Jeannie Ferris (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Community Affairs Committee report Breaking the silence: a national voice for gynaecological cancers. Gynaecological cancers are not very often spoken about in the community, and those several hundred women each year who are diagnosed are often not able to find the support that they need. Some women say that when speaking of gynaecological cancers they have feelings of guilt, of shame and of embarrassment. As a result, the journey for gynaecological cancer sufferers is taken in a very painful silence. The symptoms are vague. This report outlines the cases of many women who courageously came and gave evidence to our committee and talked of their own experiences with various gynaecological cancers and in particular of the difficulties that they found because there was no national centre that they could go to for advice, comfort or support in their journey.

Today, 22 women—colleagues of mine in this place, including my colleague and friend Senator Fiona Nash and my colleagues across the chamber Senator Jan McLucas and Senator Ruth Webber—signed a letter to the Minister for Health and Ageing, Tony Abbott, asking him to find a way to review the decision that was taken and announced today related to the use of Gardasil, the cervical cancer vaccine. It is very interesting that, once again, the women in this chamber have come together, as they have a number of times in the recent past, to argue for women’s issues which go beyond party politics. It is a credit to all women in this chamber that they see these issues as not being issues related to a single political party but being issues that are related to all women of all ages across Australia. This cervical cancer vaccine issue affects all women of all ages.

Nobel Prize winner Professor Ian Frazer and his team have developed this vaccine, which is found to be 100 per cent effective in protecting women from infection from the four strains of the human papilloma virus, which together now cause 70 per cent of all cervical cancers. These are particularly nasty cancers, and the statistics are very frightening. Some of the statistics that were reported to the committee and are represented in our report show that, in 2001, 1,537 women were diagnosed with uterine cancer and 735 women were diagnosed with cervical cancer. That number has increased a little because of the ageing of the population and also the fact that that statistic is now five years old. But there is no doubt—no doubt at all—that this particular cancer can become part of the history of terrible diseases that have befallen women in the past. This statistic can go gradually down to a very small number with the use of the vaccine Gardasil. It is very important that we look at ways in which this vaccine can be made available more quickly. I was particularly reassured to hear the Prime Minister say that it is not ‘if’ but ‘when’ this vaccine will become available. That is wonderfully reassuring, but what I want to see is that ‘when’ to be as quickly as possible: not next March and not 2008.

The provision of high-quality treatment for women with cancer, whether it is cervical cancer, ovarian cancer, vulval cancer or any of the other gynaecological cancers, is a critical element in improving health outcomes for women with these forms of cancer. Evidence showed that access to treatment was not equal across the community. Our report shows that a disproportionate number of women from rural, regional and remote areas, Indigenous populations and culturally diverse populations generally had very limited access to the services that they needed, whether it was for the initial diagnosis, for the surgery, for the post-operative treatment or for the psychosocial support. It is difficult for those women in all of those areas.

We concluded unanimously—again, across parties, all women on that committee, and Senator Gary Humphries, the chair of the committee—that there is value in bringing people together to strengthen the understanding of gynae cancer issues at the political and policy level and to provide many of the answers that are needed to lessen the impact of these cancers on women and their families. The committee found, and it is reflected in the report, that there should be increased and better coordinated funding to drive new developments in gynaecological oncology and to make more effective use of Australia’s talented researchers and investigators, the priority being given to a screening test for ovarian cancer to enable earlier identification of the disease and successful treatment, hopefully lowering those awful statistics that we heard about in evidence.

The principal recommendation from the committee, reported in the report we are discussing tonight, was for funding for $1 million to establish a national gynaecological cancer centre where we can coordinate, under the banner of the new organisation, Cancer Australia, to form a focus, a framework, for women and their families to have direct access to information on gynaecological cancer, so that when they are diagnosed with ovarian cancer and they type ‘ovarian cancer’ into the search networks on the internet they are not taken to websites in the United States and they are not directed to the Breast Cancer Centre. If you go through the Breast Cancer Centre’s website, you will find some material on ovarian cancer but not on the other cancers. What we want is our own national support group so that not only the women but also their families, their children, the doctors who first diagnosed them, the subsequent surgeons and the wonderful specialists who take care of them can be directed to a source of information.

The My Journey Kit has helped so many women with breast cancer in this country to know where they are going to go; what is going to happen to them; and how, luckily, they are in the statistical group in which more than 80 per cent will be cured. With gynaecological cancers those figures are lower, but, if we are able to get the survivors of these cancers to present My Journey Kits to people who are early diagnosis patients, we can give them the support, the psychosocial underpinning, if you like, that they need. They can then face their journey in the confidence that there are people who have survived these cancers, and can be willing to take part with a helping organisation, as you do, Mr Acting Deputy President Barnett, with the diabetes foundation. We can take part, as survivors, in helping newly diagnosed patients to know that there is a future and that, in that future, there may well be some early test available for the awful gynaecological cancer of ovarian cancer. Together with Gardasil, we will start to reduce the numbers and the awful statistics that apply to women in this country who have gynaecological cancers.

Ruth Webber (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.