Posts

Blood on Their Hands: Victims Still Wait for Answers

,

At Estimates, I asked Professor Adriana Platona why the Australian Government and CSL took the unacceptable risk of allowing its haemophilia patients to receive a product that would likely infect them with Hepatitis C – as it later became known as. That question was left unanswered.

I asked why, even after safer 80-degree heat-treated products were available in the UK from 1985 for both Factor VIII and Factor IX, Australia continued to allow hepatitis-infected factor concentrates to be used—until 1990 for Factor VIII and 1993 for Factor IX. That question, along with five others, was taken on notice.

I made it clear: a Royal Commission is warranted. The government has failed to deliver justice to victims, unlike the toothless 2004 inquiry that achieved nothing.

Victims of this scandal deserve answers. They deserve to know why they were infected.

— Senate Estimates | December 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll start with the National Blood Authority and tainted blood. These questions are from constituents. In the UK, from 1985, factor concentrates began to be heat-treated at 80 degrees for 72 hours. That’s in Britain. Australia, though, chose to go with an alternative heat treatment method of 60 degrees for 72 hours, which at the time was considered to be a method to inactivate HIV, although it was noted that it was not likely that the 60-degree method of heat treatment would inactivate Non-A, Non-B hepatitis, which came to be known as hepatitis C. Why did the Australian government and the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories take the unacceptable risk of allowing its haemophilia patients to receive a product that would likely infect them with Non-A, Non-B hepatitis—hepatitis C?

Professor Platona: Thank you, Senator, for your question. Australia has one of the safest blood systems in the world, and the testing for hepatitis C and HIV was introduced in Australia much sooner than it was in the UK. So the situation between Australia and the UK is not comparable. In 2004, there was an extensive inquiry into hepatitis C and the blood supply in Australia. Many of the questions that you have raised were discussed extensively around April 2004. People have provided submissions, testimonials. There was an extensive inquiry at the time. Many of these issues were discussed extensively at the time.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Professor. We’ll get to those points in a minute. Why did the Australian government and the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories—by the way, you didn’t answer my question as to why the Australian government and the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories took the unacceptable risk of allowing its haemophilic patients to receive a product that would likely infect them. So I’ll move on to the second question. Why did the Australian government and the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories—and these questions, by the way, are from people who have had their lives damaged seriously—continue to allow patients to receive hepatitis infected factor concentrates, all the way up until 1990 for factor 8 and, unbelievably, 1993 for factor 9, when the UK were receiving the safer 80-degree treated product for both factor 8 and factor 9 concentrates since 1985? So we were five years behind and eight years behind.

Professor Platona: That is not my understanding of the fact. I would be very happy to check those facts for you and provide that on notice, with reference to the material submitted in 2004.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I’ve got five questions on notice in the interest of speed. Minister, these questions relate to events that occurred long ago—I acknowledge that—yet they still impact and kill victims today. There are people with their lives damaged seriously. That’s precisely why we need a royal commission into what occurred. The government cannot produce the answers that the victims deserve. These people are deeply upset, deservedly so—not deservedly so, but rightly so. We need a thorough investigation where people are compelled to give evidence and answer questions under oath, unlike the 2004 Senate inquiry which has been described as a toothless inquiry by prominent lawyer Des Collins, who was heavily involved in the UK infected blood inquiry. We don’t accept the 2004 Senate inquiry. Minister, don’t you think the victims of this scandal deserve answers as to what occurred and why they were infected?

Senator Green: I don’t think that’s an appropriate question that I can answer for you other than to say that the constituents’ issues that you raise continually in this committee are valid and that the officials have provided you, I think, very reasonable and factual advice. I don’t have any information that I can give you other than what the officials have given you. You’re very entitled to come here and advocate for your constituents and their concerns, but I don’t have any other advice I can give you.

/by

Decades of Neglect: Victims Still Waiting for Justice

,

I spoke with the CEO of the National Blood Authority, Adjunct Professor Ms Adriana Platona. She confirmed that the Australian Government owned the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories before it was privatised. She also stated that the National Blood Authority was established in 2003.

I asked her what steps had been taken to ensure the safety of concentrates containing Factor VIII. I did not receive a satisfactory answer—rather, I was given an attempted history lesson. Ms Platona went on to explain that the National Blood Authority was created as a result of the negative issues experienced by recipients of blood products during the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. She said that an apology had been issued. I question whether an apology alone is enough to compensate victims who were infected with Hepatitis C and HIV?

Ms Platona stated that there have been no contaminated blood incidents since 2003. I suggested that the Commonwealth Government surely had legacy responsibilities, at which point the Deputy Secretary of the Department, Ms Penny Shakespeare, intervened. She said that these issues were primarily the responsibility of the States and Territories. I pointed out that in March 1953 the WHO recommended that dried plasma should be taken from small pools of 10–20 donors only, for safety reasons. Apparently, by the mid-1980s in Australia, plasma was mass-pooled from large numbers of donors, contrary to WHO recommendations. I asked why this had occurred – which had to be taken on notice.

I then asked whether it was considered an acceptable risk—of high probability—that haemophiliacs would contract Hepatitis Non-A, Non-B, and Hepatitis C during the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. Again, I did not receive a satisfactory. I asked whether adequate compensation would be paid to the victims, as has happened in the UK, but was dismissed, and then my session was cut short by the Chair.

I will continue to seek justice for the victims of this terrible blunder by the Commonwealth and their continued denial of responsibility.

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I’ve got several issues here that I’d like to discuss—National Blood Authority about tainted blood, the pelvic mesh, the Lyme disease, ATAGI following on from Professor Lawler’s comments. So I’ll start with National Blood Authority, please. Is Dr John Rowell here? No. A lot of people are plagued with tainted blood, a heavy burden. At CSL’s 2024 annual general meeting, Chair Brian McNamee stated that, prior to its privatisation, the Australian government was the owner, funder and regulator of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. Is that correct?  

Prof. Platona: The National Blood Authority was formed in 2003 as a statutory legislative agency. I’m very happy to answer questions about the National Blood Authority’s role and work since 2003.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m wanting to know if you could confirm that before the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories was sold off to the public, the Australian government was the owner, funder and regulator of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories.  

Prof. Platona: I believe that is correct, sir.  

Senator ROBERTS: What steps did the Australian government take to regulate the safety of the Factor VIII and IX concentrates manufactured by the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories in the seventies, eighties and nineties?  

Prof. Platona: As I said in the first statement, the National Blood Authority was formed in 2003. I’m happy to answer questions about the work of the agency since then. You are referring to matters that precede the formation of the National Blood Authority by several decades.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could you tell me—I know it was a long time ago, but a lot of people are severely suffering now. Whose responsibility was it at the time, Ms Platona—is it Professor?—  

Prof. Platona: Yes. Ms Platona is fine.  

Senator ROBERTS: to ensure the safety of the Factor VIII and XI concentrates? This has relevance to what you’re doing now.  

Prof. Platona: Indeed. The National Blood Authority was formed, as I said, as a result of some negatively affected people in the seventies, eighties and nineties. My predecessor provided a lot of context in response to your question in November 2024 on Hansard, as to the steps that led to the formation of the National Blood Authority, the apology, the formation of what is now the national Red Cross Lifeblood organisation, the apology that Red Cross Lifeblood made in 2014, and a number of actions by state and territory governments to deal with, really, the failings of the blood transfusion in the past. I do not want you to think at all that I don’t think about the lives of the people that Haemophilia Foundation, for example, is working to support—not at all. I’m the officer that has got the Public Service Medal for making the direct antiviral medicines available. Those hepatitis C treatments are now considered to be best practice and curative. So I do want to acknowledge the hard circumstances of the people affected by the disease.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s good. Did you want to say any more on that?  

Prof. Platona: I’m keen to do a good job, Senator.  

Senator ROBERTS: How can you do a good job for people with tainted blood? It was the government’s responsibility.  

Prof. Platona: Since the organisation was formed in 2003, to date there has been no contaminated blood incident.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you not have any legacy responsibilities from your predecessors? The Commonwealth government is responsible.  

Ms Shakespeare: Prior to 1991, the Commonwealth’s role was largely through providing funding to state and territory governments to operate blood services. States and territories regulated the blood supply system in Australia until, as Ms Platona has explained, the National Blood Authority was established in 2003, and it now provides that national coordination. I think we also had the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989. After that, there were changes to the way that blood was regulated as well. Before that, the regulation largely would have been occurring through state and territory governments.  

Senator ROBERTS: But it was overseen by the Commonwealth. Let’s go through the history, and correct me if I’m wrong, Ms Shakespeare. In March 1953, the World Health Organization released a report that recommended dried plasma should be prepared from small pools of no more than 10 to 20 donors. This was ignored, and, by the mid-1980s, factor concentrates were being manufactured using mass pooled plasma from thousands of donors, significantly increasing the risk of hepatitis and HIV. Why were these early recommendations ignored? You weren’t around then, but that was a federal responsibility.  

Ms Shakespeare: We can try and take on notice if there’s anything in the archives about what happened in the 1950s, but it is a little bit difficult for us to talk to you about what happened at that time.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could you take these on notice then, please. It was in the mid 1980s. Factor concentrates were being manufactured using mass pooled plasma from thousands of donors, which went against the prevailing wisdom. Could you find out, Ms Shakespeare—and I thank you for your attention—if it was considered an acceptable risk that there was a high probability of haemophiliacs using factor concentrates that would be infected with hepatitis Non-A, hepatitis Non-B, hepatitis C in the seventies, eighties and nineties?  

Ms Shakespeare: Senator, what I can tell you is that the first specific test for hepatitis C became available in late 1989. Australia was one of the first countries to commence using the test, in November 1989, with implementation completed by February 1990. Similarly, we were one of the first countries to introduce HIV patient screening in May 1985. When tests have become available to make sure that the blood supply was safe and could be monitored for those particular medical issues, we’ve implemented that as early as possible.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m wondering how to help these people.  

Ms Shakespeare: I think Ms Platona has spoken about some of the assistance that has been provided, and I can go through some of the help that has been provided. There was a review of the blood arrangements in 2001 that was conducted by a former High Court judge. The recommendations from that review were provided to all Australian Health Ministers and led to the establishment of the National Blood Authority and the centralised coordinated arrangements we have to ensure a safe and adequate blood supply that we still have today. We have haemovigilance—  

Senator ROBERTS: Can I interrupt?  

Ms Shakespeare: Of course.  

Senator ROBERTS: That would assume that, prior to that, the blood wasn’t considered to be safe.  

Ms Shakespeare: Decisions will have been made based on the state and territory governments’ delivery of blood products about the introduction of testing when it became available, when those tests were developed. As I said, compared to other countries, Australia was one of the first adopters and introduced those tests at a very early stage. But we didn’t just stop there. We’ve been establishing arrangements to make sure that the blood products that we provide to people today are nationally coordinated, that we’ve got consistent arrangements and that we don’t have differences between regulation and provision in different states and territories. The national haemovigilance program for Australia has been developed. That’s a set of surveillance procedures covering the entire blood transfusion chain, from donation and processing of blood to their provision and transfusion to patients. We have monitoring, reporting, investigating and analysing of adverse events related to donation processing and transfusion, and development and implementation of recommendations to prevent the occurrence or reoccurrence of adverse events. So we’ve got a whole haemovigilance program that now operates that’s been developed and implemented through the National Blood Arrangements. For people that have acquired hepatitis C the direct-acting antivirals, which were listed on the PBS in 2016—at that time that was the largest single PBS listing that had ever been made. We have future-generation directantivirals that are now provided through the PBS. If I can give an example, in 2023-24, we had 9,167 scripts of a drug called glecaprevir and pibrentasvir, which is a current-generation treatment for hepatitis C at a cost to government of $161 million. In the same year, sofosbuvir and velpatasvir, another medicine to treat people with hepatitis C, had 10,953 scripts at a cost to government of $131 million. So we’re providing access to those treatments. Now that covers anybody with hepatitis C. It doesn’t matter how they acquired it, but it would certainly benefit those who acquired it through the blood system before the testing was available.  

Senator ROBERTS: For some of these people with tainted blood, their lives have been really shot. Perhaps you could look at the camera—and I’m not trying to put pressure on you, or Ms Platona, or the minister, but what do we do for these people? Where do they go for compensation? Britain compensated their people with tainted blood, long, long, long ago; they admitted it and got on with the job. How do these people recover? How do these people get compensation if they can’t? I know you’ve given a list of drugs. What do we do?  

Ms Shakespeare: Those are curative, in many cases, direct-acting antivirals, which will be of significant benefit to people with hepatitis C. I should also say that the Australian government contributes to the hepatitis C litigation settlement schemes, which were set up and are managed by the state governments for people that were infected through the blood supply system before we had the National Blood Authority established. That offers financial settlements for people who contracted hepatitis C between 1985 and 1991. So there has been compensation made available and the Australian government contributes to that.  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I’m going to have to share the call. We are tight on time.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for your interest, Ms Shakespeare.  

Ms Shakespeare: You’re welcome. 

/by

AFP Questioned on Tainted Blood Complaint

,

During this session with the AFP, I inquired whether they had received a complaint about several individuals who had received tainted blood as a result of failures by the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories and the Red Cross to ensure the safety of blood donations used in medical treatments. The question was taken on notice.

Transcript

Thank you all for appearing tonight. I’ll get one question out of the way first. In October this year, several haemophiliacs and parents of haemophiliacs filed criminal complaints with the Australian Federal Police commissioner, Commissioner Kershaw. The complainants have not received any acknowledgement of their submissions. Is the federal government aware of these complaints? When can the complainants expect a response?

Mr McCartney: I’m not across the matter. I’ll take that on notice, and we’ll come back to you.

Senator ROBERTS: We’ve supported these people and we’ll continue to support them. They’ve got a serious case. It’s an injustice that’s very strong and sustained. Their counterparts in Britain have been dealt with properly. These people over here are not being dealt with.

/by

Minister Defends Government Amid Blood Safety Controversy

,

I asked the representative of the National Blood Authority if he was aware of the early history of the Red Cross and Health Department’s responses to ensuring the safety of blood products used in Australia.

He stated that the National Blood Authority had not been established at that time but recalled that Australia was one of the first countries to adopt measures to ensure the safety of blood transfusions.

Minister Gallagher took a defensive stance and denied any wrongdoing by the government at the time, and undertook to provide information to confirm this. However, I already have information showing she is mistaken and covering up for a government that disgracefully allowed many people to become sick, knowing this was a possibility.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr Cahill, for being here. In the 1970s, were the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, the Australian Red Cross and the federal health department aware that hepatitis C, which was then referred to as non-A, non-B hepatitis, was present in Australia’s blood supply and blood products?  

Mr Cahill: The issues you’re raising preceded the creation of the National Blood Authority in 2003, so they’re issues for the Department of Health that they might want to address. But I can say that, yes, there was an awareness at a point in time.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for making it clear that your entity didn’t exist. In the 1970s and 1980s, were the federal health department, the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories and the Australian Red Cross aware that the practice of mass-pooling blood donations for fractionation, specifically for manufacturing haemophilia treatments like factor VIII and factor IX concentrates, significantly raised the risk of contaminating these products with hepatitis C, which was then non-A and non-B hepatitis virus?  

Senator Gallagher: What’s the question? Prof. Lawler: Sorry, to whom is the question directed?  

Senator ROBERTS: It was to the National Blood Authority, but it might predate you.  

Senator Gallagher: It’s hard to answer things from 50 years ago.  

Mr Comley: Chair, we’re trying to work this out. I know we very rarely say ‘relevance to the estimates’, but I am—  

CHAIR: I apologise, Mr Comley. Sorry, Senator Roberts. I can’t hear you, because you’re a bit away from the microphone, so I didn’t hear the question.  

Mr Comley: His question is about blood product practices in the 1980s, and I’m just—  

Senator Gallagher: It was the seventies.  

Mr Comley: It was the seventies and eighties.  

CHAIR: Could you just repeat the question, Senator Roberts? Come a bit closer to the microphone.  

Senator ROBERTS: Sure. There are many people in Australia who are still crippled by contaminated blood. Some of that originated in the seventies and eighties. In the United Kingdom, they’ve addressed this and given compensation. In Australia, we’re apparently pretending that it doesn’t exist. This affected budgets. It affects livelihoods. Shall I continue?  

CHAIR: Could you put it as a question?  

Senator Gallagher: I mean, we do usually have pretty wide-ranging question opportunities, but, I have to say, going back over 50 years and asking officials at the table is a bit difficult, Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: These people have recently made an official complaint to the Australian Federal Police.  

Senator Gallagher: Okay, well—  

Senator ROBERTS: In Britain, they have given people compensation fairly recently. In other countries they’ve done it too, but not in Australia.  

Senator Gallagher: Again, we’re happy to assist where we can.  

Senator ROBERTS: It’s a legacy that’s hanging over the Australian government.  

Mr Cahill: I can make some observations, even though the issues did precede—  

CHAIR: Sure, but I still haven’t heard a question. I’m sorry.  

Senator ROBERTS: No, there was a question in there. Do you want me to do it again?  

Mr Cahill: The question as I understood it was, ‘Is there awareness?’  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.  

Mr Cahill: The answer is: yes, there was awareness.  

Senator ROBERTS: It’s about the fractionation.  

Mr Cahill: There was an evolution of scientific knowledge around that time. All of these issues have been canvassed through a range of inquiries that occurred also over time, including a Senate inquiry in 2004 that took evidence about these matters. There was also an inquiry in 2001 by Sir Ninian Stephen, the former Governor General, and that actually led to the creation of the National Blood Authority in 2003. 

Senator ROBERTS: So there’s a problem that caused your [inaudible] formation.  

Mr Cahill: There have been compensation arrangements put in place. There has been access to antivirals for people affected by hepatitis C. The governments collectively across Australia have invested substantially in the safety of Australia’s blood supply since then. I think in the early 1990s or maybe the late eighties—but certainly by the early nineties—as soon as the scientific evidence emerged about the risks associated with HIV, the practices were changed.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay, let’s skip all of the details—  

Mr Cahill: Drawing analogies with the UK inquiry, there are substantial differences between what occurred during the UK during that period, which has been the subject of the inquiry you’re referring to, and what transpired in Australia.  

Senator ROBERTS: Can the government clarify its stance on the handling of the infected blood scandal, particularly in light of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories’ decision to delay the implementation of viral inactivation or heat treatment for factor IX until 1993?  

Mr Cahill: I don’t think there is evidence that that’s what occurred.  

Senator Gallagher: I think we’ll take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s fine.  

Senator Gallagher: If there’s anything we can provide you, Senator Roberts—I’m not sure we will be, but let’s just see.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is it true that this delay occurred despite global practices by other manufacturers, such as British plasma laboratories, in heat treatment for hepatitis C, from 1985 onwards, to provide heat treated products to safeguard against this virus?  

Mr Cahill: I think the inquiry’s concluded that Australia was one of the first countries to respond to the emergence of the new virus.  

Senator ROBERTS: What actions are being taken to identify those Australians now at risk of having received tainted blood when the blood should have been safe? Other countries had it safe. We didn’t.  

Mr Cahill: I don’t accept that premise.  

Senator Gallagher: I’m not accepting that proposition. I think we have very safe systems here.  

Senator ROBERTS: We might have now, but we didn’t then. It was neglected and people are crippled as a result of that. That’s what I’m after. Some of my constituents are seriously in trouble through neglect. It’s time for those involved in this horrendous scandal to come clean. Why are we burying this? Why aren’t we looking?  

Senator Gallagher: Again, I don’t agree. The evidence that you’ve just been given would indicate an alternative view on that. Perhaps there’s a way that we can send you all the links, for all the reviews and things that have been done, and inquiries into it and the responses to those, and you can have a see.  

Senator ROBERTS: That would be fine, thank you. 

Question on Notice – No. 745

Senator ROBERTS: What actions are being taken to identify those Australians now at risk of having received tainted blood when the blood should have been safe? Other countries had it safe. We didn’t.

Mr Cahill: I don’t accept that premise.

Senator Gallagher: I’m not accepting that proposition. I think we have very safe systems here.

Senator ROBERTS: We might have now, but we didn’t then. It was neglected and people are crippled as a result of that. That’s what I’m after. Some of my constituents are seriously in trouble through neglect. It’s time for those involved in this horrendous scandal to come clean. Why are we burying this? Why aren’t we looking?

Senator Gallagher: Again, I don’t agree. The evidence that you’ve just been given would indicate an alternative view on that. Perhaps there’s a way that we can send you all the links, for all the reviews and things that have been done, and inquiries into it and the responses to those, and you can have a see.

Senator ROBERTS: That would be fine, thank you.

Answer

The safety of Australia’s blood supply during the 1980s was examined through the 2004 Senate Inquiry into Hepatitis C and the Blood Supply in Australia. The full report, ‘Hepatitis C and the Blood Supply in Australia’, is available at www.aph.gov.au.

The Australian Government has implemented a range of initiatives consistent with the Senate Community Affairs References Committee’s recommendations including ongoing funding for the Australian Red Cross Lifeblood’s (Lifeblood) Lookback program, which investigates infections possibly transmitted through blood transfusion. More information on Lifeblood’s Lookback program is available at www.lifeblood.com.au/blood/blood-testing-and-safety.

Further Government initiatives include implementing national strategies and programs to address blood borne viruses, including hepatitis C, and subsidising medicines to treat hepatitis C and other blood borne viruses through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS). Since 2016, the Government has invested over $7 billion to provide access to curative direct acting antiviral medicines through the PBS, to all eligible Australians regardless of how they acquired hepatitis C or their current circumstances.

A0745_Question on NoticeDownload

/by

Australia’s Contaminated Blood Scandal

One of the most troubling scandals in Australia involved government agencies, the Australian Red Cross, blood banks, and CSL, who knowingly transfused contaminated blood to individuals in need of transfusions. This included blood from donors with Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C and HIV, which was then used for transfusions to people, including haemophiliacs, who underwent surgery or other critical procedures.

Many recipients of this tainted blood subsequently contracted these diseases themselves. Despite numerous efforts to seek compensation from the responsible agencies and the Commonwealth, no resolution has been achieved so far.

In contrast, the Canadian government addressed this issue and compensated victims. Furthermore, following a Royal Commission into contaminated blood in the United Kingdom, the full extent of the scandal was acknowledged, and victims were provided with appropriate compensation.

I have has actively pursued justice for Australian victims, questioning the Blood Authority at Senate Estimates in February 2023 and again in June 2024 about the possibility of a Royal Commission and compensation. I remain dedicated to ensuring that Australian victims receive the justice and compensation they deserve.

Photograph: Science Photo Library/Tek Image/Getty Images

Senate Estimates: February 2023 | Questions and Answers

A0532_CommunityAffairs_HealthandAgedCareDownload

Senate Estimates: June 2024 | Questions and Answers

A1552_CommunityAffairs_HealthandAgedCareDownload
/by

Minister Deflects Questions on Contaminated Blood

,

During questioning of the National Blood Authority at last week’s Senate Estimates, I raised the issue of Canada and the UK accepting responsibility for deliberately covering up the exposure of individuals to contaminated blood products from blood transfusions from the 1970’s onwards. I asked the Minister if Australia was going to follow suit and provide compensation, however the Minister appeared disinterested and took most of my questions on notice.

I also raised concerns from constituents who were concerned that blood is not being screened for spike proteins and is sourced from vaccinated individuals, potentially spreading the spike protein widely within the community, including those who had opted not to be vaccinated. The Minister simply replied that there was no evidence to support this statement yet.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: When will government hold a royal commission into the infected blood scandal in Australia, Minister?  

Senator McCarthy: I will take that question on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: When will financial assistance be provided to victims still living with their contaminated blood caused illnesses?  

Senator McCarthy: I’ll take that question on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: When will an apology be made to the victims of this scandal?  

Senator McCarthy: I’ll take your question on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware the Canadian government has recognised the disaster of contaminated blood and has compensated victims since 1994?  

Senator McCarthy: I’m not going to answer that question.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware that a major report into infected blood in the UK has just released its findings confirming the epic scandal and cover-up by the UK government that had provided previously negligible support for victims? They knew about it and they kept doing it—infected blood. Are you aware of that?  

Senator McCarthy: I’ll take your question on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: When will the Commonwealth Serum Laboratory and the Red Cross be held accountable for their actions in knowingly transfusing contaminated blood products into people, killing and disabling many Australians?  

Senator McCarthy: I reject the premise of your question, but I will certainly follow up on many of the other matters that you’ve raised.  

Senator ROBERTS: Specifically, when will they be held accountable? What other support will be offered to these victims?  

CHAIR: Is that question to the minister or Mr Cahill, who’s at the table?  

Senator ROBERTS: To the minister.  

Senator McCarthy: I think I’ve answered question.  

Senator ROBERTS: What other support will be offered to these victims?  

Senator McCarthy: Ms Shakespeare will answer your question. Ms Shakespeare: I wanted to mention the support that’s been provided to people who’ve acquired hepatitis C, in the form of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme listing of highly effective, highly curative antiviral medication since 2016. They’re available to anybody who has hepatitis C, including those who acquired it through the blood system.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is there screening being done to ensure unvaccinated people—this is COVID vaccinations—is being used in transfusible blood products? I haven’t had a COVID injection and I’m not going to get any. If I want to go in for a blood transfusion, can I get unvaccinated blood?  

Mr Cahill: Senator, as you would know, Australian Red Cross Lifeblood collects the blood, processes the blood and distributes the blood. As far as I’m aware, they don’t do any tests for vaccinations. The testing processes are regulated by the TGA, and there’s no test for vaccinations, as far as I’m aware.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. What is the risk that mRNA based vaccines are ending up in transfusable blood products, starting another cycle of contaminated blood being transfused?  

Mr Cahill: I think we’ve probably dealt with that question a few times previously, at different hearings and also on notice. There’s no evidence globally that vaccine COVID is transmitted through blood transfusions.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m more worried about the spike protein. That’s what my constituents are asking me about.  

Mr Cahill: I think those questions have been asked previously and answered.  

Senator ROBERTS: Technology is changing quite a bit and quite rapidly, and the understanding of COVID mRNA injections is rapidly changing. When will this government stand up and be counted and take responsibility for the security of blood supply and blood quality?  

Mr Cahill: All Australian governments contribute funding to the national blood arrangements. In 2024-25 the contribution being made by governments to that is approaching $1.9 billion—for 2024-25—so that’s a significant investment in the safe, secure, affordable supply of blood and blood products. 

/4 Comments/by