Proton Therapy in South Australia

Mrs HURN (Schubert) (14:39): My question is to the Treasurer. What impact, if any, will the decision by the federal government to fund the Queensland Cancer Centre have on the future of a proton therapy centre in South Australia?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee—Treasurer, Minister for Defence and Space Industries, Minister for Police) (14:39): It is a good question because from the outset, when SAHMRI first considered this project I think back in 2016, when the funding commitment was made by the former federal health minister Greg Hunt in 2017 and when all of the contracts and the other obligations were entered into I think in May 2018, the concept behind this was that this would be the sole facility in Australia that would treat not only Australian patients but patients potentially from other nations in the Southern Hemisphere.

Of course, that concept or that business case has changed substantially, which would mean that if the service is to be provided in the basement of the Australian Bragg Centre, it is likely to require a new—and I will try to get the terminology right—Medical Benefits Schedule item number for the treatment so that there is commonwealth funding for this particular health service, like there is for so many other thousands of health treatments available in our nation, as well as making sure that there is funding available for a new proton therapy unit.

As I said briefly in my earlier answer, the benefit we have is that we are the only state or territory that has a building already constructed, and these are buildings that are bespoke in nature. They need to be not just built for the equipment that is destined to be housed in them but built in a way so that the equipment can be safely held and the clinicians, patients and other support staff who are participating in the treatment services are safe as well. I think one of the specifications in the Australian Bragg Centre building is that the walls of the bunker, for example, are five metres thick, built of concrete, such is the—and here I am, really exhausting my technical expertise.

Mr Telfer: That's thick.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: That's right; it is better summarised by the member for Flinders than me—for safety reasons. Hence, I think the task of trying to locate another supplier's equipment in there, if there are modifications to the built form of the bunker, potentially creates a logistical and engineering challenge. We have engaged expert advisers to assist SAHMRI navigate that challenge.

The advice to date is it seems that it would be technically feasible, but there needs to be a further stage, more technical interrogation of the building specifications and plans that were designed by Commercial & General, now in the ownership of Dexus, to see if that is possible and what those costs are. I think it is not until we resolve that that it is reasonable for SAHMRI, on behalf of the state or anybody else, to put a plan to the commonwealth to say, 'This is the way forward.'

In the short time I have remaining, while we do understand that there are other states, like Queensland, that the member for Schubert rightly mentioned, and potentially New South Wales and perhaps even Victoria, there is the challenge of delivering these pieces of infrastructure, of procuring the equipment, getting them installed and commissioned, and then the cost of service delivery. My advice is we understand some of those other states are cooling in their ambitions, and obviously there has been a change of government in Queensland, which may also be leading them to reassess whether this is a priority for them. Nonetheless, we still think we are best placed as a state to prosecute this, and we will continue doing our best to make sure we make a success of it if we can.