Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I also seek to take note of Senator Ludwig’s answer. I would like to thank Senator Adams for her contribution to this discussion this afternoon, in contrast to the contributions we have seen from Senator Lundy and Senator Polley. Senator Lundy tells us that it is trivial to care about the effects of government policy on chemotherapy patients. Senator Polley wants us to worry about how accountable the current government is for its funding—it is apparently so much more accountable than the Howard government. Could I invite her to have a look at the relative surpluses and deficits of those two governments and to think about who was actually being accountable for funding spent instead of attempting to develop a sense of Ruddian omnipotence. There seems to be a view amongst the government that to criticise policy in any way is to play politics. Apparently, with their current omnipotence, this government is completely above politics. To suggest that a chemotherapy patient might have to pay more, that someone is going to have to pay for this mistake—one of the many mistakes made by the Minister for Health and Ageing—is apparently to play politics.

It is not about playing politics. It is about trying to get policy that has had plenty of time to be fixed, fixed properly. Why hasn’t that happened already? The fact is that this was a May 2008 budget measure—that is when it was first proposed. But then, oh goodness, we have the health minister, Nicola Roxon, coming out on 27 April to say they are going to ‘delay implementation of the chemotherapy budget measure from 1 July for two months till 1 September’ so that they can:

… work with key stakeholders on resolving outstanding issues and to negotiate with industry stakeholders on modified arrangements.

As Senator Cormann has very ably pointed out, they will not even manage to do this by 1 September, in three weeks time, which was their new deadline. How much ‘continuing to work with stakeholders and industry to make sure we get the details right’, as Minister Roxon said, can one person, one department or even one minister do? Then we have Senator Ludwig pointing out again today that this will now be delayed past 1 September to allow for ‘ongoing consultations with stakeholders’. Oh dear! This is from May 2008. You would have thought that before this went into the budget the first time they would have done their consultation with stakeholders.

This is going to have a disastrous effect on people undergoing chemotherapy treatment. We currently have a situation where we are being told by the government and the department that, if, for example, 10 phials of chemotherapy drugs are prescribed and only eight are used, the other two can be used later. But we are being told over and over by the industry and the stakeholders—who apparently have been being consulted for almost two years; if the government has listened once to its stakeholders it would have heard this—that this is dangerous and it will be unsuccessful. These are volatile and dangerous drugs. John Stubbs, from the Cancer Voices Australia organisation, says that in fact it will lead to an increase in bacterial and viral infections. He says it is a completely flawed notion to think that leftovers can be safely used.

Why can’t the minister finally do some real consulting and, if she wishes to have real efficiency, try to work out a method for reducing the size of the phials that are used? This must be perfectly achievable. But, of course, the government has said: ‘Oh, no, that would involve talking to pharmaceutical companies. This would involve international discussions. We couldn’t possibly do that.’ I figure that, in fact, they could not do it—it would be possible for a competent minister to do it, but it is probably well beyond the capacity of the current one. In the meantime, places like the Gympie Hospital will have to cease treating chemotherapy patients if this legislation proceeds.

Question agreed to.