Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government should be hanging its head in shame, bringing the Cancer Australia Bill 2006 to the House at this time. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sure you would be astonished to find out that it has taken since the Howard government’s commitment was made during the 2004 election campaign to bring this bill to the House to deliver on one of its major election promises in the area of cancer care. You may recall that in September 2004 the Howard government was finally pushed into making an announcement on cancer policy as a response to Labor’s cancer policy announcements. When it finally and belatedly put that policy out, its cancer policy had at its centre the establishment of Cancer Australia.

Here we are in 2006 and nothing has happened since the announcement of that cancer policy except for the appointment of Dr Bill Glasson as chair of the advisory council of Cancer Australia, with that appointment being announced late last year. Even now, with this bill so shamefully and belatedly having been brought to the House, we will not see this body up and running inside two years since it was first promised. This is an act of gross incompetence. It is an act of inexplicable delay. The Howard government should make it clear to Australians at election time that its promises, if they are to be honoured at all—and we know that so many of them are not honoured at all, most spectacularly with the minister for health’s rock solid, ironclad guarantee about the Medicare safety net—will be honoured in this tardy fashion. It is not good enough that the Howard government goes out to Australians and gives its word that something will be done, only to do it as slowly and as incompetently as this.

If it were just a delay then perhaps you might forgive that. Perhaps you might say, ‘Well, delays sometimes happen in public administration,’ but this is a delay that has cost Australians. It has cost Australians because it means that many other election commitments on cancer, made at the same time as Cancer Australia was announced in the Howard government’s cancer policy, have not been fully implemented. The degree of the lack of implementation of the other cancer policies made during the federal election still has not been made transparent to the Australian public.

Obviously, when the Howard government incompetently does not deliver on its promises, it wants to cover that up. This is a government for which cover-up is no strange or unusual activity. It is a government that often engages in cover-up—indeed, one of the most spectacular cover-ups has been the ongoing focal point of question time in this House for many weeks now. But in this area of cancer policy we have also seen a cover-up where, despite Labor’s inquiries via questions on notice, through the Parliamentary Library and at Senate estimates, we have failed to elicit any real information about the state of implementation of the government’s other cancer policies from the 2004 election campaign and the reasons for the delay.

We have seen a spectacular delay in bringing this bill forward to create Cancer Australia, we will see more delay before the body is up and running and the other cancer promises that were made at the time of the election appear to have been grossly delayed as well. Standing here today, the Australian public has never been told the truth about what is happening with the implementation of all of those other policies. That is simply not good enough. I would hope that in summing up on this bill the Minister for Health and Ageing will finally come clean about these matters and explain to this House, and through this House to the Australian people, the inordinate delay in implementing these policies and promises and the true state of implementation today of the various cancer policy promises that were made at the time of the last election.

We also want the minister for health to confirm whether or not the involvement of the Prime Minister’s office, as has been speculated in the media, has led to part of the hold-up, particularly with bringing this bill for the establishment of Cancer Australia to the House. The minister for health ought to be giving that explanation to the House as well, or perhaps the Prime Minister might choose at some point to intervene in this debate and to explain his conduct and whether or not his office has played any role in the delay in this bill coming before the House and in the incredible delay in the establishment of Cancer Australia.

The purpose of this bill, as we know, is to establish Cancer Australia as a new statutory agency. The role of Cancer Australia is to provide national leadership and coordination of cancer control in Australia, to guide improvements in cancer prevention and care and to ensure that treatment is scientifically based. Cancer Australia will coordinate and liaise between the wide range of groups and providers with an interest in cancer. Cancer Australia will make recommendations to the Australian government about cancer policy and priorities. It will oversee a dedicated budget for research into cancer, it will assist with the implementation of Australian government policies and programs for cancer control and it will undertake any functions that the minister, by writing, directs the chief executive officer to perform. The stated aim is to provide a 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.

The bill outlines the responsibilities and conditions of employment of the chief executive officer and allows for the appointment of a chair and up to 12 other members to an advisory council. I must say that I am intrigued to find that the bill provides no criteria for the expertise of these members, which seems to me an enormous and somewhat surprising oversight given the important and sometimes technical work which Cancer Australia must perform. One would have thought that in structuring the advisory council it would be transparently clear on the face of this bill the sort of person or the various types of people the government wants to have on the advisory council. Are they to represent consumers? Are they to be people with particular scientific expertise? Are they to be professionals involved in the treatment of cancer? Are they to be people in training in terms of being involved in cancer? Are they to be geographically dispersed across the country? All of those things need to be answered. They are not answered in the bill and they ought to have been. As you would know, Mr Deputy Speaker, it is very common practice when one is legislating for a structure to provide advice that is crystal clear on the qualifications that one is seeking in those who will be appointed to the body.

I specifically note the importance of consumer representation on any of these bodies. This is a continuing theme that the opposition raises when dealing with legislation in this House. It is always very important when we are creating structures in health, including advisory councils of this nature, to ensure that there is a structure so that the voice of Australians generally can be heard, as well as the voice of our very able health professionals and health researchers.

The government originally committed a total of $13.7 million over four years to 2007-08 to establish this new agency Cancer Australia. However, due to delays, this funding has been rephased over four years to 2008-09. It is highly unlikely, given the government’s incompetent delay, that the $4.5 million or $4.6 million allocated to 2005-06 will be spent in this financial year. So here again we see a consequence of delay. I have already spoken about the consequence where other cancer policies have not been delivered in a timely fashion. Now a second consequence of the Howard government’s incompetent delay in this matter is that resources that were budgeted and available to assist with cancer policy in Australia languish unspent in consolidated revenue because of the way in which the government has gone about this process and the huge delay in which it has engaged.

I should also note that there was a comment by the Minister for Health and Ageing by way of his second reading speech which should send a shiver of concern through every member of this House. That comment was:

In addition to government funding, it is expected that Cancer Australia will seek funding from other sources, particularly from the private sector.

This is a comment weaved into the minister’s second reading speech. The meaning of it is not at all clear in the bill. Indeed, the area is not dealt with within the bill. I think Australians have a right to know whether it is the intention of this government to underfund the work of Cancer Australia with a view to sending it out to fundraise for itself from the private sector or indeed, one would suppose, from members of the public. They have a right to know whether Cancer Australia is going to be in the field looking for donations in competition with many other cancer bodies which are out there doing extraordinary work, as we know, raising money for cancer and, most particularly, cancer research.

Mr Deputy Speaker, as a local member of parliament like me, I am sure you would be aware—as I am sure other members of this House, as local members of parliament, would be aware—that there are many localised events for fundraising for cancer research. Many women in this country wear the pink ribbon for breast cancer. Many women in this country attend fundraising events for breast cancer research. Many of them buy specific products that are associated with the pink ribbon fundraising campaign because they want to do their bit by putting money into breast cancer research. Many Australians involve themselves in the World’s Biggest Morning Tea, which we have annually. Right around this country, indeed including in this Parliament House, in schools, in community centres, in retirement villages and in other community places right around the country, we see Australians coming together at the World’s Biggest Morning Tea to raise money for cancer research.

Is it really intended that the Howard government is going to underfund Cancer Australia and send it out into the field seeking to get donations to supplement its work? I anticipate one answer to that might be, ‘Really, we’re just going to be looking for corporate donations.’ We all know in this House that fundraising for breast cancer, the World’s Biggest Morning Tea and all of the other fundraising events that we have for cancer research across the country work, in part, because corporate Australia enters into a genuine partnership with local communities to enable those moneys to be raised. If you divert corporate Australia from fundraising and assisting with those events and making its discretionary money—the money that it marks for community donations—available to support Cancer Australia it will inevitably undermine the work of those very well-known fundraising events for cancer.

It is very important that, in his summing up of this bill, the Minister for Health and Ageing—I trust, but do not know, that the minister will find this bill important enough to donate some of his time to it; he did not do the second reading speech, but, at some point, hopefully, he will deal with this bill personally—clarify whether it is the intention of this government to systematically underfund Cancer Australia and send it out into the fundraising arena with the inevitable result, in my view, that it will be competing with other agencies that are well established in the area of cancer fundraising.

As I have said, the policy to create Cancer Australia came out in the 2004 election campaign and we are just seeing its delivery now. It should be remembered that, apart from the fact that the policy was only released because Labor had released a cancer policy which was very well received, when this policy was announced it was greeted with reserved enthusiasm by agencies and cancer groups around the country—and even that reserved enthusiasm has leached away, over time, given the delays in implementation. In their joint submission to the recent Senate Community Affairs References Committee inquiry into cancer services, the Cancer Council of Australia, the National Cancer Control Initiative and the Clinical Oncology Society of Australia said:

There is great potential for reforming cancer services in Australia to better meet the needs of the individual patient, their carer and family … the forthcoming establishment of the Federal Government’s new national cancer agency, Cancer Australia, could provide an authority for its implementation; and existing clinical practice guidelines, if adopted nationally, provide best practice protocols.

Unfortunately, the incompetence and mismanagement with which this has been dealt have dashed the hopes of cancer patients, researchers, policy makers, health care professionals, cancer councils and community groups for a coordinated and reinvigorated approach to cancer policy and fundraising priorities. It has also meant—and this is one of the most tragic results of the government’s delay—the untimely demise of the National Cancer Control Initiative.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sure that you are very aware of the work of this important body. The National Cancer Control Initiative, as we all know, was the key expert reference group on cancer. It was set up to advise the federal government on all aspects of prevention, detection, treatment and palliation. When the policy to create Cancer Australia came out, it was proposed that the work that was then being performed by the National Cancer Control Initiative would be rolled into the new body, Cancer Australia—that is, that the National Cancer Control Initiative would seamlessly move into and be subsumed by Cancer Australia. That would have been a way of making sure that the valuable work that had been done by the National Cancer Control Initiative was not lost. Even more importantly, it would have been a way of ensuring that the staff who had worked for the National Cancer Control Initiative—who in doing that work had, over time, inevitably developed expertise, skills, abilities and contacts—could have been made available to Cancer Australia.

The National Cancer Control Initiative could have gone out of business one day, with Cancer Australia starting up the next day. The work and the staff could have moved seamlessly across, with no work lost and no expertise lost. But, because of the incompetence of this government and the delay in the creation of the new body, Cancer Australia, we ended up with a situation where the National Cancer Control Initiative was provided with no further funds. The last head of the National Cancer Control Initiative, Professor Mark Elwood, was forced to send a letter to key constituents and supporters outlining the dilemma confronting the National Cancer Control Initiative and its staff, which was that, with the delay in the creation of Cancer Australia, the National Cancer Control Initiative was going to go out of business, with its work dropped into a black hole and its staff lost and dispersed to wherever they could get jobs, and there would be many months of nothingness before the creation of Cancer Australia. And that is exactly what is going to happen.

As I said, Mark Elwood is the last head of the National Cancer Control Initiative. Many of the staff have already left. With all the financial obligations they necessarily have in supporting themselves and members of their family, what are these working people supposed to do when the money that is going to fund them is clearly going to run out? They cannot end up in a situation where, for many months, they do not have a job. Of course, skilled staff look for new jobs. Many of these skilled staff have new jobs, and the ones that do not have new jobs will leave in May. So we end up with a situation where, because of the Howard government’s incompetence, the work being done by the National Cancer Control Initiative will be lost, the staff employed by the National Cancer Control Initiative will be gone and, sometime in the future, Cancer Australia will start up on day one with a blank page instead of having access to all of that work and all of those staff with all of their skills, expertise and track record in this area.

If you were a senior executive in the private sector and conducting yourself like this, I am sure the CEO or chair of the board would say to you: ‘Why on earth are you conducting yourself so incompetently? You are costing the business any amount of time, money and inefficiency. Don’t behave like this.’ But the Howard government seems to think this is an adequate way to behave in the area of cancer policy when we know, of course, that so much of the burden of disease in this country falls on people who have cancer. This incompetence is unexplained and unapologised for.

The very least it could do, given this gross act of incompetence, is apologise to Australians and send a letter of apology to the National Cancer Control Initiative and to every staff member who has left or is about to leave. It could acknowledge its failings and at least make some transitional arrangements to try to ensure that it does not lose all the work of the  National Cancer Control Initiative or access to those staff. This is a truly disgraceful performance.

If the bad news stopped there that would be a black enough picture, but of course the bad news does not stop there. Because of the delays in implementing this and other aspects of the government’s cancer policy, we have crystallised before us a clear broken promise. One of the things that Minister Abbott and the government promised to do when they announced the government’s cancer policy in the 2004 election was deal with the question of a national screening program for bowel cancer. At election time, the minister promised that all older Australians, people over 55—whether that is the definition of older Australians, Mr Deputy Speaker Lindsay, I will leave to one side—

Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think you are reflecting on the chair, aren’t you?

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I apologise for that. There was a promise that youthful, vigorous Australians who may be over the chronological age of 55 would be screened every two years for bowel cancer, acknowledging that every week 90 people die of bowel cancer. So this is a very serious disease. This promise was dumped at budget time. It was billed as a ‘major priority for the next term’, but it will not be delivered in this term. We know, because of a continuation of current trials, that it is not due to start until July 2006. So a promise on bowel cancer screening has been dumped. Even if there is delivery at the later date, there is significant doubt by the states and territories that the funding, management and operational issues that need to be resolved will be resolved.

The Australian Health Ministers Advisory Council is meeting today, and they want answers on a whole host of issues around this much delayed, looking like it is going to be dumped policy. The states and territories are concerned that the bowel cancer screening program has no clear set of objectives and strategies, has no clear specification of roles, will add additional cost burdens to the states, has not addressed the need for affordable access to colonoscopy, has no information and database management systems, has no clear funding arrangements between the states and the federal government, and has no communication program to educate health professionals and consumers. That is, everything that would need to be done to support this policy in any effective way remains undone. There is not one thing that one would need to do to get this policy up and running effectively that has actually been done by this government. In view of this incompetent performance, the states and territories claim that the whole program, a very important program for the health of all Australians—I remind you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that 90 Australians die every week because of bowel cancer—is incompetent. Here we have a national screening program—promise made, promise delayed—and incompetence is surrounding what could be its ultimate delivery.

And there is more. We know through the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing, Christopher Pyne, that there was a promise to help pregnant women quit smoking. That was also an election commitment. There was a media statement issued in June last year about an advisory group for this program, but the composition of the advisory group has yet to be announced and is yet to meet. We know that about 20 per cent of pregnant women smoke. We know that babies of smoking mothers are more likely to be smaller, are three to four times more likely to die of SIDS and are more likely to suffer respiratory disorders and intellectual impairment. So this is not a marginal issue. This is not an unimportant issue for Australia’s future and the future of Australian children. This is an issue front and centre that we should be dealing with. But, yet again, we have unexplained delay and continuing incompetence.

This is something that really does need to be addressed by this government, and it ought to be addressed during the course of this debate. I note that the second reading speech stated that ‘Cancer Australia will have a role in the implementation of the following initiatives’, which were once again part of the Howard government’s election policies. These initiatives are

• new approaches to mentoring regional cancer services;
• a grants process targeted at building cancer support groups;
• a national awareness campaign for skin cancer, to be developed in conjunction with state and territory governments;
• 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.

I am pretty sure that we can say today that these election commitments are not up and running yet. So Strengthening Cancer Care, the policy taken by the Howard government to the last election, has been awash with incompetence, awash with delay and awash with promises made and not delivered on. I have raised a number of them in the course of this speech, such as the creation of Cancer Australia itself, as well as bowel cancer and smoking and pregnant mothers. These things have not been done. They ought to have been done, and an explanation is required. We also need an explanation of what this body will be doing in relation to private sector fundraising.

While I am on the case of delay and incompetence of this government, there is another very important case of delay. We all know that in December last year this parliament mourned the sad and untimely death of former senator Peter Cook from cancer. We all acknowledged his important last legacy in the recommendations contained in a Senate Community Affairs References Committee report entitled The cancer journey: informing choice. This was a committee he chaired and inspired, despite his personal battle with cancer at the time. In my memory never has someone made such a commitment in this parliament, never have they dedicated the last remaining months of their life so clearly to the development of a better policy for the rest of the nation. Despite that historic work by former senator Peter Cook, as of today the Howard government has not responded to that report. What could explain that act of cruelty? That ought to be done. May I conclude by moving a second reading amendment that deals with these issues:

That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government for:

(1)

the unreasonable delay in implementing this 2004 election commitment;

(2)

the consequent demise of the National Cancer Control Initiative and the loss of NCCI expertise;

(3)

failure to respond to the Senate Committee Report The Cancer Journey: Informing Choice; and

(4)

lack of any substantial commitment to improving cancer care in Australia”.

Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Alan Cadman (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Cancer Australia Bill 2006 is a terrific initiative for cancer sufferers. It brings for the first time into the government ambit a strong commitment in a way that all Australians would endorse. The carping negativity of the opposition is resented and rejected by the government. This innovation is a great improvement on the way in which this nation considers cancer. The functions of Cancer Australia, which is the body being established, are:

(a)

to provide national leadership in cancer control;

(b)

to guide scientific improvements to cancer prevention, treatment and care;

(c)

to coordinate and liaise between the wide range of groups and health care providers with an interest in cancer;

(d)

to make recommendations to the Commonwealth Government about cancer policy and priorities;

(e)

to oversee a dedicated budget for research into cancer;

(f)

to assist with the implementation of Commonwealth Government policies and programs in cancer control;

(g)

to provide financial assistance, out of money appropriated by the Parliament, for research mentioned in paragraph (e)—

that is the above paragraph in this proposed section—

and for the implementation of policies and programs ...

(h)   any functions that the Minister, by writing, directs Cancer Australia to perform.

The body will be established with an advisory council and a chief executive officer. I am delighted to know that the chairman of the advisory council has already been selected—Dr Bill Glasson, the former head of the Australian Medical Association. The budget has been set down in the explanatory memorandum. The total over a four-year period will be $12.6 million in a forward commitment by the government. There has been a complaint made by the previous speaker that the current financial year is coming to an end and that those funds cannot be used in the time that is left. I know of no provision that there is going to be a shortcut of funding for this election commitment by the government.

I have researched the incidence of cancer in Australia. It is interesting to note that, of all new cases of cancer in females in 2001, the most common cancers were breast, 29 per cent; colorectal, 14 per cent; melanoma, 10 per cent; and lung, seven per cent. In males, of all new cases of cancer, the most common cancers were prostate, 23 per cent; colorectal, 15 per cent—a little above women; melanoma, 11 per cent—again a little above women; and lung, 11 per cent, significantly above women at seven per cent. I trust these proposals before the House will go across the whole range of the causes of cancers, dealing with both male and female problems.

The only difficulty that I have detected over the years is that the Cancer Council of Australia has been reluctant to commit itself to a course of action for prostate cancer. I think everybody applauds the program of testing and screening for breast cancer, the initiatives that have been taken with colorectal cancer and the efforts being made to prevent lung cancer. But the one shortcoming that I detect in all of this is an impetus for prostate cancer. Part of it is because men create their own problem; they are like that. I do not believe there is a well-directed program to attack this problem. At this early stage I would like to charge Cancer Australia with the task of committing themselves to doing something more definitive about the problem of prostate cancer.

The Cancer Council of Australia has produced a statement giving their position on prostate cancer screening. I have a certain degree of disappointment with it, having dealt with proponents of prostate cancer screening and their lack of confidence in the stance of the Cancer Council of Australia on this issue. I will read out the recommendations of the Cancer Council of Australia:

• In the absence of direct evidence showing a clear benefit of population based screening for prostate cancer, a patient centred approach for individual decisions about testing is recommended. Ideally this takes the form of an informed, shared, decision-making process between the doctor and man, discussing the benefits, risks and uncertainties of testing, and discussion about treatment options and side effects.
• Screening discussions and decisions should always include and take into account age and other individual risk factors such as a family history of the disease.
• Research into prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment must continue to be a high priority. In particular, the development of an accurate test to detect the potentially lethal form of prostate cancer.
• Education and resourcing of GPs and other relevant health professionals needs to occur to enable them to adequately inform men of the benefits and risks of testing for prostate cancer and to enable men to make an informed decision as to whether or not they should be tested.

That is a pretty equivocal statement. I would like to see something far more positive from the Cancer Council of Australia. I hope Cancer Australia will adopt a far more dynamic, proactive and positive approach to the problems faced by those people who are among the 23 per cent of new cases of prostate cancer identified in 2001. The Cancer Council goes on to explain some of the difficulties in testing. The prostate specific antigen, PSA, as the test is known, can produce diverse results. Provided there is a proper lapse of time and the PSA test is supported by other testing mechanisms, I think we have a chance of achieving fairly reasonable results.

Is there a need for universal testing? On the evidence, as I see it, probably not. The high-risk age is somewhere between 45 and 60. If we narrow the field of likely sufferers of prostate cancer to that age group, we immediately reduce the population that should be considered for screening. If, together with the PSA screening test, we adopt some of the other processes, they might give us an indication of a risk of cancer. DRE is a painful test for men. They do not like it very much; it is a rectal examination. It is what I think men dread more than anything else about this testing, but it is a complementary process to the PSA test, which is a simple blood test and easily done.

If we are going to improve the health of Australians in this age group, then we need these two tests, along with any further tests, as an indicative process. It is a critical age group. They are at their maximum earning capacity and have probably got teenage kids or kids who are in their early 20s and at the point of marriage. The resources of the male in a family are called upon to provide for more than just the immediate needs of him and his spouse. Even if his spouse is working too, it can be soul destroying to a family to suddenly have all of the responsibility thrown onto the female. There is good argument for us to be seriously doing more about investigating the prospect of screening for this age group, who are most likely to be the contractors of prostate cancer.

There is an age that men will reach when testing is a waste of time. Men in the last 10 years of their life may have prostate cancer but they are more than likely going to die from causes other than prostate. To stretch this testing program across all ages of men is probably unwise. Young men can also contract this problem, but as this cancer is more likely to occur within a specific age group universal screening for it may not be necessary.

The Cancer Council speaks about the processes that they advise. From a male’s point of view they seem pretty wishy-washy. They advise men to discuss it with their doctor. Men are not going to go to their doctor unless there is something seriously wrong. They are not going to go to their doctor on the chance of their having prostate cancer. They might require a PSA test at the time they are having heart or other tests done, which are more likely causes for men to go to doctors. The automatic testing for PSA in those circumstances for this age group, to me, should not be a process that is a matter for discussion or debate. To expect men to go into a deep and meaningful with their doctor about prostate cancer is, I think, pretty unlikely. They will want to get out of there as fast as they can. The attitude of most males when having a stress test or any other tests for their physical health and wellbeing is for it to be administered as quickly as possible so that they can get out of the doctor’s surgery and get on with their life. I think the Cancer Council of Australia should recommend that a PSA test be automatically conducted for that age group at risk.

The council seem to be recommending this deep and meaningful approach, with discussions about screening. It should not be a matter of discussion; it should happen automatically. Then, if a man’s PSA is up, they can be advised to come back in three months for another test to see whether or not there is a need for further testing. That is a simple thing to do at a critical point in the control of cancer.

Is this a man-woman thing? No. It is certainly not. Men have to be just as careful about their health as women do, and if they are not prepared to adopt such an approach and care for themselves then there should be put in place automatic testing points. Prognostic markers can be used and there is the screening process.

It is very interesting to read what is said about prostate cancer. The Prostate Cancer Institute, the PCI, explain what we should do about screening:

Screening, if elected for by the patient, should commence at the age of 50 years (and possibly earlier) with a digital rectal examination and a serum PSA test. A biopsy should be performed if the rectal examination is abnormal or if the PSA reading is greater than the reference range for his age.

There is increasing evidence that PSA testing beginning as early as the age of 40 years may predict the likelihood of later clinical cancer. For example, if a patient’s PSA level between the ages of 40 and 50 years is greater than 0.6 ng/mL, he is seven times more likely to develop prostate cancer than if his level is less than 0.3 ng/mL. If a patient has a family history of prostate cancer, screening should commence at 40 years of age and continue annually until his life expectancy falls below 10 years. Currently, 25% of Australian men over the age of 40 years are having regular PSA tests.

Who should we screen?

Assessing a patient’s preferences and determining the likelihood that he will benefit from screening are part of the physician’s responsibility. For example, a patient who has a life expectancy of less than 10 years is unlikely to benefit from screening and may suffer a significant reduction in his quality of life. The final decision about whether or not to screen will depend on each man’s goals, fears and willingness to accept risks.

I think that is a more practical approach and that is the one I would like to see adopted. In fact, the Prostate Cancer Institute says that the reasons are simple. The male population is ageing rapidly and the risk of prostate cancer is also on the rise rapidly. The predictions that I have indicate that prostate cancers will increase by 34 per cent from 11,892 in 2001 to 15,972 by 2011. In a 10-year period, there will be a 34 per cent increase. Part of that increase, of course, is the increased number of people in the at-risk age group. Therefore, we need to deal with this issue and Cancer Australia needs to take note of it. It must not adopt the passive line of the Cancer Council of Australia but take a more proactive interest. I cannot understand the Cancer Council’s reluctance in this area and it has been a matter of contention between the various professional groups involved with the various types of cancers.

I want to go to the institute proposal. Many younger men under the age of 60 are now being diagnosed with prostatic cancer. The chance of detecting prostatic cancer at an early and curable age has increased due to the sensitivity of the PSA blood test. Many men, especially younger men, will die from prostate cancer without early detection and effective curative intervention. Many advances have occurred recently in the treatment of prostate cancer by surgery, radiotherapy or drug therapy. A team approach to management where patients receive individual attention has been shown in other cancers to produce better health outcomes.

The incidence of prostate cancer is a little less than breast cancer. Early detection of breast cancer in women and more effective treatments have led to a steady improvement in survival and reduced mortality. Those are the goals I would like to see adopted by Cancer Australia. I would like to see Cancer Australia get active in this area. I would like to see them produce some really positive statements early in their establishment. I would like to see the new chairman of the advisory council make it clear that they are going to be aggressive and proactive on all forms of cancer and wherever possible make advances, first of all by screening and then by a team approach to treatment and care.

Cancer and heart disease are the great killer diseases of our time. Of the teenage girls alive today I am told that 30 per cent will live to be 100. That is going to produce some big changes in life expectancy. I know in the retirement villages I visit that the people who were considered old 30 years ago, when I was first elected, were the 80- or 85-year-olds. Now it is the 90- and 95-year-olds and they are as bright today at that age as the 85-year-olds were some years ago. That change in outlook, expectancy and attitude is something that is going to increase as mortality comes later. The attention to cancer by Cancer Australia is the most significant part of life improvement and life extension. I encourage them to take a balanced and universal look at this problem.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to endorse the comments made by the member for Mitchell in this debate on the Cancer Australia Bill 2006. I am particularly conscious of the point that he made that it is very difficult to get many men to see the need to visit the doctor when they are ill, let alone as a preventative form of visit. I think that a targeted screening program is an eminently sensible way to approach the issue of prostate cancer. To be honest, I am conscious that is only the fact that many women are actively told to have cervical screening tests every two years which may prompt them to make an appointment and go to the doctor. I think it is quite correct to say that it is highly unlikely that somehow men on a normal visit to a doctor would raise this whereas a program that said that men should have a test at a particular, regular period of time would be the prompt that would get them to do that. I would like to endorse the call that the member for Mitchell is making to Cancer Australia in this debate.

Cancer is clearly one of the biggest killers of people in Australia and, with the ageing population, does require an ongoing and increasing focus and importance. The stated aim of the Cancer Australia Bill 2006 is the importance of having a 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. Despite the serious nature of the disease, this initiative was part of what I can only describe as a hastily cobbled together response by the Howard government to Labor’s cancer policy, which it took to the 2004 federal election.

The Cancer Australia Bill commits $12.66 million over four years to establishing Cancer Australia. This funding commitment is a good start, but I am disappointed that the commitment has not gone far enough. During the 2004 federal election campaign, Labor committed $64.75 million over four years to supporting a comprehensive national approach to cancer prevention in Australia. Despite it being an election commitment, the Howard government has been dragging its feet in implementing it. As a result of these delays, it is unlikely that the $4.546 million allocated to 2005-06 will be spent in this financial year.

This delay has also resulted in difficulties for the staff of the National Cancer Control Initiative. The NCCI is the key expert reference group that advises the federal government on all aspects of prevention, detection, treatment and palliation. The transfer of this role to Cancer Australia will result in a serious loss of years of knowledge and expertise. It is my understanding that the NCCI had already begun to develop initial priorities for Cancer Australia.

We all know somebody who has battled this disease. Cancer does not discriminate and anybody can be affected. I have had the pleasure of meeting a number of brave women in my electorate through their efforts to have the drug Herceptin made available and affordable to first-stage breast cancer sufferers. I was first approached in October last year by Steven Radford, from Stanwell Park, regarding his wife, Michelle, whom I have mentioned in this place previously. Steven had lobbied Paul McLeay, the state member for Heathcote, and me to have Herceptin listed on the PBS for first-stage HER-2 positive breast cancer sufferers. Steven and Michelle, and their five children, faced the prospect of selling their family home to fund Michelle’s Herceptin treatment at a cost of approximately $60,000. Since then I have heard, as I am sure many members of the House have, of many cases of women and families facing the same terrible decision: do we sell the family home and put our families through more distress or do we not? This is a heart-wrenching decision for any family to have to face. This situation is made even worse for families who have no assets to sell. Indeed, I read of one circumstance in another state where a woman was considering selling her home to fund the treatment for her sister.

Michelle has suffered gruelling surgery and several rounds of chemotherapy and radiation treatment. Her oncologist recommended subsequent treatment with Herceptin. Data from the international HERA—Herceptin adjuvant—study showed that treatment with Herceptin following standard chemotherapy reduces the risk of cancer coming back by a staggering 46 per cent. Approximately 20 per cent to 30 per cent of women with breast cancer have HER-2 positive breast cancer. It requires immediate and specific attention because the tumours are aggressive and fast growing. Results from four large trials with nearly 12,000 patients worldwide showed consistently that Herceptin reduced by approximately one-half the risk of the cancer returning. Given the likely success of this treatment, you can understand the dilemma that women and their families face. Do you put your family finances under further strain and start Herceptin treatment, which almost halves the risk of the cancer returning, often to organs and bones, or do you not? It has been pointed out to me that many of the specialists advising these women are forced into making decisions about whether to even raise the potential of this treatment, because they are so conscious that for many of these women it is financially out of reach anyway.

I am absolutely amazed that women in this day and age are being forced to make this decision. I have made representations to the federal Minister for Health and Ageing and to Roche Pharmaceuticals and I was advised by both parties that Roche was in the process of applying to the Therapeutic Goods Administration for Herceptin to be listed on the PBS for first-stage HER2-positive breast cancer. While the application was being coordinated for submission to the TGA, it did not help women who, like Michelle, needed to commence treatment as soon as possible to provide the best opportunity of long-term survival from this aggressive form of early stage breast cancer.

I decided to contact one of the local credit unions to try and coordinate a fundraising campaign to assist Michelle while negotiations between Roche and the TGA were taking place. I attended Helensburgh Fair, which is run by the Helensburgh Lions Club. While Paul McLeay and I were walking around talking to the various stallholders at the fair, we ran into Libby, from the Lions Club, at its sausage sizzle stall. She brought up with me the case of Michelle’s cancer treatment. I was quite amazed that Michelle’s story had travelled so quickly throughout the communities of Stanwell Park and Helensburgh. Their reaction was very much the same as mine: what can we do to help in a practical way? Whilst talking to the women at the Lions Club tent and speaking of my intentions, I discovered that one of the women, Jan Hill, was a neighbour of Michael Halloran, the Chief Executive of the Illawarra Credit Union. Jan and her two friends Tracey Weir and Cathy Deem enlisted Michael’s help—they are very persuasive, I have to say—and established a trust account for Michelle at the Illawarra Credit Union. The Illawarra Mercury, particularly through the efforts of local journalist Jenny Dennis, also came on board to help. So far the Wollongong community has raised over $30,000 to assist with Michelle’s treatment.

My good friend Russell Hannah, from the Illawarra Folk Club, organised for some of the profits from the first night of the Illawarra Folk Festival, which was held recently at Bulli Showground, to be donated to Michelle’s campaign. Auctioneer Kevin Danzey and his wife Leonie, who live in Stanwell Park, put on an auction at the Stanwell Park Community Hall, and Helensburgh Lions Club donated the proceeds of their sausage sizzle that afternoon.

Bi-Lo, at Helensburgh, has received a substantial amount from their customers to contribute to Michelle’s trust fund. Bede Parkes, from Helensburgh, has organised street stalls with cakes and slices outside Bi-Lo in Helensburgh and organised for the Catholic Church to hold a raffle. So far Bede has personally raised over $600 for Michelle, and she is well known throughout the community for always being there with a plate of pikelets in any situation.

There are also many other contributions, and I would personally like to thank the many local businesses, charities, media outlets and individuals—indeed, even some of the lovely staff from Hansard here in the parliament—who have contributed to this campaign to ensure that Michelle received the treatment she needed. I know that I deeply appreciate it, and I know that Michelle, Steven and the kids cannot thank all of those people enough.

Michelle has started her treatment and is feeling fantastic. She has been a strong advocate and lobbyist for all women requiring this treatment. She is absolutely amazing and a real inspiration. She is hopeful that Herceptin will be listed shortly so that the money raised by the community for her case can be donated to other breast cancer sufferers. Michelle has spent time speaking to other cancer patients, giving them advice, support and encouragement.

The community also worked together to collect almost 3,000 signatures seeking the approval of Herceptin for first-stage HER2-positive breast cancer sufferers. Mary-Anne McCaffery, from Woonona, who is currently undergoing chemotherapy for breast cancer, and her husband Tam have by themselves collected over 1,500 signatures over the last few weeks. I have gone through the list of petitioners and I do not think there is anyone in Bulli, Woonona or Thirroul who has not signed the petition. They have been supported by many doctors, pharmacists and other local businesses and individuals, reflecting the fact, I believe—and the member who spoke before me made the point—that cancer in its many forms touches every family in our communities.

People like Michelle and Mary-Anne and their families deserve the best possible treatment, research and support that we are able to provide. I find it hard to believe that it has taken so long for a commitment to cancer sufferers like Michelle and Mary-Anne to be delivered.

There are many people who suffer from this disease. Cancer Council statistics show that one in four Australian women and one in three Australian men will suffer from cancer before the age of 75. This year, more than 462,000 Australians will be newly diagnosed with some form of cancer. Excluding non-melanoma skin cancers, 88,000 new cases will be diagnosed and 36,000 cancer patients will die this year. Up to 10 million people worldwide will be diagnosed with cancer this year. This figure is expected to reach 15 million people per year by 2020. Cancer causes six million deaths worldwide each year, equating to approximately 12 per cent of deaths.

The most common form of cancer, excluding non-melanoma skin cancer, is bowel cancer, followed by breast and prostate cancer, melanoma and lung cancer. Although there are over 100 types of cancer, these five most common types account for 60 per cent of all cases. Prostate, bowel and lung cancers and melanoma are the most common forms of cancer in men. For women the most common cancers are breast cancer, followed by bowel cancer, melanoma and lung cancer.

This is the reason why an organisation such as Cancer Australia is so critical. A peak body coordinating and prioritising research is essential. Cancer Australia will oversee a dedicated budget for research into cancer. Australian scientists, as we well know, are at the forefront of groundbreaking research in several areas in the fight against cancer.

The Illawarra Cancer Carers group recently presented a donation of $100,000 to the University of Wollongong for promising research into an anticancer drug project. The money provides a major boost to the research into the new anticancer drug formulation project headed by Professor Philip Clingan, Professor John Bremner and colleagues Associate Professor Marie Ranson, Dr Tamantha Stutchbury, Dr Julie Locke and Ms Laurel Morrissey. The new formulation of drug components has shown considerable promise against cancer cells and is now in the process of being tested in animals. After the animal experiments, Professor Clingan and Professor Bremner hope to further develop this drug combination for use in humans. The Illawarra Cancer Carers have previously made donations towards the dedicated mouse-housing facility, and this most recent donation will provide a much needed boost for continuing experiments.

In addition to the groundbreaking research in my electorate, our 2006 Australian of the Year, scientist Dr Ian Frazer, through hard work and innovation developed a vaccine, Gardasil, which will help to prevent human papilloma virus, HPV, which causes approximately 70 per cent of cervical cancers. HPV is sexually transmitted, and Gardasil works by provoking an immune response to HPV. This drug will enable women to be vaccinated before they become sexually active and potentially come in contact with strains of the virus that are targeted by the vaccine. Some 700 cases of cervical cancer are diagnosed in Australia each year, and worldwide 270,000 women die from cervical cancer each year. In 2002, 227 women died from cervical cancer in Australia.

It is imperative that Australian scientists, such as those at the University of Wollongong and Dr Ian Frazer, receive the full support of government to conduct research to combat all types of cancers. As the member for Mitchell also mentioned in his speech, screening is also an important and effective way to ensure early diagnosis and successful treatment. Australia’s achievements in cancer prevention and screening have deteriorated over recent years. National screening programs exist for cervical and breast cancer, which have significantly reduced mortality and disease rates.

For all of these reasons, during the 2004 federal election campaign Labor committed to providing $36.75 million for the development of a national screening program for bowel cancer and early detection programs for prostate, lung, ovarian and testicular cancers. Evidence has shown that bowel cancer death rates can be reduced by screening. Up to 12,000 Australians are diagnosed with bowel cancer each year, and more than 4,600 die from it. Approximately 90 per cent of bowel cancer patients could be cured if detected earlier.

Norman Miller and the Rotary Club of Corrimal are strong supporters of bowel cancer screening, as are many Rotary clubs throughout all of our electorates. They subsidise, promote and sell a quick, clean, easy-to-use bowel scan kit for $5 in my electorate. I receive excellent feedback from members of the community regarding these efforts in assisting with early detection and treatment.

Cancer is a key national health priority. While the final introduction of this bill is a good first step, it is time that the Minister for Health and Ageing made his statements at the time of the condolence motions for Senator Peter Cook into actions. The minister seemed to commit to providing an early response to the Senate Community Affairs References Committee report The cancer journey: informing choice. I particularly draw the minister’s attention to the recommendation that a Medicare rebate be established to encourage the development of multidisciplinary care plans. The implementation of this report could improve the care of many people suffering from cancer.

I am pleased to support this bill, as the establishment of an organisation such as this will, I have no doubt, assist many thousands in the future. Prioritised, well-funded cancer research is essential so that other men, women and children may not have to face this disease in the future.

Michael Johnson (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a great pleasure to speak in the parliament of Australia today on the Cancer Australia Bill 2006, a very important bill. On behalf of the residents of my electorate of Ryan in the western suburbs of Brisbane, I support this bill with great vigour. This is an important bill that will take an important step forward in this country’s attack on cancer. Cancer not only kills people but destroys the lives of family members, and we should do something immediately.

The Australian government recognises the huge number of Australians affected each year by the scourge of cancer. I am disappointed that, in her remarks earlier on this bill, the shadow health minister was very negative and very critical in her usual whining fashion. I commend the speaker who has just spoken for her more constructive comments about this bill. This should be a bipartisan bill, and it should reflect this parliament’s 100 per cent shoulder-to-shoulder stance on a disease that we should do everything within our human power to eliminate from the face of the earth.

One in three men and one in four women will be directly affected by cancer before the age of 75. Each year in Australia, more than 88,000 new cases of cancer are diagnosed. There is probably not a person in the country who does not know of someone who has been touched by cancer. While more than half of the cases I have referred to will be successfully treated—and the survival rate for many common cancers has increased by more than 30 per cent in the past two decades—cancer still remains the dominant killer of Australians.

Over 36,000 people in Australia die from cancer each year. The incidence of cancer in Australia is far higher than in, say, the UK and Canada, whilst it is lower than in the United States and New Zealand. Our mortality rates are, however, lower than those of the four countries I have mentioned. Not only is there a great human cost every year associated with cancer but there is also the cost to the country of billions of dollars directly and indirectly. If we are looking for reasons to do something about this, the economic reason alone is quite a significant one. Far more than that is the humanity behind this bill and the motives of the government in coming to a decision to create Cancer Australia as a new statutory body that will focus its energy on trying to reduce cancer in Australia.

The establishment of Cancer Australia fulfils a key election promise made by the government at the 2004 election as part of the Howard government’s commitment to the Strengthening Cancer Care initiative. The government has happily committed a total of $13.7 million over five years to establish the new Cancer Australia agency. The bill prescribes specific roles which Cancer Australia is to fulfil. They include the following: provide national leadership and coordination of cancer control in Australia; guide improvements to cancer prevention and care to ensure that treatment is scientifically based; coordinate and liaise between the wide range of groups and providers with an interest in treating and eliminating cancer; make recommendations to the Australian government about cancer policy and priorities; and oversee a dedicated budget for research into cancer.

The bill also prescribes the very important roles of assisting with the implementation of the Australian government’s policies and programs in the control of cancer and undertaking any general functions that the minister of the day might direct the Chief Executive Officer of Cancer Australia to perform. These are broad and wide-ranging functions which will see Cancer Australia become the peak national voice on research into cancer care, support for those living with cancer, palliative care services and support for those in the allied and professional health industry who have a very dedicated role in trying to cure cancer patients.

In order to position Cancer Australia as a leader in its field, the government has created a governance structure which is designed to focus emphasis on increasing collaboration with key stakeholders. It is important that those agencies and organisations throughout the country that focus on this important work have some degree of coordination, because that is the best way we can get a conclusive outcome that is in the interests of patients. The governance of Cancer Australia will consist of a CEO, who will have the responsibility of managing and guiding Cancer Australia. The CEO will be appointed by the minister for a term of not more than three years. That person will directly report to the minister on behalf of Cancer Australia, and the minister has the power to direct the CEO on a broad range of functions for Cancer Australia. In essence, the CEO will be responsible for the management of Cancer Australia and its overall strategic direction.

This bill also establishes the Cancer Australia Advisory Council. The council is to consist of a chair and up to 12 other members. I welcome the announcement by the Minister for Health and Ageing that a Queenslander, Dr Bill Glasson, a former President of the Australian Medical Association, has agreed to head the advisory council. He is highly respected and well qualified, and I know that he will come to his new role with great enthusiasm and great commitment. Members of the council will be appointed by the minister, although it is expected that they will consist of representatives from a range of stakeholders so that the best advice can be tendered. Membership of the advisory council will be on a part-time basis for a period not exceeding three years. As a creation of this bill, it is incumbent upon Cancer Australia to provide to the minister a yearly report, and that report will be tabled in parliament. It is important that members of parliament see the work of Cancer Australia so we can take back to our electorates the activities, the initiatives and the work of Cancer Australia.

It was very encouraging to read of the overwhelming support the government has received for this initiative from the Cancer Council of Australia, and I welcome the comments from its CEO, Professor Alan Coates. I will quote his remarks, as they are quite timely and significant. He said:

Cancer Australia will be well placed to take up the fight against cancer as an integral part of the Federal Government’s Strengthening Cancer Care package, which represents an unprecedented government commitment to reducing the impact of cancer in Australia.

Work is being undertaken currently on a number of fronts to improve cancer prevention and treatment, but there is no centralised body to help facilitate these efforts nationally.

I want to talk briefly about the National Breast Cancer Foundation and make a few comments about Professor Ian Frazer, who is a St Lucia resident in the Ryan electorate. Ian is this year’s Australian of the Year. He is a very distinguished Australian, whose commitment to his medical profession and research knows no equal. I have spoken in this House on a couple of previous occasions about breast cancer. I did so because my wife was involved for a brief time in assisting the National Breast Cancer Foundation and I had the opportunity to bring to the parliament a very famous and high-profile Australian, Ms Sarah O’Hare, who was the ambassador for Pink Ribbon Day. I note that many of my colleagues were very keen to meet her. I thank again the Minister for Health and Ageing, Mr Tony Abbott, for kindly arranging for us to meet with Ms Sarah O’Hare and also with Ms Sue Murray, the CEO of the National Breast Council Foundation. We were able to get widespread publicity for Sarah O’Hare’s visit to the parliament. The national papers and all the news channels publicised and highlighted her visit here and the important work that she does in promoting awareness of breast cancer. So I thank again Sarah O’Hare, Sue Murray, the health minister and all my colleagues who took time out of their busy schedules to come and meet Ms O’Hare. I should also thank Mr Stuart Tait, another Ryan constituent of mine, because he very kindly gave me some funds that enabled me to put on morning tea for my many colleagues from both sides of the parliament who attended on that occasion.

Each year more than 10,000 women are diagnosed with breast cancer. They are not alone; the experience affects their partners, families and friends. My wife and I have close friends who have been touched by breast cancer and, of course, we were affected very much when that occurred. That is why it is so vital that we have a national organisation that is responsible for the coordination of our nation’s funding, support and treatment of cancer. It is important that we debate in the parliament these sorts of bills—that our focus is not entirely on matters of economics, trade and commerce but that we also focus on some of these sorts of social issues. None of us would ever hope to suffer from cancer; we would dread the thought of that occurring. There are those who have had it and who have recovered from it. While I am not one of those people, my friends who have recovered from cancer with timely treatment have said that they view life differently, having been given a second chance at life, and that they are blessed. They take on living life to the fullest and not only make a commitment to their families in a different way but see life very differently and wanting to make a commitment to their fellow man.

The Ryan electorate can be very proud because it can claim the Australian of the Year, Professor Ian Frazer, for his research into the treatment of cervical cancer. In this country between 500 and 1,000 women are affected by cervical cancer, and it kills some 300,000 women worldwide. Some 500,000 women worldwide are also affected by cervical cancer. Therefore, the work of Professor Ian Frazer of St Lucia in the Ryan electorate is most important. In fact, a recent article described him as God’s gift to women. When last I saw him, I think he mentioned to me that he took that as a great honour, because he is a very dedicated Australian. We know, as I said, that cervical cancer kills many hundreds of thousands of women worldwide and Ian Frazer, as a specialist in medical research, has dedicated his professional life to finding a cure for that disease.

In the time I have remaining to me, I want to refer the House to an article in my local south-west newspaper, the Westside News, of Wednesday 15 March. It was a very timely article that talked of the possibility of research coming to the fore that will potentially eradicate brain cancer. The very well known St Andrew’s War Memorial Hospital in Brisbane will be the first Australian hospital to trial a treatment with the potential to eradicate brain cancer. I want to pay a compliment, in the Parliament of Australia, to Dr David Walker, who said that the treatment—which involves injecting a liquid directly into tumours—would offer hope to those affected by non-operable progressive brain tumours that had a low long-term patient survival rate. Let me quote from that article in the Westside News of 15 March. It reads:

Based on a protein derived from the diphtheria bacteria, the trial has shown promising results overseas.

“About 10 per cent of people have shown what they call a complete response, where the tumour has disappeared and not recurred yet ...” Dr David Walker said.

He continued:

“Up to 50 per cent have had some response, which means the tumours haven’t progressed, have gone away partly or gone away completely.”

…         …         …

... the surgery which involved inserting a catheter directly into the brain, was is not complex.

“The drug is toxic to the tumour cells, but the patients don’t get a lot of side effects from it” ...

This is a very promising piece of research and the medical staff at St Andrew’s War Memorial Hospital in Brisbane are amongst the finest medical researchers this country has. Wherever members of the federal parliament get the opportunity, I think we should praise those in the medical profession. We should take our hats off to them because they are amongst the most brilliant people our country can produce.

I also draw to the House’s attention an article in the Financial Review of Thursday, 16 March 2006. A visiting American researcher, Garry Nolan, from the Stanford University National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, came to Australia to give a speech. This gentleman, obviously a very intelligent and inspiring man, an associate professor at Stanford University, has suffered cancer on three occasions, yet has been able to recover and go on to inspire his colleagues with his research into melanoma, a cancer that is very common to Australians.

I want to encourage all Australians, if they have not yet done so, to be very vigilant about their health, and to look at research into the condition of their health. It is very easy, in our busy lives, to neglect our health. I am very guilty of this; I am sure the overwhelming majority of my colleagues in the parliament would join me in saying that they probably neglect their health to an extent that should not occur. We should be more vigilant about our health. We should exercise more and consult our doctors regularly. We should check our bodies to ensure that we are, as much as possible, fit and healthy.

For women in particular, the early detection of breast cancer is important. As research shows, breast cancer can be cured if it is detected early enough. Mr Garry Nolan detected spots on his shoulder and forearm, and his aggressive melanoma would have turned into a cancer that would have killed him if he had waited only a matter of a few extra weeks before seeking help. That is a reflection of how important it is for us all to check these things.

I notice some young Australians in the gallery today. I welcome them to the Australian parliament and hope that they are conscious of their health. I am sure their teachers and parents are equally vigilant about that. It is important to keep fit and healthy; it is important to look out for each other and for one’s family members as well.

We spend billions of dollars on all kinds of important causes, such as the war on terror. We spend billions of dollars on roads. We spend billions of dollars on trade and commerce. I recall that when the President of Pakistan visited here in June last year he talked about a jihad. He referred to those extreme Muslims who talked about a jihad against the Western world—those who harboured ill will towards the Western or English-speaking world. He said, ‘Why don’t they call for a jihad on some of the terrible things that afflict our world, such as a jihad on poverty?’ It was very inspiring. I am sure that those of my colleagues who had the great privilege of hearing President Musharraf of Pakistan speak in the Great Hall would share my view that he gave a very instructive presentation.

I call upon the Australian government and all governments, of whatever political persuasion, to have a jihad against cancer. Let us have a jihad against poverty; let us have a jihad against cancer; let us have a jihad against all those things that make our society poorer. Let us have a jihad against HIV-AIDS. Let us have a jihad against evil people in the world. Let us do something to make this world a finer place for the people who will follow us.

My wife and I are expecting our first child in June. This is a moment that I have been told will change my life forever. I will be joining the fatherhood club. I know that my colleagues in the chamber today, the member for Wentworth and the member for Lilley, are both parents. I will be joining that fatherhood club, and I look forward to it with much enthusiasm. I want my son or daughter to come into a world that is much better than the world that I live in. That is why I have come to the Australian parliament—not only specifically to represent my constituents and my political party but to make a difference in the world in which my wife and I live, the world in which my son or daughter will live, the world in which his or her children will live, and the world in which my fellow human beings live.

Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is unquestionably in the nation’s interests that more be done to detect, diagnose, treat and cure the ravages of cancer. There is not a family in this country, there is not a street in any suburb, regional town or rural area where someone does not have a relative who is affected by cancer. When someone in a family has cancer, the whole family is affected. It is not a question of whether it is a cancer like prostate cancer, affecting men, or breast cancer, affecting women; we are all in this together. It must be a very important national priority to do something about more accurately detecting cancer, particularly in the early stages, and then, if it proceeds, to cure that disease much more effectively.

Wonderful movements are occurring in research around the world. We are having greater success in detecting cancer early and in curing it. That gives us all a lot of hope, which is why, I am sure, members come to this House today entirely supportive of a more improved, coordinated attack upon the ravages of cancer in our society.

The Cancer Australia Bill 2006 establishes Cancer Australia in order to improve coordination within the cancer sector and to ensure that ‘the entire spectrum of cancer care services throughout Australia are evidence based and consumer focused’. I welcome the appointment of Dr Bill Glasson to this very important position. He is a man whom I regard highly and have seen to be a very effective operator and doctor over many years. It is very important that Cancer Australia is an effective organisation with strong leadership, because I think it is true to say that that leadership has not necessarily been as strong, as effective or as evidence based as it ought to have been in recent years.

This is a very important body. It is very important that it implements practices of evidence based research and it is very important that it stays consumer focused. As I said before, sadly this has not necessarily happened across the board in the past. So today I want to make some constructive comments about how it can more effectively base its decisions on research and how it can more effectively pursue that goal of early detection, because early detection is always the best protection.

The importance of this comes home to me all the time as I travel around Australia and work with the Prostate Cancer Foundation to raise awareness and to assist them to raise funds for early detection and for medical research into more successful cures, which are so desperately required. The fact is this: whether you are dealing with prostate cancer, breast cancer or cervical cancer, too many Australians do not get early detection of their cancer. For too many Australians, it is a lottery. This is particularly the case with prostate cancer. Many men I meet have not been detected early and as a consequence are suffering terribly from that, as indeed are their families. Of course, this is the case in many other areas—cervical cancer is a particularly difficult cancer to detect early. But great strides can be made if the funds can be marshalled behind the research effort that aids in early detection as well as more effective cures.

That is why I have been very proud to have been involved with the ‘Be a Man’—see your doctor—campaign, which is funded not by the public of Australia, not by the Cancer Council, but by the Australian Pensioners Insurance Agency, who stepped into the breach which was left open by the failure of the Cancer Council of Australia to come to the party and support early awareness-raising activities of the Prostate Cancer Foundation. This campaign should have been the beneficiary of more public support, but it did not receive it from people like Professor Alan Coates, the current CEO of the Cancer Council. Despite that, it did go to air and I am sure it is raising awareness in the community and is saving lives.

These are not matters which are new; these matters came before the House back in June 2003, when this House came together to talk about raising awareness for prostate cancer. Many members spoke and it was a very good debate. Around that time Professor Coates had said that he personally would not get tested for prostate cancer and publicly advised men not to be tested for prostate cancer. It was essentially an attitude that said, ‘Don’t bother to find out.’ He went on to mount an argument that testing was not reliable. Nothing could be further from the truth. But the problem was that when Professor Coates made those statements he torpedoed the prostate cancer awareness-raising campaign. It did not go to air. It took another two years before the Prostate Cancer Foundation could get that campaign to air. The consequence of that not going to air then, of the delay involved in it not going to air then, would have been quite savage for many Australian men who were not the beneficiaries of those awareness-raising activities. It is vital that we get early detection, but we cannot have early detection if men are not presented with the information they need.

That Be a Man campaign went ahead based on scientific research that Professor Coates has chosen to ignore year after year. He did it in an environment where only one in 10 men is tested for prostate cancer—the physical examination and the PSA test. Compare that to breast cancer, where seven in 10 women are tested for breast cancer. Only one in 10 men is tested for prostate cancer, despite the similar numbers—around one in 10 or one in 11 are affected by those cancers. That is why it was deeply disturbing to hear Professor Coates recently on the SBS Insight program repeat those ill-informed comments that he made some years ago which initially torpedoed the Be a Man campaign. That has been going to air advising men to see their doctor and get tested.

When you have the head of the principal cancer organisation in Australia saying that he personally would not be tested for prostate cancer, what sort of a message does that send to men who may be too afraid or too ignorant to go to their doctor and get tested? What it actually provides is encouragement for people to choose ignorance over information. So I was appalled when these remarks were made by Professor Coates only some weeks ago on the Insight program, making for a more difficult problem in the community when what we need to be doing is encouraging men to get tested.

More importantly, we need campaigns for early detection and awareness based on evidence—based on scientific research. Professor Coates’s comments fly in the face of scientific evidence that men should be tested at certain ages. They flew in the face of perhaps a definitive report on this question that appeared in the Medical Journal of Australia, Volume 183, No. 6, 19 September 2005. This is a report on a defining piece of research titled ‘Revisiting the role of radical surgery in early stage prostate cancer’. The subtitle poses the question: ‘Is it time to walk the line between overtreating indolent disease and undertreating aggressive disease?’ These were the research findings that Professor Tony Costello reported in the Medical Journal of Australia:

In men treated with surgical intervention, the incidence of metastatic disease and risk of death from prostate cancer was significantly reduced compared with those who are managed by watchful waiting.

…            …            …

This health benefit was highest in men younger than 65 years of age, with 19% of watchful-waiting patients compared with 8% of patients treated with surgery dying from prostate cancer at 10 years.

That is a definitive piece of research which backs up the argument that has been put by urologists—people like Professor Tony Costello—that you must have early detection based on awareness-raising campaigns. The foundation for it basically says that men over 50 ought to be tested through the physical examination and the PSA test, and, if they have a first-degree relative, they ought to be tested at 40 and over. But the message that is coming from the Cancer Council of Australia and its CEO, Professor Allan Coates, is that that is not the case. They deny the validity of that evidence.

This blinkered view is one that ought to be rejected and it ought to be rejected in a body such as the new Cancer Australia, because we need to have early detection based on evidence based research such as that which has appeared recently in the Medical Journal of Australia. The sort of leadership we have had from Professor Coates is leadership of the worst kind. In one fell and particularly ill-considered swoop, Professor Coates has significantly set back the marvellous education and testing campaigns being run by the Prostate Cancer Foundation and I think also by a range of breast cancer organisations.

Unfortunately, this debate has now erupted with respect to breast cancer, where seven in 10 women are tested. Following the press recently I have seen similar critiques on the early screening for breast cancer, arguing that it should not occur, that the evidence for screening is not there, that the longitudinal studies are not in, that too much distress is caused for those who are not found to have a life-threatening disease and so on. All of this comment is not based on research and is very ill informed. The view being put forward by Professor Coates and a small number of rogue practitioners flies in the face of the commonsense observation that early detection is the best protection.

As I said before, the latest research published in the Medical Journal of Australia in September proves that testing and treating men with prostate cancer saves lives—that eight years after detection and treatment men have a 50 per cent chance of living longer compared to those who have no treatment at all. This important piece of research proves that only 20 per cent of men with prostate cancer will not suffer life-threatening consequences. Of course, tragically, that means that 80 per cent of those men will suffer life-threatening consequences. If they take the advice of Professor Coates 80 per cent of those men will suffer life-threatening consequences. As many men in the community today know, this is a ratio that they ought not consider as being acceptable. What Professor Coates is really saying is that, to protect the peace of mind of only 20 per cent of men, 80 per cent of men should make a conscious decision to ignore a life-threatening disease. I fear what the tragic consequences of that would be if this sort of advice were to spread to those who are looking at the early detection of breast cancer, when the testing rate is in now seven in 10 compared to only one in 10 for prostate cancer.

By publicly stating his conscious intention not to be tested, Professor Coates has decided to substitute considered public policy for an ill-considered personal view. His advice against testing will, for some men, lead to an early and painful death. Professor Coates is effectively telling men to stick their heads in the sand. He is telling us to be guided by the false calm of apathy and ignore the compelling scientific evidence that shows men will live longer with early detection and treatment of their disease. We as a community, through this new body, should choose knowledge and information as the weapons required to defeat fear and apprehension and ultimately to defeat the curse of cancer.

Jason Wood (La Trobe, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak in favour of the Cancer Australia Bill 2006. I back up the comments made by the member for Lilley and I congratulate him on his ‘Be a Man’ campaign for prostate cancer. I speak personally on this matter, as my father has advanced prostate cancer. I highly recommend that all men between the ages of 40 and 50 undertake these tests to prevent happening to them what I have seen happen to him.

Unfortunately, cancer remains an all too familiar experience for many Australian families, and those in my electorate of La Trobe are no different. The Cancer Council of Australia’s statistics are frightening. Before the age of 75, one in three men and one in four women will have contracted the disease. These men and women are our parents, our siblings, our children and our friends. They are you and I. Of all the medical challenges that confront Australia in the coming century, perhaps none is of more gravity than that of finding a cure for cancer.

Despite these dire statistics, all Australians should take heart that the Howard government has resolved to keep Australia at the forefront of the early detection and treatment of cancer. The Howard government recognises that to be able to do so successfully it must first provide the proper institutional framework. In this way the Cancer Australia Bill 2006 is a vital step in attacking this insidious illness. Cancer Australia has been allocated funding of $13.7 million over five years to enable it to provide national leadership in cancer control. In doing so, the Howard government is fulfilling its promise to the electorate of a new national coordinating body for cancer care.

The establishment of Cancer Australia is just one of a series of measures in the Howard government’s Strengthening Cancer Care initiative. Through the Strengthening Cancer Care initiative, the Howard government will allocate $189.4 million over five years to 2008-09 towards a range of anticancer measures. Cancer Australia is to be established with the aim of creating a central body to connect and coordinate the many organisations which fight cancer across Australia. The Cancer Australia umbrella will supersede the current rather unwieldy arrangements between the Cancer Council of Australia and various federal government agencies. The passage of the Cancer Australia Bill 2006 will ensure that these groups now speak to government with a single voice. Cancer Australia will make recommendations directly to the minister through the voice of some of Australia’s pre-eminent medical experts.

The message ‘Prevention is better than cure’ is often repeated. Unfortunately, it is far less often heeded. Nowhere is it more apparent than in the fight against cancer. It is of great concern that many of the major causes of cancer in Australia are, at least to some degree, preventable. I believe that education is critical in promoting behaviour which prevents cancer. The main culprit continues to be tobacco. Tobacco related illness accounts for the most prevalent and most preventable causes of cancer in Australia. The statistics provided by the Cancer Council of Australia are quite startling. Tobacco smoke directly causes more than 11,000 new cases of cancer each year—12.5 per cent of all new cases of cancer. More than 7,800 deaths every year are caused by cigarette smoking. The majority of these deaths are from lung cancer. Lesser known cancers such as throat cancer and mouth cancer also contribute to the toll.

Furthermore, we are learning more and more about the adverse effects of smoking that are visited upon unborn children. Children of mothers who smoke while pregnant are at a far greater risk of a number of ailments, among them low birth weight, prematurity, SIDS and asthma. The Howard government is committed to reducing the number of women smoking during pregnancy. To this end, the Howard government is providing new funding of $4.3 million over three years to 2007-08 to encourage doctors, midwives and Indigenous health workers to advise pregnant women about the damage caused by smoking.

I would also like to voice my support of the new requirements that all cigarette packaging contain graphic photographs of victims of cancer and other tobacco caused illnesses. The glamour that cigarette manufacturers have hidden behind for so long must be torn away. We can only hope that these images, gruesome as they are, will achieve their aim and bring smokers to their senses. Thankfully, with measures like these, smoking is progressively being pushed further into the margins of our society.

A second major cause of preventable cancer in Australia is skin cancer. The statistics provided by the Cancer Council of Australia indicate that Australia has the highest rate of skin cancer in the world. Each year around 374,000 Australians are treated for non-melanoma, non-life-threatening skin cancer and more than 8,800 are diagnosed with melanoma. Tragically, of their number, over 1,300 Australians will die from melanoma or non-melanoma skin cancers every year.

As with tobacco, further education is crucial. Educational measures, such as the Slip Slop Slap campaign launched in 1980, or the SunSmart campaign of more recent times, have familiarised Australians with the risks of Australia’s intense UV light. But mere recognition of these risks does not diminish them. The challenge is to transform this recognition into action.

This will be no easy task. It beggars belief that tanning salons—solariums as they used to be known—are a growth industry. Statistics on the VicHealth website suggest that there has been a 600 per cent increase in the number of solariums in Melbourne in the past 10 years. This growth has been fuelled by the widely held misconception that there is a ‘safe’ kind of suntan. What is more, this potentially dangerous industry is unregulated. Glamour can be a fatal pursuit.

In any event, given Australia’s love of the sun, eradicating skin cancer will continue to be a great challenge. Accordingly, I wish to applaud the funding of $5.5 million over two years to 2006-07, to educate Australians about the importance of protecting themselves from skin cancer.

Many experts also link the risk of cancer to overweight and obesity. The Cancer Council attributes over 25 per cent of cancer cases and over 7,600 deaths annually to lifestyles which are characterised by physical inactivity and poor diet. As has been widely publicised in the media, Australians are getting fatter; obesity has now become an epidemic. Over the past several decades there has been an enormous rise in the number of overweight Australians. Australia now holds the unenviable position of being the second fattest country in the world behind the United States—something we should not be proud of. While in the 1980s less than 40 per cent of Australian adults were overweight and obese, in 2000 it was estimated that the figure was somewhere around 60 per cent.

What is more alarming still is that our children are not immune to this illness—as many as 30 per cent of Australian children are estimated to be overweight or obese. Children are adopting the same behaviours as their parents. One suspects this is because our children are fast becoming more comfortable in the virtual world of the internet and video games than they are in the real world. The health implications of this obesity epidemic will, no doubt, be yet another great challenge facing Australia’s medical system in years to come. The Cancer Council of Australia suggests:

There is convincing evidence that excess weight is associated with an increased risk of endometrial, oesophageal (gullet), renal (kidney) and colorectal cancer (bowel) and of breast cancer in post-menopausal women.

It would be a bitter irony if the prosperity Australians have worked so hard to achieve turns out to be a health hazard. Educating Australians about preventative behaviour also includes education about the availability of methods of early detection. In this regard I would like to endorse the Commonwealth government’s allocation of $43.4 million over three years for the phasing in of a national bowel cancer screening program. Early diagnosis of bowel cancer or pre-cancerous abnormalities has been shown to markedly increase the chances of survival.

One type of cancer that is not known to be preventable is breast cancer. However, we must ensure that women are both educated about, and have access to, the best methods of early detection. In this regard I must convey my full support for the $4 million in funding that the National Breast Cancer Centre will receive to help raise awareness about early detection of breast cancer.

I think it is important that I take this opportunity to address the issue of the availability of the breast cancer drug Herceptin. While Herceptin is currently available on the PBS for women suffering from late stage breast cancer, some of my constituents have asked me to support making it available for early stage use. So far over 1,500 Australian women have benefited from this drug, but the drug’s cost is prohibitive for most Australians: a year’s Herceptin treatment costs around $66,000.

I fully support putting Herceptin on the PBS for early stage use, provided its manufacturer, Roche Products Pty Ltd, can satisfy the Therapeutic Goods Administration that it is an effective treatment. It would be irresponsible to let the drug pass without full and proper scientific scrutiny; and it would be a tragedy in itself to deliver a message of false hope to breast cancer sufferers.

Recognising the urgency of this situation, Minister Abbott has instructed the TGA to prioritise the evaluation of Roche’s application to extend the registration of the use of Herceptin to early stage breast cancer. As I understand it, the TGA is currently undertaking a review to assess if Herceptin is satisfactory for this additional use. It is expected that this review will be completed within three months. Minister Abbott has also fast-tracked a simultaneous application to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee for the government subsidy. Ultimately, however, the PBAC can only consider a submission for listing on the PBS once the drug is approved for use by the TGA. I congratulate Minister Abbott on his efforts in prioritising the evaluation of Herceptin. I hope that those awaiting its results can take some comfort—small as it may be—from the fact that the Howard government is doing all it can to expedite the process.

The Howard government continues to give great support to the health services provided to my constituents in the electorate of La Trobe. The Howard government has allocated $800,000 over two years towards the Fernlea House palliative care hospice in Emerald. While the Fernlea House facility is not exclusively for cancer sufferers, the majority of its patients are cancer patients. When Fernlea House opened its doors in November 2005, I was proud that the Commonwealth government was able to fund a project that many people in my electorate had worked tirelessly towards over a number of years. Again I acknowledge the fantastic work of Jan Lancaster. It was a great achievement. It was fantastic to make a contribution and to deliver on a promise I had made to my constituents before the last election.

As I have told the House before, my involvement with the Fernlea House committee began many years ago when I discovered that there was not one respite care facility in the far east of Melbourne. At the time, the area locally known as ‘the Hills’—the Dandenong Ranges—was in great need of such a facility. Previously, people in the area seeking respite or palliative care would have to travel for over an hour to receive appropriate treatment. Fernlea House can accommodate up to six patients per day. The committee of management of Fernlea House—and I congratulate it—is still hoping to reach its ultimate goal of a six-bed overnight accommodation facility. It is not currently able to do so as the Victorian state government has so far failed to contribute any funding to the project. That lack of action by the state Labor government is a disgrace. To date, Fernlea House has been entirely funded by the Howard government. I once again encourage the Victorian state government to shoulder some of the burden to assist in keeping Fernlea House operating. Fernlea House is providing a much-needed health service to the area and the burden should not fall solely on the Commonwealth government’s shoulders.

Part of Cancer Australia’s charter is to strengthen palliative care services. I would like to endorse the Local Palliative Care Grants Program. Under this program the Howard government is committed to providing $23.1 million to assist charitable hospices like Fernlea House, and other local groups such as churches and aged care providers, to support cancer patients and their families. The new funding will be used for the fit-out of and equipment for premises for palliative patients, pastoral care, and counselling.

In closing, I would like to reiterate my support for the Cancer Australia Bill. Cancer is an issue of the utmost importance to all Australians, young and old. The establishment of the Cancer Australia organisation is an integral part of the Howard government’s anticancer program. A cure for this terrible disease cannot come fast enough.

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Cancer has touched every Australian. Twenty-eight per cent of all deaths in Australia are caused by cancer. Some 88,000 new cases of cancer are diagnosed in Australia each year. This is in addition to the more than 300,000 people who have possibly cancerous skin growths removed each year. To put this in context, there are approximately 88,000 people in each federal electorate. That is an entire federal electorate diagnosed with cancer each year. One in three Australian men and one in four Australian women will develop cancer before the age of 75.

I was very encouraged to hear the honourable member for La Trobe indicate to the House that he supports the listing of Herceptin on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme once it has been through the TGA processes. Some 11,000 women are diagnosed with breast cancer each year. I would suggest that the disease has touched almost every Australian family in some way. Of the 11,000 women diagnosed with breast cancer each year, between 2,000 and 2,500 will be HER2 positive. That means that they are possibly able to be treated with Herceptin. The difficulty arises because Herceptin is not on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme schedule and one year’s course of Herceptin can cost approximately $60,000. We see women and families selling their houses and taking out a second mortgage in order to fund their cancer treatment. That is not a situation that is acceptable. The decision will go to cabinet because it would cost more than $10 million to put Herceptin onto the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme schedule.

In the last week and a half I have been organising a petition in my electorate to support the listing of Herceptin on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme schedule. In 1½ weeks, over 10,000 signatures have been obtained. Although I cannot table them in the House at this point, I will be, and I would like to bring the attention of the House to the 10,260 signatures which have been collected in the electorate of Prospect over the last week and a half. I recognise the contribution of other honourable members in this campaign, particularly the honourable member for Holt and the honourable member for Cunningham, both of whom have been very passionate advocates for the listing of Herceptin on the Parliament Benefits Scheme schedule. I also acknowledge and thank all the people in my electorate, many of whom have been going up and down their streets collecting signatures after I wrote to them asking them to support this campaign.

I acknowledge the comments of the honourable member for La Trobe that the process through the TGA has been fast-tracked. But I also acknowledge the comments of the head of the Sydney Breast Cancer Institute, Dr Richard West, who said that the delays in making this drug available are ‘reprehensible’. I call on the government to recognise the importance of the drug when the matter comes before cabinet and to acknowledge that, although this would be an expensive decision, that is what the PBS is there for.

Cancer Australia is established by the Cancer Australia Bill 2006. I support that as a step in the right direction. I do hesitate to make political criticisms of the government in a debate on a life and death matter such as cancer, but I also believe this matter is so important that there is an obligation on all members to point out the shortcomings of this bill, which I will turn to shortly. But, firstly, let me deal with the positive aspects of the bill.

This bill, of course, establishes Cancer Australia, and the time for this idea has come. There are many groups, foundations and organisations dedicated to fighting different types of cancer in Australia. The establishment of Cancer Australia will provide leadership and coordination to these efforts. The role of Cancer Australia will be to provide national leadership in cancer control; to guide scientific improvements to cancer prevention, treatment and care; to coordinate and liaise between the wide range of groups and health care providers with an interest in cancer; to make recommendations to the government about cancer policy and priorities; to oversee a dedicated budget for research into cancer; and to assist with the implementation of Commonwealth government policies and programs in cancer control.

It is, of course, impossible to argue that any of these roles would not be very worthy or that Australia would not benefit from the creation of Cancer Australia. My main criticism of the government in this regard is the very long period of time it has taken to establish Cancer Australia and what this has meant for the National Cancer Control Initiative established by the former Minister for Health and Aged Care, the Hon. Michael Wooldridge. The National Cancer Control Initiative advises the government on cancer. Indeed, the NCCI’s work has led to the Strengthening Cancer Care policy that Cancer Australia will be charged with implementing.

Whenever a new organisation is created, it is important that the corporate knowledge existing in other organisations is not lost. While many people had assumed that the NCCI would be incorporated into Cancer Australia, this will not be the case. Indeed, the NCCI has been left to wither on the vine. The head of the NCCI, Professor Mark Elwood, sent out a letter to cancer groups outlining that the future of the initiative was unclear and that funding was running out. This situation is very disappointing. It is also in contrast to the experience in New South Wales.

In 2003, the New South Wales government established the Cancer Institute NSW. The New South Wales government have been keen to ensure that the new institute works closely with the existing New South Wales Cancer Council and that the Cancer Council’s work is not lost. While I am on the topic, I regard the efforts of the New South Wales government in cancer control as world’s best practice. They are punching way above their weight. They have a minister directly responsible for the fight against cancer, a chief cancer officer and a state cancer plan. This is an area that a state government could very easily ignore, but the New South Wales government have not ignored the issue of cancer; they have been very proactive. I do not always agree with the New South Wales government’s actions, but I have nothing but praise for their actions, in particular the actions of Minister Sartor, in relation to cancer.

Another issue I want to touch upon is the issue of conflict of interest. This is perhaps not a major issue, but it is an issue where I think this government has again neglected to follow the best practice of the New South Wales government. The Cancer Institute (NSW) Bill 2003 outlines at considerable length in clause 8 of part 2 what must be done to avoid potential conflicts of interest. However, the Commonwealth legislation simply says that conflicts of interest must be declared. This is an area where I think the Commonwealth could have done better by following the lead of the New South Wales government in having a much more prescriptive approach to how conflicts of interest on the boards of various cancer authorities should be dealt with.

Another area where I think the government could have done better is in its response to the Senate Community Affairs References Committee report The cancer journey: informing choice, which was the final contribution to this nation of the late Senator Peter Cook. The government has not responded in any substantial way to this report. Unsurprisingly, the government has not responded to any reports by parliamentary committees in recent times. I am sure government members who work so hard on their parliamentary committee work would share the frustration of opposition members that the executive in this nation has shown utter contempt for the parliamentary committee process. The government has ignored this very important report, which was a unanimous report—agreed on by both the government and the opposition—and it has ignored the lasting legacy of Senator Peter Cook. Minister Abbott did indicate during the condolence motion for Senator Peter Cook that he would be responding soon, but we have seen no formal response.

It is also something that has been recognised by the Australian Labor Party. At the last election, our policy was to fund a multidisciplinary conference on care provision for newly diagnosed cancer patients. This would have included surgeons, medical oncologists, radiation oncologists and genetic counsellors. Labor’s proposal would have involved 120,000 team consultations for cancer patients. I recognise that this would have been a small step, but it would have been a significant step in the right direction of encouraging and funding a multidisciplinary approach to cancer treatment and in recognition of the thrust of the Senate committee’s report and, in particular, in recognition of the work of the late Senator Peter Cook.

This was just one aspect of Labor’s cancer policy. Other aspects included the national roll-out of a new cancer screening program for the early detection of bowel cancer; educating young men about testicular cancer to ensure early diagnosis and, hopefully, cure; and strengthening the links between Australia’s research institutions, to which I referred earlier, and public hospitals across the country to ensure the speedy adoption of new cancer treatments, including new gene therapies.

In conclusion, I would like to support the comments of the honourable member for La Trobe, who supported the listing of Herceptin on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme schedule. I would also like to again acknowledge the efforts of the honourable members for Cunningham and Holt on this very important matter.

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! It being 2 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 97. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.