I would like to note the passing of the great Australian playwright and poet, Dorothy Hewitt, who died of breast cancer on the weekend. Breast cancer affects one in 10 Australian women.
Figures for Canberra show that one in eight are affected, which means about 1,000 women per month are affected. Of those women, 360 will require a radical mastectomy and, as a result, they will need to be fitted with a breast prosthesis. Some women may require two prostheses as they face metastasis of the cancer to the other breast.
There are a number of different breast prostheses that are available to women. They range from smaller padded forms, which cost about $60, to full breast prostheses, which cost about $400. It is probably appropriate to show to the parliament the nature of the breast prosthesis considered most appropriate for women who suffer from breast cancer to wear. The purpose of my motion is to bring to the attention of the parliament the failure of not only the current government but also the previous government to provide affordable and accessible prostheses for Australian women who have been diagnosed with breast cancer.
Breast cancer changes the lives of women forever. It also has a profound impact on the lives of their families, in particular their children. Not only do they face difficult treatment but also those who are lucky to survive have to live with the possible fear of recurrence. For those who have had mastectomies, the angst of dealing with suitable and adequate prostheses becomes a lifelong concern. Presently, breast prostheses are not on the Medicare rebate schedule, causing many Australian women to make do with whatever they can afford, which is not always the best option. In other instances, women who cannot afford the better but more expensive breast prostheses, like the one I have shown to the parliament, may have to opt for a second-hand one—that is, one that was fitted for another woman who has now died and whose prostheses is passed on. Recent reports in the Canberra Times reveal this appalling trend by hospitals to recycle dead women's prostheses to those who cannot afford the cost of a new, specially fitted one. Can you imagine the psychological impact on women who are forced into this predicament? It is difficult enough to cope with the loss of a breast and with all the social, physical and psychological effects that that may have, let alone having to use the prosthesis of a woman who has died.
Many women may initially manage to procure suitable prostheses, but the very delicate constitution of the prosthesis means that it is susceptible to being damaged. A replacement will cost another $400—money that not all women have on the spot or at call. Some therefore resort to extending the use of the prosthesis for as long as possible by using bandaids or even masking tape to repair and contain damage. If a woman cannot afford a replacement, it is not uncommon to go without. Many women opt for alternative methods such as bags filled with stockings or sponges or even stuffing their bras with bird seed.
Breast prostheses are not just a matter for aesthetic correction; they also assist in restoring the balance of the body so that minimal stress is placed on the shoulders, the neck and the back. More importantly, they restore a woman's sense of confidence, as they enable women to continue their public and social lives without embarrassment. This is very important because, despite the generally heightened awareness of breast cancer amongst our community, none of us—men or women—are conditioned to seeing one-breasted women moving around in public. We are used to wheelchairs, amputees and false limbs, but try getting into a bus or a tram or walking down the street with one breast—it just does not happen. The quality and availability of suitable and affordable breast prostheses are an ongoing concern for all Australian women and their families.
At the onset of my speech, I was critical of both the government of the day and of the former Labor government for having failed to address the issue of Medicare rebatable prostheses. In 1995, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Community Affairs recommended that the Medicare rebate schedule be amended to include mammary prostheses. The then Labor government, in its wisdom, rejected the recommendation on the basis that those women who received treatment in public hospitals had prostheses given to them free of charge and those who were treated as private patients under private health cover would have their prostheses covered. Unfortunately, that was not, and continues not to be, the case. Public hospitals are expected to provide free prostheses. However, growing evidence suggests that more often than not budget cuts and restrictions apply, so women either have to wait for anything up to 12 months for prostheses or they may have to make do with whatever is available—a dead woman's prosthesis perhaps. Unfortunately, breast prostheses have come to compete for funding with other prostheses and aids. As I said, most times the money just is not there. As for those who are private patients, I am told that not all health schemes provide the cover. Certainly not all women can afford premium health cover in order to avail themselves of the extras. The Canberra based organisation Caring for You—members of which are in the gallery today, and I welcome them—and the Melbourne based Breast Cancer Action Group, which are support and lobby groups for women with breast cancer, are conducting research into determining which health schemes offer this type of cover.
The response of the current government, and in particular the minister for health, Senator Kay Patterson—whom I must say I hold in very high esteem—in telling the breast cancer action groups that she cannot place breast prostheses on the Medicare rebate schedule because she would be setting an unwanted precedent, with the prospect of other disabled people wanting their aids and prostheses on the schedule also, is greatly disappointing. It may be good and proper for a minister who has to watch her budget, but her reasons for rejecting the proposal are seriously flawed. Firstly, we need to recognise that the current situation with breast prostheses has reached a critical point. It needs to be addressed. Secondly, what we are talking about here is an outlay by government of only about $1.7 million annually. This is hardly a figure that will break the bank.
Women make up 52 per cent of the Australian population. When one woman is struck by breast cancer, an entire family and community are affected. Very few people in our community will remain completely untouched by breast cancer, because it is the most common cause of cancer related deaths in women in Australia. We need to treat breast prostheses separately from other prostheses and aids. The case for treating them separately is compelling, not only for the reasons I have outlined above but from a mathematical point of view. The case for breast prostheses is a unique and special one and that case is strong. I mentioned earlier that 1,000 women per month are diagnosed with breast cancer. It is important to note that more and more younger women are being diagnosed with breast cancer and I understand that three per cent of the male population is also being diagnosed with breast cancer. I bet that statistic would be a surprise to anyone. It certainly was to me.
Until such time as a complete cure is found for the disease, this will continue year in and year out, and about 360 women will have a mastectomy year in and year out. Compare that to other disabilities which result in the loss of limbs or in being wheelchair bound. No-one can say that these disabilities compare in number and frequency to women with breast cancer. Breast prostheses therefore should not have to compete with or be considered in the same category as other aids. In any case, why should women who are afflicted by this dreadful condition be at the mercy and whim of public hospital budgets that vary from place to place? Why should they have to be beholden to inadequate or unaffordable private health care schemes? Why should the responsibility for funding the provision of breast prostheses be a buck that is passed from state to Commonwealth as each scrambles to shift the blame or the responsibility onto the other?
We are talking about a pitiful amount of funding: $1.7 million annually. Surely, as women, we are important enough to our families and to our communities to warrant fair and reasonable treatment from the federal government. After all, very importantly, we are also taxpayers. I am certain if you took a poll amongst Australian women and men you would find very few who did not support this recommendation. The action groups tell me that they will not give up the fight to ensure that breast prostheses are put on the Medicare rebate schedule. I am very glad that those women are out there defending the rights of women and providing valuable support. I am glad they will not give up on their efforts to persuade the health minister that her thinking on this matter is flawed and needs to be reviewed as a matter of urgency. We will certainly be there to assist them in their effort.
