Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

It's terrific to be able to speak to this bill today. I want to start by saying that I support the comments made by my colleague and dear friend Senator Jordon Steele-John in relation to the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022 overall. I thank him for his important advocacy in the health portfolio and the work that has been done on the issues in this bill.

I want to particularly speak to the issue raised in my second reading amendment, an issue I have worked on in this place for a long time. This is about the restrictions on gay and bisexual men, trans women and some non-binary people who have sex with men being able to give blood.

My amendment says the Senate calls on the government and the Therapeutic Goods Administration to urgently remove barriers to gay and bisexual men, trans women and some non-binary people who have sex with men from giving blood, including by replacing the current approach of a population based risk assessment and a three-month deferral period with an approach based on individual risk assessment.

This is an issue that I have been advocating for many years. I have raised this issue repeatedly in Senate estimates and I have had discussions about it with the Department of Health, the Therapeutic Goods Administration and Lifeblood. It's an issue that doesn't seem to have made any progress in the time that I've been advocating on it as a senator. It seems that there's this merry-go-round. The health department is saying it's the responsibility of the TGA, the TGA is saying it's the responsibility of Lifeblood and Lifeblood is saying it's the responsibility of the TGA. When I asked questions at last estimates, there was another agency, blood—I can't even remember its name, 'Blood Donations Australia' or something. The TGA said, 'I think you need to talk to them about this.' We need to stop this merry-go-round because what's going on is discrimination against men who have sex with men.

It's an issue the LGBTIQA+ advocacy community have been concerned about for a very long time. It's an issue that's been addressed in other jurisdictions that have shifted from having that population based risk approach to an individual risk assessment. For the life of me, I do not know why it has taken so long for Australia to also be making this change. Other than that, you have to cynically and sadly feel that there is just an ongoing level of discrimination against same-sex attracted people that exists in some of the bureaucracy here within the Australian government. I'm no longer the Greens spokesperson for LGBTIQA+ advocacy. My colleague Mr Stephen Bates, in the other place, is continuing that excellent work but I'm very pleased to be here in the Senate raising this issue.

I want to let you know of some of the campaigning that's been going on in the community on this issue. Just.Equal have coordinated a campaign from doctors, nurses and other medical professionals, calling for an approach that isn't discriminatory. As an open letter by medical professionals says:

We are Australian health professionals who want the blood supply to be safe, more abundant and less discriminatory.

We support a policy that screens potential blood donors for their individual risk, not the gender of their sexual partner.

We believe the current ban on blood donation by sexually-active gay and bisexual men, and transgender people, reduces the amount of blood available without making the blood supply safer.

A better policy would be to focus on activity that actually creates risk and to screen potential donors for that risk, regardless of sexuality or gender identity.

I could not agree more. This is the approach that we really need to see being taken, and that change must happen urgently.

Since we foreshadowed this second reading amendment, we have had some feedback from the health department and some fairly good news. We are now being told that Lifeblood has announced that they will undertake research to decide whether to replace the current population based risk model with an individual risk assessment approach for blood donation and that the TGA is working closely with Lifeblood to facilitate this research and review over the coming months, subject to review by independent advisory committees.

Just from putting this second reading amendment on the notice paper, it seems that we are finally seeing some action. I urge that that research happens very urgently, that we draw upon the extensive research of other jurisdictions around the world and that we stop the discriminatory processes that are currently being undertaken.

We have come a long way with ending discrimination against LGBTQIA+ people. The wonderful experience of Sydney WorldPride and Mardi Gras, which I attended the weekend before last, was an extraordinary celebration of the contribution that lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, gender diverse, intersex and asexual people make to our community. We really need to continue taking every action we can to reduce discrimination against LGBTQIA+ people and to change how we screen blood. Going to an individual risk assessment approach is one very tangible, very important measure that we in this parliament can take to achieve equality for LGBTQIA+ people.