Mr LEE(1.26 p.m.) —I move:

That this House calls on the Government to establish an independent inquiry into vaccine trials on children, including whether:

(1)   Commonwealth agencies, including the (a) Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, (b) National Health and Medical Research Council and (c) Department of Health and Family Services, complied with Commonwealth and State laws and appropriate research guidelines;

(2)   the trials led to any injury or increased the risk of injury to the recipients; and

(3)   appropriate safeguards are in place to prevent any repetition.

Before I turn to the detail of the motion, I would like to make one thing clear at the start—that is, this debate is not an attack on immunisation. The Labor Party offered bipartisan support to the federal government's plans to seek to increase the level of immunisation in the Australian community, and we continue to do so.

For the record, let me remind the House of a statement on immunisation made by Aus tralian of the Year, Professor Peter Doherty, who has also received a Nobel prize. He said:

From the scientific point of view you just don't want to see kids getting sick and dying from completely preventable diseases, or becoming deaf from measles, or getting infections that are completely controllable.

He went on to say that there were no 100 per cent guarantees about the practice but the benefits of immunisation and vaccination far outweigh the risks.

Peter Doherty has the knowledge to be able to put those statements on the public record. They are statements that the Labor Party opposition strongly support. Any risk from immunisation is infinitesimally smaller than the benefits that flow to the children who are fully immunised.

What this is about is government agencies which have carried out trials or experiments without parents or guardians being properly informed, or without parents or guardians giving their consent, and whether such activities are worthy of an open, public investigation. It is also about whether government agencies have carried out trials or experiments without the interests of children being protected.

Some people have said that worthy organisations such as the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories and some of the medical research institutes that were involved in these trials do not deserve to have their reputations damaged by a public inquiry. These organisations do have a good reputation in the Australian community, which is well deserved. But the point I would make is that I do not think that we would be doing the right thing by those organisations if we try to argue that they are to be immune, or protected, from proper public discussion and proper public examination of any mistakes that have been made in the past.

What are the issues that we are concerned about? Perhaps I could begin with a few quotes from the Age, which has been doing an excellent job in trying to get to the bottom of a number of concerns about the treatment of young children in institutions in Victoria. One article, in the Insight section, is headlined `Babies used in experiments', with the sub heading `Medical research in Melbourne orphanages revealed'. It reads:

Children in orphanages and babies' homes in Victoria were used in post-World War II medical experiments and research that continued until 1970.

. . . . . . . . .

Babies less than 12 months old were injected with large doses of an experimental vaccine against herpes. Other experiments included giving children a test vaccine against whooping cough which was never put into production.

. . . . . . . . .

Those carrying out the experiments included researchers from the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories and the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research.

. . . . . . . . .

In the largest experiment, which was still running in 1970, 350 infants between the ages of three months and 36 months in unnamed institutions were injected with full adult doses of trial influenza vaccines to test for toxic reactions.

Researchers from the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories admitted at the time that they approached the test with "some trepidation" because influenza vaccines had "long been known to produce more severe toxic reactions in children than in adults".

The Age has learnt that two previous tests of influenza vaccines on children produced severe toxic reactions. It is believed that the results of the tests were never published.

There are a whole series of cases that were published in the Age that explain in more detail the concerns in the particular cases. Last week, we had another article in the Age under the headline `Death sparks new fears on vaccine tests'. That article states:

The State and Federal Governments will investigate circumstances surrounding the death of a child referred to at an international conference by a Commonwealth Serum Laboratories vaccine researcher.

It goes on to say:

The London conference proceedings show the researcher was questioned about the death, to which he did not refer in his main paper.

The article goes on to say:

When asked about the findings of the autopsy on the dead child, the researcher replied: "That actually was the work of another colleague of mine and I do not know whether I can comment on it."

The researcher told the conference he had approached the trial on babies as young as three months with "some trepidation" because of the toxic reactions in some infants to existing vaccines.

In addition to the crucial question, which is whether or not children suffered in the trials, there is a second issue, that is, whether there was proper consent given for this medical research. One of the doctors involved in the trials appeared on radio recently. I will not name the doctor, but I will read an excerpt from an interview on Radio National . It reads:

REPORTER: Who made that choice?

DOCTOR: I don't honestly know. Well, when I way I don't honestly know, it was presumably by arrangement with Stan Williams or the CSL.

REPORTER: And do you know whether they got consent?

DOCTOR: Well, they'd have to. They'd have to have consent. But who they got it from, I don't know.

REPORTER: Were you aware of that at the time?

DOCTOR: Of what?

REPORTER: Of who gave the consent.

DOCTOR: I didn't inquire. I presume—- I mean, you went to a babies home, and the nursing staff or the matron or someone expected you. So, I didn't query any more . . .

Our concern is that it appears that there are questions remaining as to whether proper consent was given by the guardians of these children. The response of the Victorian state government through the Minister for Youth and Community Services, Dr Napthine, has been to initiate an internal departmental inquiry. Premier Kennett has rejected a public inquiry and the federal Minister for Health and Family Services (Dr Wooldridge) made this comment in a radio interview:

REPORTER: Isn't it time for the establishment of an independent national inquiry?

WOOLDRIDGE: Well, it's not essentially a Commonwealth issue. The care of children is the responsibility of the states. If the Victorian government wishes to set up such an inquiry, I would be happy to cooperate with it.

But I can't see what good would come out of a Commonwealth inquiry at this time.

My concern is that this is an issue that involves Commonwealth agencies. Commonwealth Serum Laboratories were involved, the National Health and Medical Research Council approved grants for the organisations involved in the trials and the federal depart ment of health was responsible for the medical research policy at that time. So three Commonwealth organisations were involved, and for that reason alone the revelations to date justify some form of external investigation.

The message the House can send to Minister Wooldridge and the message the House can send everyone in government is that governments should not be able to do things to people without making sure that people are properly informed and give proper consent for trials such as this. For that reason, the Labor Party strongly supports some form of an open, public, independent examination of these issues. We want to make sure that it is thoroughly examined, not ignored. We want to make sure that it is independent, not some tame-cat departmental review. We also want to make sure that it is open, not carried out behind closed doors.

The worst possible thing that can happen is for these serious allegations to be investigated by the people who might be at risk of an adverse finding. It would also be highly undesirable if the Victorian and the federal departments of health and community services were to carry out some cursory and inadequate examination of these issues and to produce some departmental report that gets placed in a pigeon hole and gathers dust for years to come. An open and independent inquiry can make sure that everyone can find out what actually happened. It can protect the medical records of individuals concerned. We can try to make sure that these issues are exposed to the light of day and we can find out what actually went on.

To those people such as Jeff Kennett who say, `This happened more than 40 years ago and is not worthy of proper investigation,' I say that these tests were going on as late as 1970. These tests raise very serious issues that should be investigated by an independent and open inquiry. That is what the federal opposition will continue to seek from Dr Wooldridge.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl) —Is the motion seconded?

Mr O'Keefe —I second the motion.