Ruth Webber (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I too rise to take note of the report Breaking the silence: a national voice for gynaecological cancers. As I said at the tabling of the report, some time back, the committee heard a lot of very personal and painful evidence from women who have been afflicted with these devastating cancers. We need to place on record yet again not only our thanks to them but also our thanks to all the members of the committee, the secretariat, the researchers who appeared before us and, particularly, Senator Ferris for sharing some pretty painful and personal stories and for being such a passionate advocate to try to ensure that no-one has to travel the journey that she has.

It is not often in this place that we come up with a unanimous report, but we did in this case. With a lot of health issues—and perhaps it is when women in this place get together—we tend to come up with a unanimous view on the way forward. Perhaps that is something that the male members of this chamber might like to consider. It has been an interesting week in terms of what happens when women work together in this chamber. Today, we got together in response to a somewhat surprising decision from the government, from the minister, about endorsing the PBAC decision to not subsidise the use of Gardasil. As I said during question time to Senator Santoro, whilst we will always respect the role of experts in evaluating which drugs or vaccines should be used, it is not that committee that makes the final decision. They make the recommendation; it is the minister and the cabinet that make the final decision, and they should never, ever try to hide behind the experts. If they are going to make the decision, they should accept full responsibility for that decision.

Not only were Professor Ian Frazer and all of us in this place a little stunned by the decision but a lot of women in the community were as well. There has been quite an outpouring of reaction. It would seem that the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee made the decision because, they say, the vaccine program, which would have cost about $625 million over the first four years, was not value for money. I did not realise that the expert advisory committee was there to advise on value for money; I thought it was there to advise on the safety, efficacy and appropriateness of drugs and vaccines. I did not think it was their role to be economists and work out what was or what was not value for money. I thought that was the role of other advisers and, in the end, the minister and cabinet. So I question how they could arrive at that view, particularly as it is known, and Professor Ian Frazer and others have said, that there is absolutely no dispute that Gardasil works.

For the government, the minister, the cabinet and even the PBAC to knock it back on the basis that it is going to cost too much seems amazing. As even Senator Humphries, the chair of the inquiry, said on radio this morning, what cost do you put on a life? That really is what you have to weigh up when you are looking at a screening program for one of the most devastating cancers that can affect young women in our community. When we were discussing this earlier today, Senator Santoro went on to talk about the words of encouragement of the shadow minister for health, Ms Gillard, about the role of the PBAC. And she is right: it is the role of that expert advisory group to advise us on which drugs are appropriate and when. But it is never their job to consider price. I would have thought it is their job to consider value and it is then up to the government to consider and look at price. It is not up to the PBAC. It is up to them to consider the value of the medical treatment, but not whether it is value for money.

In the public debate that has surrounded the need, in my view, for Gardasil to be put on the PBS and for the screening program to commence as soon as possible, one of the things that have really concerned me has been some comments I read in the press earlier today from the Minister for Health and Ageing, Mr Abbott, when he was defending the government’s decision to just accept the PBAC recommendation. He said he was going to work very hard on trying to make sure it was all fixed up for the next round in March. But, according to press reports, when he was asked whether he would have his three daughters vaccinated with the new breakthrough drug—the drug that it is admitted there are no problems with: it is absolutely successful and will not harm your health—he went on to say:

I won’t be rushing out to get my daughters vaccinated, maybe that’s because I’m a cruel, callow, callous, heartless bastard but, look, I won’t be.

I find that absolutely astounding. It is an absolute shame that the father of three daughters could say that—and not just as a father but as an opinion leader in our community and a key decision maker. Every now and then we have to lead by example. We have to say that we are going to put our personal morality a little to one side and look after the health of our loved ones. How could you, for whatever reason, decide that you would not spend the money? Even if this vaccine does not get listed on the PBS so that the screening program can take place in 2008, how could you, as a cabinet minister, say that you will not come up with the money to look after the health and safety of your daughters? That is a callous decision.

We have all championed far and wide the enormous contribution that Professor Frazer, the Australian of the Year, has made to the scientific and medical community, not only in this country but worldwide. He is someone we are all very proud of, someone who has chosen to make Australia his home so that he can continue with his endeavours. So I find it absolutely incredible that the minister can on the one hand champion Professor Frazer’s scientific work and on the other hand say that he will not use that pioneering research to look after the health and safety of his own children. I find that absolutely amazing.

Some of the other commentary on this issue has included, as Senator Ferris has said, the Prime Minister saying that he is confident that these issues will be addressed, that Gardasil will be listed and will be available for the screening program to take place in 2008. I am heartened by that. I would much rather that we acted a bit more promptly. Perhaps the screening program could have been well and truly in place if the government had chosen to accept the advice that the PBAC gave them but then said that they were not going to implement it and that it should be looked at again. Much is made of leaving these issues to experts, and it is very important to get expert advice. But if the minister were to intervene in this case it would not be the first time that there was such an intervention. I am sure we all remember the intervention after the public concern about the meningococcal C vaccine. That was political intervention—sensible and sensitive political intervention—to look after very young children. Surely young women in our community deserve the same intervention. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.