Senator HARRADINE (8:56 PM) —We are dealing with an extremely important piece of legislation, the National Blood Authority Bill 2002, and I would have thought that at this moment it is premature. The government appointed an expert advisory group to report into hepatitis C virus in plasma in 1990, and although, as I understand it, the government has received that report—the minister may clarify that—I would have thought that that report would have gone to the issues which are relevant to this piece of legislation. I note that only yesterday Senator Hutchins submitted questions on notice to the federal Minister for Health and Ageing, and those questions raise serious concerns about what is considered to be one of Australia's worst medical disasters: tainted blood. Surely the federal minister might seek a reply to these questions before the conclusion of the debate on this measure. The question is: why not? This is an area where huge numbers of Australians have suffered. There are issues that the Barraclough inquiry is expected to report on which directly relate to the management of the blood plasma supply in Australia. The passage of a new bill relating to Australia's blood supply management could be considered premature prior to the full consideration of the expert advisory group's report.

The common criticism of Australia's blood management from frequent users of blood products and victims of infected blood has been a perceived lack of independent process regarding blood management. Who will the board members of the new National Blood Authority be? What criteria are set out for candidates for board positions and who will their advisers be? Will any former or current Australian Red Cross Blood Service or CSL Ltd executives be considered for the positions? Will the National Blood Authority consider appointing an adviser from a consumer group, a consumer group that is independent of any government funding or blood service funding?

There are a number of serious questions relating to the integrity of the blood supply that need to be addressed. I have been asking questions about this over a period of time, in particular about CJD and hepatitis C. I would like to remind the Senate of the terrible effects of these diseases on many Australians. The history of the human pituitary hormone program has a history of broken rules. It is another example of the deadly results of the technological imperative driving so much medical research and the application of that research, too often with insufficient attention to proper procedure, health risk and informed consent.

As Dr David Howes, the former chief virologist and head of the biologicals branch of the National Biological Standards Laboratory, told the Senate Community Affairs References Committee inquiry into the CJD settlement offer in October 1997:

Our examination of the whole CJD episode provided a window into lax processes and cover-ups by those responsible for regulating human experimentation and by those whose grave duty it is to ensure the highest standards in the regulation and manufacture of biological products derived from blood, tissue and organs. Every day, recipients must live with the possibility that they could be living incubators of the human equivalent of mad cow disease. CSL did not meet the requirements of the Australian regulatory authorities in the manufacture and distribution of hormones. It failed to follow the world's best practice in the pooling and homogenising of glands. It failed to comply with the codes of good manufacturing practice. It told pathologists to ignore the exclusion criteria about possible hepatitis infected glands.

On the issue of hepatitis C, in December I called for a judicial inquiry into the management of Australian blood products in the 1980s following the recent laying of criminal charges against the Canadian Red Cross. The Red Cross was charged with endangering the public by failing to introduce surrogate testing for hepatitis C in the 1980s. The Australian Red Cross also failed to introduce the testing in the 1980s. It is estimated that 8,000 hepatitis C cases—almost half those who caught the chronic blood virus—would have been prevented had it done so. The surrogate screening test for hepatitis C was used in the US from 1986. The US Food and Drug Administration advised that testing could and should be used to guard against hepatitis C, but Australian Blood Management did not act. This test was in fact introduced in Queensland in 1988 at a cost estimated by the Queensland Blood Transfusion Service of less than 5c per test. Specific testing for the hepatitis C virus was not introduced in all states until February 1990.

An inquiry is necessary to examine the way blood has been managed over the last two decades. It should look at the failure to introduce proper surrogate testing for the hepatitis C virus; the failure to notify transfusion or blood product recipients of exposure to the disease; the failure to counsel and provide appropriate support mechanisms for those who have contracted HCV via transfusion or blood products; why inquiries were conducted in-house with no transparency of process or proper audit; the putting at risk of other Australians in contact with HCV victims who are unaware that they may have transfusion or blood related products contaminated by the hepatitis C virus; the treatment of victims left to fund their own treatment without proper support from the Red Cross or the government; the failure to set in place a nationwide compensation system for victims, introduced in the ACT only; and, finally, the need for a full review of Australia's current blood collection, processing and distribution systems with appropriate audit processes to ensure that standards and decisions are in line with other developed countries. Unfortunately, the Barraclough inquiry—the report to which I referred before—was limited to examining why donors with hepatitis C were asked to donate blood plasma for manufacture at CSL in 1990.

For too long the manufacturers of Australian products of human biological origin, made for the Commonwealth on behalf of the Australian people, have consistently failed in their mission. The harvesting of organs and other human tissues or fluids for vaccines, hormone preparations and other biological products used by millions of Australians has not always met appropriate standards. There has been a betrayal of public safety that cannot be allowed to continue.

In respect of the proposal put forward by Senator Bartlett and to be moved by Senator Allison about the constitution of the board, I do believe that we need to tighten this, particularly as it requires openness and transparent processes which serve the best interests of hospital patients and users of blood products. An initiative such as this can only strengthen the integrity of Australia's blood system.

I go to the nature of the National Blood Authority and refer to the key features of the national blood agreement. Those features include national policy leadership for the ministerial council and a continuation of the role of the Australian Health Ministers Conference assisted by a jurisdiction or board committee to be established as a subcommittee of the Australian Health Ministers Advisory Council. Getting information out of that body is like getting blood out of a stone. Frankly, I would like a clear indication or undertaking by the minister that there will be transparency and that it will be accountable to this parliament. Will that organisation be able to respond to questions on various matters asked in estimates committees or will it take the view, `This is a state and Commonwealth issue and, unless we get the agreement of the states, sorry, we can't help you'?

That is what we get from SCAGS. When we ask questions of the Attorney-General about what occurs in SCAGS, his response is always, `That's a Commonwealth-state organisation and we cannot provide you with answers to your questions until we get approval from each and every state.' That is not good enough. Are we going to give away our responsibilities as members of this parliament to ensure the accountability of public funds, particularly when it comes to funds that go to the management of this vital issue? Blood is a vital issue. I am really concerned that there will not be sufficient accountability to satisfy the requirements of an audit and control process which is part of the duty of this parliament and particularly of this Senate.