more and more.

In conclusion, I would like to say that we need to be prepared to meet these challenges. I know that we in the opposition certainly are. I call on the government to respond to the needs of Australians. I know that in the establishment of Cancer Australia it is doing that. It is a first step in the right direction. I urge the government to look at the considerations of the Senate report and consider adopting and implementing the recommendations of the report.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Cancer Australia Bill 2006 sets up a new national agency to oversee and coordinate all aspects of government policy on cancer. I welcome this measure. There are few families in this country which have not been affected by cancer. It does not respect age, race, colour, creed or status.

We all know that there are steps that can be taken to minimise the likelihood of contracting the disease, but, sadly, that provides no guarantee. One in three men and one in four women are likely to contract some form of cancer before the age of 75. If you play rugby union, look around the field next time you play. Five of your team-mates are likely at some stage to suffer from cancer. If you play netball, two or three of your squad may ultimately contract the disease.

This year alone, it is expected that more than 462,000 new cases of cancer will be diagnosed in Australia. The most common form of cancer in Australia is non-melanoma skin cancer, with 374,000 cases annually. More than half of us will develop at least one of these cancers, which can be fatal. There are more than 36,000 deaths from all kinds of cancer each year. Age standardised cancer incidence and mortality are falling in Australia. Australia is one of a small number of countries in which this is true. The age standardised mortality rate for men has been falling by about one per cent per year since 1990.

While survival rates are improving, there is still a particular sense of dread connected with this terrible disease. As a community we believe that cancer patients deserve our support and that we should minimise the impact of cancer on any sufferer. However, there is an added burden for those living outside major centres of population if they contract the disease. They and their families are often faced with long and expensive journeys to receive treatment, with long periods away from home at a time when they most need the support of their nearest and dearest and things familiar. Coping with this needs a certain kind of fortitude on the part of the individual and his or her family. It also needs resources. Many families, I know, worry about the money when all they should have to concern themselves with is the health problem and the survival of a loved one. Sadly, as a result, too many people in regional and rural areas are not receiving the treatment that would be typically received if they were in a metropolitan area. This result can, regrettably, be fatal.

I welcomed the release of the Baume report on radiation oncology, A vision for radiotherapy, which examined a range of issues relating to the provision of radiotherapy services, an important element in the fight against cancer. The report noted that only 80 per cent of the desirable numbers of people with a new diagnosis of cancer are receiving radiotherapy. It further noted that the waiting times to receive treatment are too long and that in Australia there are shortages of critical staff and modern radiotherapy machines. The report stated:

Cost shifting between levels of government is occurring. Many formerly public patients are being reclassified as private to gain Medicare benefits. Some of this money is being used to cover capital costs of equipment. Some is going into the pockets of people or institutions.

The report went on to note that in many places extra money is required and that governments must work together to ensure that things change for the better.

I was delighted to see that when the Baume report was released the need for radiotherapy services on the North Coast of New South Wales was recognised. The report noted that, according to the research conducted, radiotherapy usage by patients from the North Coast of New South Wales was low compared to other areas, including other regional areas. The North Coast of New South Wales is an area where many senior Australians have chosen to spend their retirement years. Age being a major risk factor for cancer, the resultant demand for radiation oncology services by this large, growing and aged population is obvious.

I welcomed the decision of the New South Wales government to locate two new radiotherapy units on the North Coast of that state. One was located at Port Macquarie and the other at Coffs Harbour. These facilities will be financially supported by the federal government through the provision of the Medicare rebate. The people of the North Coast are eagerly anticipating the opening of the radiotherapy units next year. That will mean that many patients will be spared the need to spend six or eight weeks in Sydney, Newcastle or Brisbane while they receive treatment. This will make a significant difference to those patients and their families.

Also of significance is the way in which the community has rallied behind this project to provide a patients and carers lodge next to the radiotherapy unit on the Coffs Harbour Health Campus to assist those travelling to the unit at Coffs Harbour from the surrounding region. I pay tribute to the Rotary Club of Coffs Harbour, which was the driving force behind this $1.4 million project. With local Lions clubs, it raised the bulk of the money, with some help from the federal government’s Regional Partnerships program. There were other contributions from organisations such as the New South Wales Cancer Council, the North Coast CWA clubs, the Quota Club and the Pink Ladies. There were also a number of substantial private donations. I would like to commend Mr Allen Hogbin and Mr Colin Scully for their substantial personal contributions. We have a priceless asset in the energy, enthusiasm and commitment shown by these local groups and individuals in supporting the work of fighting cancer.

I would like to take a moment to highlight another vital issue relating to the provision of cancer treatment—that is, the training and education of health professionals and specifically radiation therapists. This is another issue that was highlighted in the Baume report. In the report Professor Baume notes that Australian educated radiation therapists are amongst the best trained in the world. However, the professor highlights that our workforce in this area is not large enough to meet the needs of the Australian community. Recruitment is increasingly difficult, and high attrition rates are creating an ongoing problem. Indeed, Professor Baume makes the point that the size of the radiation therapy workforce is restricting our capacity to deliver improved and expanded services across the nation.

The report notes the following five key recommendations in relation to the radiation therapy workforce: the workforce must be highly trained and qualified; it must be of sufficient number, quite obviously, to operate machines and perform services to an optimal level and standard; the workforce must have high morale and be offered appropriate remuneration and career opportunities; it must be able to meet the needs for ongoing study and professional development; and it must be able to treat 50 per cent of people newly diagnosed as having cancer and to treat them without undue delay.

Professor Baume acknowledged at the time of handing down his report that there were enough radiation oncologists to meet current needs but that an ageing workforce was going to mean real challenges in the workforce over the next decade. However, in relation to radiation therapists the workforce shortage was more acute. The rate of attrition, an increase in the number of cancer treatment facilities and issues relating to remuneration, recognition and overseas opportunities had caused significant challenges and had led to a vacancy rate in that occupation of around 10 per cent.

Following the tabling of the Baume report, the coalition government provided a positive response to a number of these recommendations. Importantly, the Australian government committed to increase the number of radiation therapists by supporting additional training places. Whilst these measures are to be commended, I would like to note that the challenges associated with having an adequate workforce are ongoing. In addition to the challenges in relation to radiation therapists, there are challenges in relation to other health professionals that also require attention. We have a workforce shortage in relation to pathology. Pathologists are vital in the diagnosis of such diseases as cancer and provide invaluable information which monitors the effects of treatment.

I am sure all members of the House understand that, when it comes to cancer, the diagnosis and the subsequent treatment are the two fundamental elements to managing the disease in an effective manner. In that sense, the current workplace shortage in pathology is very relevant to cancer treatment. There is a serious shortage of pathologists in Australia, and they are in an ageing demographic also—as is the case with many other professionals. And that shortage is not only in Australia; it is also worldwide. If this trend continues, it is highly possible that pathology services may become a limiting factor in the capacity to undertake a range of clinical activities.

In 2003, the Australian Medical Workforce Advisory Committee recommended that an additional 100 registrar positions needed to be created in Australia each year in order to address this shortfall. This is a large number, particularly when you consider there are only 260 trainees presently training in Australia. As all members would be aware, the responsibility for funding training positions rests with state and territory governments. Whilst the lack of training by most of our state governments is a source of tremendous regret, I believe this is an issue which goes beyond highlighting the inadequacies of our state governments. It is essential that the Commonwealth works with the states to ensure these workplace shortfalls are addressed. The number of people who will be diagnosed and treated for such diseases as cancer is unlikely to decrease, so it is essential that we start working towards a solution now.

When we consider the impact that cancer has on hundreds of thousands of Australian families, it is important that governments at all levels work together to ensure there is an integrated strategy towards cancer treatment. The example which I have just mentioned in relation to pathology and radiation therapists highlights why there is a need for a more coordinated approach to cancer treatment. I therefore welcome the establishment of Cancer Australia, taking in research, support for carers, palliative care, prevention, policy recommendations and support for health professionals. I hope prevention and education will figure prominently in the agency’s work.

In light of the figures I quoted earlier on the incidence of skin cancer, it is clear that we need to go some way further than our current campaigns. I note that one of the initiatives in which the agency will be involved is a national awareness campaign on this issue. Clearly, the major cultural shift involved in changing Australians’ relationship with the sun and the outdoors still has some way to go. Organisations currently working in this area have, I understand, strongly supported the establishment of Cancer Australia, and greater coordination and communication can only enhance the good work done to date.

The advisory council of the new body has an impressive membership with a wide range of expertise. However, I hope it will be possible for the views of cancer sufferers themselves to be heard. The views of those directly affected may not differ from those of the health professionals, but they can often give us a different perspective, a different sense of priority and perhaps a deeper insight. Despite the recent advances in medical technology, there is still much work to be done in the fight against cancer and Cancer Australia has a major role to play. I commend the bill to the House.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before the member for Cowper leaves the chamber, I would like to tell him that I visited the Coffs Harbour Health Campus as recently as last week or the week before. It is a fine facility, and I congratulate the New South Wales state government for building that facility. I think it is one of the highest quality regional hospitals, and I think the people of Cowper are very fortunate to have such a facility servicing the Coffs Harbour area. I hope the member for Cowper appreciates the health campus and the services that are available to the people in his area.

I would also like to pick up on the points the member for Cowper made about the training of radiotherapists and pathologists for the workforce and encourage him to take up in his party room the cause of getting the government to make more places available at university so that more radiotherapists and pathologists can train. I know that in every public hospital throughout this country we have an enormous shortage of allied health professionals. The way to get around that, and the way to get around our shortage of doctors and nurses, is to have more of those positions created. I wanted to make that comment in relation to the Coffs Harbour Health Campus while the member for Cowper was still in the House and, in doing so, to acknowledge the contribution made by the state government to that fine facility.

This legislation establishes Cancer Australia as a new statutory agency for cancer policy and coordination as well as research. As I am sure many members in this debate have pointed out, cancer is the leading cause of death in Australia, with over 36,000 Australians dying each year from cancer of one type or another. One in three men and one in four women will be directly affected by cancer before the age of 75. Like I am sure every member of this House, I have had members of my family who have been affected by cancer. I think it would be a very rare family that has not had cancer affect them in one way or another.

There are 88,000 new cases of cancer diagnosed each year in Australia. The good news is that more than half of those are successfully treated. The survival rate for most common cancers has increased by more than 30 per cent in the last two decades. Whereas once a diagnosis of cancer was an immediate death sentence, it now has some hope associated with it. That is why decisions that we make in relation to cancer can reflect on the overall wellbeing and further gains in the survival rates of people who suffer from cancer. That is why our decisions are so important.

The most common cancers in Australia are bowel cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer, melanoma and lung cancer. Cancer costs $2.7 billion in direct health system costs, which is about 5.7 per cent; and $215 million is spent on cancer research. The figures for that come from 2000-01. That is about 18 per cent of all health research expenditure in Australia. That is what makes it so important that research is targeted and properly supervised and that all research into cancer is coordinated properly. That goes to the role of Cancer Australia, and I will talk a little bit about that in a moment.

Cancer incidence in Australia is higher than in the United Kingdom and Canada but lower than in the United States and New Zealand. However, Australia’s mortality rates are lower than in all those four countries. That shows that there has been fine work done here in Australia, and we want to make sure that that continues. The melanoma incidence rates in Australia and New Zealand are around four times higher than those found in Canada, the UK and the United States. I do not think there would be any member of this House who would be surprised by that. However, the mortality rate for melanoma is quite low compared to other countries. Once again I think we can attribute that to the fine work that is being done by the Cancer Council, by the cancer specialists and by all those dedicated researchers and people who work in the field.

The incidence of colorectal cancer in Australia is higher than in the US, Canada and the United Kingdom but lower than in New Zealand. The thing that I find quite disturbing, though, is that Australia’s mortality rate for colorectal cancer is high by world standards. It is higher than those of Canada, the US and the UK. These figures were released in December 2004—just to put them into the right time frame so members and people listening to or reading this debate will be aware of where those figures fit into the spectrum. The importance of governments ensuring that policies and promises that are made and delivered in relation to cancer is evident. It is also really important that there is proper coordination to ensure that the delivery is timely.

In speaking to this legislation, I would like to spend a little bit of time on the establishment of Cancer Australia. I have to say that I am quite disturbed by the unconscionable delay in the implementation of this election commitment. What that means in relation to the National Cancer Control Initiative of the Cancer Council is that the work and staff that were originally planned to be subsumed into Cancer Australia have been disbanded because the funding has ceased. Rather than a seamless move from the NCCI into Cancer Australia, what we have had is a situation where expertise has been lost and there has been a hiccup, a stalling, of the process. This can only be detrimental to the way Cancer Australia operates and to the way cancer services and policy are implemented in Australia. I also believe that it will have an impact on research.

Given the delay and the loss of expertise, the government should hang its head in shame. Something that could have happened with no problem at all has happened under a poor process that has caused problems for people involved in the fight against cancer, people involved in the treatment of Australians suffering from cancer, people involved in developing the policies and implementing those policies, and people involved in research projects. They have not had the certainty of knowing where they are going and how to get there.

There is a need for improved access to cancer services for people living in rural and regional Australia. There is no commitment in the establishment of Cancer Australia to specific initiatives to address this issue. We previously heard from the member for Cowper. He spoke about initiatives within his health campus at Coffs Harbour, where they are bringing on line cancer services. It is very sad that this is happening only now, even within an area such as Coffs Harbour. In Newcastle, the Hunter and the Central Coast services are still wanting. This delay has not helped. Where there is delay, where there is failure to implement policy, there are groups of people that suffer: the people who are fighting battles with cancer, their families and those researchers who are developing the new techniques, technologies and cures that could be operating and that could give certainty.

Unfortunately, even the establishment of Cancer Australia has not met the test that I referred to earlier. Its implementation should be properly coordinated to ensure the timely delivery of services, programs, policy and research. It is very sad that it has taken so long to establish Cancer Australia, with the incidence of cancer as high as it is in Australia, with the figures like those I presented to the House just a moment ago. One in three or four women will be directly affected by cancer before the age of 75. It is sad that we have a situation like that here in Australia, where we have so many highly qualified people who are interested in being involved and working with these people that are suffering from cancer. There are so many researchers who would like to have their work funded. Problems have eventuated because of the slow start. There has been a loss of expertise caused by the fact that it has taken the government so long to establish it.

This has also had impacts on individuals and families. There are both social and financial costs associated with this. Whilst the person is not having that treatment, their level of illness is increased. Whilst the research is not taking place, the human cost and suffering is enormous. That also leads to economic costs, such as loss of working hours. It is very sad that it has taken so long. Because of the demise of the National Cancer Control Initiative, as I mentioned before, key expertise in the areas of cancer prevention, treatment and palliation has been lost. It is going to take some time before we can manage to make up for that loss.

I would like to spend a little bit of time discussing what I hope Cancer Australia will achieve in Australia: providing national leadership and coordination for cancer control; providing coordination and liaison between a wide range of groups and providers with an interest in cancer; making recommendations to the Australian government about cancer policy and priorities; overseeing a dedicated budget for research into cancer; assisting with the implementation of the Australian government’s policies and programs in cancer control; and undertaking the functions that the minister delegates to them. They are supposed to provide a national voice, with more research funding for cancer care.

Because of this delay and because of the government’s failure to demonstrate adequately to me and those of us on this side of the House that it will achieve its goals—goals that I believe are important—we have some doubts as to whether those very noble goals will be achieved. The government gives a lot of lip-service to supporting cancer and to the need for better management of dollars that are going into cancer, for better research and for more money for research. But that lip-service does not achieve results in a timely manner. If ever there was an example of something not happening in a timely manner, it is the establishment of Cancer Australia.

I will now turn to the Howard government’s cancer policy, which was put together just prior to the last federal election. I am very sad, because the government has not delivered the promises it made to the Australian people back then. I have before me the Howard government’s 2004 election policy document, Strengthening Cancer Care. This document contains a costings summary in relation to fighting cancer and talks about bowel cancer. I find it very disturbing that, once again, the government has failed to deliver on its promise. The government promised to introduce bowel screening, which has been costed in this document at $8.5 million for the year 2005-06. I cannot see the government spending that amount of money in the time that is left. The government has also failed to deliver on a cancer prevention program for women that would help women to stop smoking when they are pregnant.

It is pleasing to see the Minister for Health and Ageing in the House. I sincerely hope that he will ensure the implementation of the program to help pregnant women quit smoking. I would also like the minister to give some reassurance that he will implement a bowel-screening program and that the $8.5 million that he promised the Australian people will be spent accordingly.

Finally, as many members on this side of the House have done, I would like to mention the Senate Community Affairs References Committee inquiry that the late Senator Peter Cook was involved in when he was in the end stages of cancer. The inquiry’s report was called The cancer journey: informing choice. When Peter died, we acknowledged the fine work that was involved in that document and his amazing legacy is contained in those recommendations. Right up until the end, he fought to see that that report’s recommendations were implemented. Minister, I would like to see your response to that report. I would like to see some move towards implementing the recommendations in that report. I would like to see the minister make a real commitment to cancer rather than a half-hearted attempt that is fraught with delays and procrastinations, as has been the case with the establishment of Cancer Australia.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to thank members who have participated in this debate for their contributions of varying quality. Nevertheless I thank all who have spoken on the Cancer Australia Bill 2006, even those who have just read out the speaking notes which others have provided for them. I wish to simply respond to some of the criticisms which have been made of the government in the course of this debate. I thought that the shadow minister, the member for Lalor, was a little more partisan and bad tempered in her contribution today than I have come to expect from her. Perhaps she was stung by Michael Costello’s criticism of her contribution to policy. Perhaps she was stung by Glenn Milne’s report that she was not so much ‘missing in action’ as ‘media in attendance’, rather than getting on with the hard work of developing policy.

Nevertheless, let me deal with some of the specific criticisms that have been made. I want to assure the House that this government will fully deliver on all of the commitments that were made as part of our Strengthening Cancer Care policy at the last election, and many of these commitments have already been acted upon. The sum of $10 million has been provided to the Royal Children’s Hospital in Melbourne and $7 million has been allocated for the first round of local palliative care grants. We have entered into a grant agreement with the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre to provide $3.5 million for nurse training over coming years. We are in the process of finalising a $5 million grant to support clinical trials and a $4 million grant for the Mentor in Regional Hospitals component of that election program and, of course, we have allocated $5 million for an MRI scanner at the Sydney Children’s Hospital.

I was surprised to hear the member for Lalor claim that all the government had done was to appoint a chairman of Cancer Australia. In fact, we have announced the board of Cancer Australia. It is a very distinguished board. One of its members is the Hon. Johnno Johnson, a fine former member of the New South Wales parliament who represented the Australian Labor Party. I think he will make an outstanding contribution to the board of Cancer Australia. I can only assume that the member for Lalor had not noticed this press release because she was perhaps preparing for her Australian Story interview or preparing some of the speeches she has been giving recently that have undermined her leader.

The government has been criticised for rolling the National Cancer Control Initiative into Cancer Australia. I want to make it very clear that the government recognises the valuable contribution of this initiative but, for the benefit of members opposite, let me just point out that the NCCI management committee made a decision to wind up the initiative as of the end of May. So we are not terminating it—we are not abolishing it—we are simply incorporating its functions into Cancer Australia, and we are doing so with the support of the members of that initiative.

The government was also criticised for an alleged delay in responding to Senator Cook’s inquiry by the Senate Community Affairs References Committee. Again, I was a little surprised to hear this because, if members opposite had been paying the attention that they should have to the Council of Australian Governments initiatives announced by the Prime Minister and the premiers in February, they would have noticed a new Medicare Benefits Schedule item for case conferencing for cancer patients. This was actually the principal recommendation of the Cook inquiry. It is being implemented, and it has already been announced as part of the COAG process. Again, if the member for Lalor had been paying more attention to health policy and less attention to pushing her own barrow, she might have noticed that.

Finally, the government has been criticised for what is claimed to be a lack of any substantial commitment to improving cancer care in Australia. It is very hard to deal with that kind of grab bag, catch-all, rhetorical condemnation, but let me simply quote from the Cancer Council Australia’s press release about the government’s Strengthening Cancer Care policy, where the press release described it as:

... the most comprehensive set of government-funded cancer control priorities ever announced in a Federal budget.

So I think this particular initiative is a very good initiative, and I commend it to the House.

Before sitting down, I would like to pay tribute to my friend and colleague the member for Robertson and Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads, who has been a particular advocate for better cancer care, particularly better care for people with prostate cancer. He knows from practical experience what this is like, and he has quite rightly dedicated a significant part of his energies to doing more for cancer victims and prostate cancer victims in particular. I really appreciate the encouragement he has given to the government.

I know he is a little disappointed that there is not a specific advocate for prostate cancer on the Cancer Australia board. I probably should point out for his benefit and, I suspect, the benefit of the member for Lilley that people from the National Breast Cancer Centre board have been appointed to the board of Cancer Australia not because they are experts in breast cancer as such but because they are expert in the kind of work which Cancer Australia is doing—that is, bringing together research, education, advocacy and clinical standards in cancer generally, to do for all cancers what the NBCC has been able to do for one particular cancer.

This is an important development. It has taken a little longer to finalise than I would have liked, but it was important to get the governance arrangements right. It was important to have full consultation with the sector, and I think any fair-minded observer who looks at the quality of the advisory board would say that the government has done a pretty good job under all the circumstances.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Lalor has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Question agreed to.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.