Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I say to the member for Higgins that going over time was not a problem for this side of the House, because it is indeed a very important issue and 10 minutes doesn't do the issue justice. Member for Higgins, well done for the contribution you made within that limited time.

I will begin by thanking both the secretariat and my committee colleagues, including the member for North Sydney, who's in the chamber and who chaired the committee's work, for their work in this inquiry. I agree with others who have made it absolutely clear: this was a very significant inquiry, not just because of the work of the committee but also because of the issue at hand. I particularly thank the many people who made submissions, both written and in person, to the committee, especially those people with allergies who fronted up before the committee and told their personal stories and their lived experiences. For me, it was a real eye-opener. It's not that I haven't had some experience with allergies, but it was a real eye-opener to hear about some of the struggles, the social limitations, the financial cost, the stresses and the severe discomfort that many people live with each and every day.

As others have said, some four million Australians around the country live with an allergy. Ten per cent of children and two per cent of adults live with allergies. Those figures themselves are quite startling, and when you put them into perspective you start to understand that you can't go very far without running into someone who has an allergy problem of one kind or another.

For those whose allergies can result in life-threatening anaphylaxis, life, as we were told in the report, must be very much like walking a tight rope or walking through a minefield, particularly as so many of the risks are often beyond the person's control and impossible to detect. I'll use the case of the pesto and peanut issue of earlier this year that was brought to the committee's attention. Again, there were undeclared peanuts in a product—pesto that contained cashews—that was imported from overseas. No-one was to know. Families looked at the label, and, before you knew it, some people had suffered severe reactions to it. That highlights the risks I'm referring to.

Between 1997 and 2013, there were 324 recorded deaths from anaphylaxis in Australia, and, as the report says—and I agree with it—I suspect those rates were underestimated. Quite often, while a death might not have been directly linked to the allergy, it was the allergy that triggered the chain reaction that ultimately caused the death. So, I suspect it was much worse than that.

Australia has one of the highest allergy rates in the world, and that in itself is an interesting phenomenon that I would like to think we would put a lot more research into. Having said that, I accept that Australia is also a world leader in allergy research—but we could do a lot more, and we should. As a country, we're in a position to do more, if the will is there.

I note with concern and interest that, in the past 10 years, hospital admissions for food allergies increased fourfold. Again, that begs the question: why? I don't know why. We can all speculate, and I think the committee tried to come to some conclusions about it, but it's of real concern that it is happening. It's also of real concern—and I can talk about this from experience because it happened in my family—that 10 per cent of infants up to 12 months have an allergic reaction to a food. For a mum to see a little baby suddenly turn red and stop breathing because of an allergic reaction would be a nightmare. I have to say it would be one of the most frightening experiences I can imagine.

I believe we should be focusing on four areas: research; medical education, which the previous speaker spoke about a moment ago—I think it is critical for our GPs and others to be better trained with respect to treatment and diagnosis; public education, so that the broader community, right across the board, understands the risks associated with allergic reactions; and educating the food industry, whether it be food processors or fast-food retailers, both of whom have a critical role to play here. Many have done a terrific job, but it hasn't been enough. That's where most of the risk arises.

I'll conclude with this observation. It really comes down to this, and I have to say that it's an issue that often frustrates me with respect to the work of this committee and others, but particularly this committee, on other matters as well. We spend billions of dollars in this country each year on military equipment and defence projects. When there's a blow-out, not of thousands, not of millions, but of billions, we just accept it: 'That's okay. We can find the money for that. It's not a problem.' We just spent billions of dollars as part of a stimulus package. Again, there was no criticism. The fact is that there was a need, and we found the money, and we're spending it in a way that we would like to think helps the broader community out there. Yet we can't seem to find modest amounts of money that would truly change the lives of people who are suffering each and every day in this country, and I think that that mindset needs to change. The report goes to some of these issues.

Recommendations 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 all go to the issue of trying to provide a little more comfort to those people who are suffering from allergies in one way or another, whether that is through giving them access to medications which for some bureaucratic reason they cannot access right now but which we know will help them—they should be able to access that medication—or through disability support payments, because, in some cases, where an allergy results in a severe disability for a person they should be entitled to be treated like everyone else who has a disability. Again, I accept that that comes down to a medical diagnosis, but where it is the case—and we had examples of this presented to us—they should be given that type of support. It would make a world of difference if there were carers payments made available to people who are caring for people who could not survive without a carer. I don't believe this country cannot afford to provide support for these things. I think that, when you sum up the total cost of all the things that we would like to see, it would pale into insignificance in terms of the money we spend in other areas. Yet, I doubt the difference made to the lives of people in those other areas would be as important or make as much difference as the expenditure on this issue would.

The people who appeared before the committee or made submissions to the inquiry are, through the voice of the committee, pinning their hopes on this parliament giving them the support that they are literally begging for in some cases. For those reasons, I hope that the minister will embrace the recommendations in this report, because all the recommendations were carefully thought through.

Debate adjourned.

See this speech in context