Katie Allen (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It's not often that you come to this place and one of the first inquiries that you sit on regards the expertise in your former life. So it is with a great sense of pride that I support the report that was recently handed down on the inquiry into allergies and anaphylaxis, Walking the allergy tightrope. I've spent a lot of my professional career dealing with families and children with food allergies. The reason that I did this is that, as a paediatric gastroenterologist, I became exposed to people who were complaining about things that were affecting their life and they didn't know why. I dedicated my professional career to trying to understand this new concern: food allergy. As a medical student and as a medical professional, we were not trained in allergy, so there is a whole cohort of doctors who have had to be reverse trained in order to understand the issues of allergy. I would like to make the comment that the report that was handed down just this week is of immense importance because the committee members who sat on the committee came across information that many doctors, who are formally trained, have not come across. I would say that the committee are now experts in allergy, which is wonderful for this place.

Food allergy is one of the conditions that is terribly frightening for families and the person or child affected. When someone is exposed to something that could be completely safe for 99 per cent of the population but could effectively kill them if they were to eat it is terribly frightening. But, more than that, there are many families with food allergies who seek help from doctors and are not offered the right advice, the right management or the right treatment. I would like to congratulate the allergy community for the work they have done over the last 10 to 20 years to increase awareness about this particular group of conditions and to bring light to this area that has so needed exposure to information.

As a paediatric allergist, the most common question that I was asked is: is food allergy on the rise? Also: if it is on the rise, why is it on the rise? People just cannot understand how something as innocuous as a peanut can literally kill somebody. I spent a lot of my medical research time trying to understand why food allergy was on the rise. I'm pleased to say that the food allergy community, both here in Australia and overseas, has delivered information for a number of reasons why we think food allergy is on the rise. We are at the point where we're able to make some public health recommendations to help turn back the tide of food allergy. This is a very exciting time in medical research and, indeed, for healthcare practitioners because they have an ability to make a real difference. I often used to say to people, 'Cancer, infectious diseases, Alzheimer's—you name it: these medical conditions have been around for as long as mankind, but food allergy in particular and allergy diseases in general have only occurred more recently.' This is a concern of the modern era. This is a particularly interesting era for medical researchers to try and understand why something like this is occurring. The possibility that, as this has occurred only in the last number of decades, we could potentially completely eliminate it is incredibly tantalising.

I really recommend this report because it focuses on recommendations on how to move this area forward for the benefit of families with food allergy and other allergy, for children and adults who are suffering with allergic disease. It is amazing that one-third of people in Australia will develop allergies over their lifetime. So many people have problems with hay fever, asthma, food allergy, eczema and anaphylaxis, but unfortunately Australia has the highest rate of food allergy ever reported. Unfortunately, Australia is the food allergy capital of the world. Australia is a country; it's not a capital, but you get my point; we do have incredibly high rates. In fact, 10 per cent of children aged 12 months appear to have food allergy in Melbourne, which has the highest food allergy prevalence in Australia. Over four million people are living with allergies, and this number continues to rise. Of course, the most common food allergy consequence that is most frightening for everyone is anaphylaxis. As someone who themselves has a peanut allergy, I know how frightening it can be to have the most life-threatening condition, anaphylaxis. All that we can do to help save lives and protect lives through prevention of anaphylaxis is a very important outcome indeed.

Last August, in 2019, the Minister for Health, Greg Hunt, referred the inquiry into allergies and anaphylaxis to the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport. The inquiry looked into the prevalence, management and treatment of allergies. It was a very thorough inquiry. It received 257 submissions from members of the public, doctors, parents and organisations. I would like to congratulate all of those submitters for their dedicated work. These people took time out of their professional days to either provide a submission to the inquiry or present in person. I'd particularly like to thank Maria Said from Allergy and Anaphylaxis Australia; Jill Smith and Preeti Joshi from the Australasian Society of Clinical Immunology and Allergy; Kirsten Perrett and Jennifer Copland from the Centre for Food and Allergy Research; and Richard Loh and Maria Said from the National Allergy Strategy. Now, Richard has recently retired from the National Allergy Strategy, but it is very important that we acknowledge the important work he has done advocating for a national approach to allergies.

When I travelled internationally as a medical researcher, there was absolutely no doubt that we had some of the highest rates of allergic disease in the world; but, we equally had the best health care with regard to clinical guidelines and the allergy profession working together to protect allergy patients. More importantly, we have a very dedicated multicentre group of people who were interested in trying to work out how to deal with allergies better, and Richard Loh and Maria Said should be congratulated for the work they did in coming up with this National Allergy Strategy. Some ideas that have come forward as recommendations by this committee have been informed by that information.

There were a number of recommendations made after seven hearings. The first was a recommendation that there be a national centre for allergies and anaphylaxis in Australia to continue the work that has already been done and to explain why Australia has the highest rate of allergy in the world.

Recommendation 2 was additional funding into food allergies and anaphylaxis research, in particular funding for clinical research into oral immunotherapy trials. We know that a number of families—in fact, hundreds of families—are travelling to the United States and receiving care for food allergy because they cannot get that care here in Australia, and that care is oral immunotherapy. So people who have peanut allergy or egg allergy or other food allergies are living with these allergies and living with the risk of having anaphylactic events in uncontrolled situations. Some of these families have spent upwards of $35,000 to travel to the US for a cure for their food allergy. These clinical trials at this point in time are still in the research domain here and overseas, so our recommendation is that Australia leads the way by starting oral immunotherapy trials for food allergy here so that we can provide cutting-edge research and clinical trials to families who have food allergy.

The inquiry report, Walking the allergy tightrope, has also recommended we ensure that the Australasian Society of Clinical Immunology and Allergy receive ongoing long-term funding to continue its partnership work with the Department of Health and the National Allergy Strategy to develop minimal standards of allergy training for health professionals, and to continue the good work that these collaborative organisations and institutions have already commenced.

Recommendation 6 recommends that telehealth funding support for doctors and allied health workers is provided so that we can have professional services that give support to allergy patients in rural, regional, and remote Australia. I know, as a paediatric allergist, I had people travelling from all over Victoria and, indeed, from all over Australia—and even from the Asia-Pacific!—to have specialist care for food allergy provided at the centre that I used to work at, the Royal Children's Hospital in Melbourne and the Murdoch Children's Research Institute.

Recommendation 12 recommended that the Therapeutic Goods Administration provide some competitive alternatives for autoinjectors. It was made very clear that there have been issues with the supply chain for autoinjectors. Fortunately, that does not appear to have happened during the recent COVID pandemic, but it has happened previously when there have been supply line issues. It was thought it was important that patients always have access to adrenalin autoinjectors to ensure that they remain safe.

Recommendations 14, 15, 16 and 17 provide that we ensure there's vocational education about food allergies in food service. Now, we do know that schools around Australia have made great headway in legislating to ensure that children in schools are kept safe. In fact, state legislation in Victoria has ensured that Victoria does not take a back seat to safety compared to anywhere in the world, being one of the first states to legislate for food allergy. But we would like to see a more standardised approach for all states to have education in schools, and we'd also like to see consistency in vocational education about food allergies in food service. We'd also like to see consistent food processing, including the use of the vital tick. Now, it is very important that the allergen—I've been told I have 10 minutes, not five minutes.

See this speech in context