CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION

Navigation: Previous Page | Index | Next Page

CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION

Terms of reference

1.1 The matter was referred to the Committee on 26 June 1997 for inquiry and report by 31 August 1997. The reporting date was subsequently extended to 1 October 1997. During the debate in the Senate, Senator Mark Bishop, the Committee Chairman who moved the reference of the matter to the Committee, stated that `in summary, this is a relatively defined inquiry. The essential thrust is to examine the issue of fairness to those who suffer, or who might suffer, from this most terrible disease of CJD.'[1]

1.2 The complete terms of reference for the inquiry are:

Conduct of the inquiry

1.3 The inquiry was advertised in The Australian and The Age on 2 July 1997, and through the Internet. In order to inform those involved with the Australian Human Pituitary Hormone Program (AHPHP) of the Committee's inquiry, the Department of Health and Family Services (DHFS) was asked if reference to the inquiry could be included in an edition of the HPH Newsletter. DHFS agreed and published a special edition of the newsletter for July 1997 which provided information about the inquiry. Submissions were also sought from a number of individuals and groups who were known to be actively involved with, or who had publicly expressed views on, issues relating to hormone recipients and the settlement offered by the Commonwealth. It was requested that submissions be provided by 1 August 1997.

1.4 For many people, having been a recipient of pituitary hormone treatment and being put at risk of possibly contracting CJD is a very sensitive issue. Many people were concerned about privacy issues and about not wanting to be identified. Nevertheless, they wanted to inform the Committee of their feelings and opinions, and about the impact upon their everyday life of discovering that they have been placed at risk through treatment under the AHPHP. The Committee received 87 public submissions and a further 50 confidential submissions. A list of the individuals and organisations who made a public submission to the inquiry are listed in Appendix 1.

1.5 The Committee held three days of public hearings, in Melbourne on 12 August and in Canberra on 13 and 25 August 1997. The Committee also held in camera sessions on two of these days. Witnesses who gave evidence at the public hearings are listed in Appendix 2. Supplementary information received either at or following the hearings, which the Committee has authorised publication, is also listed in Appendix 1.

1.6 The Committee expresses its appreciation to all those people who made submissions, provided additional material and information, or gave evidence to the inquiry. The Committee understands the difficulties and mixed emotions which were created for many people in determining whether, and in what capacity, they should contribute to the inquiry. Their decision to do so has greatly assisted the Committee in its understanding of the range of views on the issues relating to the inquiry. The Committee is particularly grateful for this assistance.

Comments relating to this report

1.7 The Chapters in the report consist of Chapter 2 which outlines as background the conduct of the Australian Human Pituitary Hormone Program, a brief description of Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease, the Allars Inquiry and other major events following the cessation of the AHPHP in 1985, and a description of the impact that the AHPHP has had on the lives of recipients and their families. Chapters 3 to 6 consider in detail paragraphs (a) to (d) of part 1 of the terms of reference. These paragraphs are discussed in the context of the `fairness of the recent settlement offered by the Commonwealth Government to recipients of human pituitary hormones'. Finally, Chapter 7 focuses on part 2 of the terms of reference: whether public safety was adequately protected in relation to the AHPHP.

1.8 Based upon the submissions and evidence which were received, the Committee came to understand that the recipient community is not homogenous in its opinions and expectations. The Committee appreciates that while the CJD Support Group Network provides support and comfort and speaks on behalf of many recipients, there are also many other recipients who, for various reasons, do not participate in the Support Groups and who have alternative views on the issues and directions relating to matters affecting the recipient community. The Committee has attempted in this report to balance the diversity of views with which it was provided.

1.9 The Committee received a considerable amount of scientific, medical and legal evidence. The Committee notes that this was intended to be a relatively defined inquiry and that it is therefore not in a position to make definitive judgements on much of this evidence.

1.10 The Committee has made a number of comments throughout the report based on the personal submissions and evidence supplied by many recipients. In some instances this has not been attributed, primarily to honour the confidentiality requested by the submitters. The Committee believes that only the point being made is of relevance not the identity of the particular recipient who may have provided it.

1.11 Submissions provided by the Departments of Health and Family Services and Attorney-General's are, in effect, composite submissions. The DHFS submission (No.85) has as an attachment comments prepared by officers of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. References to this part are as `CSL attachment'. The Attorney-General's Department submission (No.74) consists of parts prepared by the Australian Government Solicitor, and Legal Aid and Family Services Division. These parts are referred to as AGS and LAFS respectively. Each part also specifically addresses a particular Term of Reference (ToR) and is referred to as ToR 1(b), (c) or (d) as appropriate.

1.12 Finally, the Committee notes that the Commonwealth Department responsible for health matters has been the subject of a number of administrative rearrangements and name changes in recent years. For convenience, and unless specifically named, the responsible Department has been referred to in the report as the `Health Department'.

Navigation: Previous Page | Index | Next Page

 

Footnotes:

[1] Senate Hansard, 26.6.97, p.4476.