Mr NEHL (5:36 PM) —I congratulate the honourable member for Longman on introducing this motion on prostate cancer. It follows closely on the motion I brought before this House on 27 February 1995, which called for more research and money to be allocated for a major education program. So we are on the same track. The only thing I would say is that it should be not a day, not a week, not a year, but a continuing campaign.

We have to realise that every male in this parliament, every male listening to this broadcast or reading it in Hansard, will have a prostate problem if they live long enough. Fifty per cent of all males aged 50 have a prostate problem. Sixty per cent of all males in their 60s have a prostate problem—not cancer but a problem. And so it goes. Men in their 80s: 80 per cent have a prostate problem—not necessarily cancer. This is the significance of it, and it is not understood. The ignorance is abysmal. Most men do not even know they have a prostate, let alone where it is. This is true. And this is a very important factor for women as well, because it affects the whole quality of life of couples and families.

In my speech in February 1995, one of the things I said was, `Australian males have a one in 23 chance of developing prostate cancer in their lifetime.' That has changed: it is now one in eight. This emphasises the need to take some spirited action on this. In my

1995 speech, I said that there was a one in 70 chance of dying from it before the age of 75. There is now a one in 66 chance. It is worth noting that in the publication National Trends in Cancer: Incidence in Mortality there are two graphs which I seek leave to incorporate.

Leave granted.

The graphs read as follows—

Mr NEHL —These graphs compare cancer of the prostate and cancer of the breast. Without going into the detail, what becomes very clear is that the incidence of prostate cancer for males is far higher than the incidence of breast cancer in women. The mortality rate for males from prostate cancer is greater than the mortality rate for women with breast cancer. This is not to denigrate the problem associated with breast cancer, but it is to accentuate the need for equality of expenditure, research and education on prostate cancer.

I note the publication National Health Priority Areas Report: Cancer Control 1997 says, `More than $10 million was spent on PSA and prostate acid phosphatase tests in 1996 through Medicare alone.' To put that in perspective, between 1991-92 and 1994 we spent $322 million on breast cancer screening. Again, I do not begrudge one cent of that money, but I am seeking equality for males in this particular area because it is something that is going to affect almost every male. It is interesting that the member for Longman mentioned that diet is a possible factor. In the World Health Organisation's 1995 World Health Statistics Annual, published in 1997, the age-standardised death rate—per 100,000 males—from prostate cancer in Australia was 27.1, in Japan it was 6.3, in Hong Kong it was 4.8 and in Korea it was two. At the other end of the scale, Norway was 35.1, Switzerland was 33.8 and New Zealand was 29.6. So diet is certainly one thing we should be looking at a little more closely.

I would like to remind everybody that if you are an Australian male and you live long enough you will get a prostate problem. In a normal healthy male, the prostate is the size of a walnut which grows and enlarges with age to the size of a lemon. This has very dramatic effects on the urinary problems of males. Therefore, I totally support the motion and I call for more funding on education and more research and screening.