Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence) Share this | Hansard source

And the interjections go to that point right now. These events happened a long time ago. People have been living with the concern that these events had an impact on their health. The government has conducted probably the most significant internationally credible research on the subject that has drawn these insights forward. It has shown what the outcomes are by looking at mortality and cancer incident data. It has done the science to establish the dosimetry—the amount of radiation to which people were exposed. It then undertook and gave its assurance that it would respond positively. That is exactly what it has done through these mechanisms.

Let me come to some of the other issues that were raised. The member for Batman and the member for Bruce were gleeful in sharing with this parliament a letter I wrote on 23 August 2002. Doesn’t that show you that there has been a credible and sincere engagement on this subject for a long time? As many colleagues in this place have, I have spoken to a constituent in my electorate. The member for Shortland does us all a disservice by inferring that no-one in this place other than her may have spoken with someone who was a participant. I was concerned for this constituent’s health. He was not a well man. I was concerned that he had cancers. I was concerned that the cancers he had, according to the best scientific evidence, were not able to be accommodated through the need to establish a causal link between those cancers and some of the rehabilitation and compensation mechanisms I have already spoken about.

I was keen to help. I put forward an idea. I provided input to the Clarke review. The Clarke review received other input. The review reflected on the much earlier studies that came to a different conclusion and suggested that some of the earlier British studies did not even identify some of the insights we have gained about cancer. The Clarke report came down with its view. The government responded. The government said it recognised that what I was keen to pursue as an avenue to deliver health care and support to the constituent who had raised his concerns with me had never been granted in the manner in which I was arguing.

The idea of non-warlike hazardous service had never been granted for service within Australia. That still is the case today. It is in fact the precursor to the non-warlike service classification that is exercised today. But did I give up on that point? No. We continued further to make sure that the outcome that my constituents were looking for was delivered—and that was access to health care. That is what my constituent was after—access to health care. Through this package before the parliament today, that is exactly what is being delivered—mechanisms for claims to be lodged, processed and accepted, with compensation and health care available in relation to injuries and illness seen to be and proven to be linked to people’s participation in these tests.

The member for Batman talked about the science speaking for itself, and I have touched briefly on those issues. I have also touched on the issue of Labor’s condemnation of this package because it covers participants, not just veterans. We need to realise that it was not only serving members of the ADF involved in these tests. Civilians, third party contractors and members of the Australian Public Service were involved, and they deserve our support. That is why the call from the Labor Party to contain this to veterans is just an abomination. The member for Shortland said that we should be hanging our heads in shame. They were her words—that this should be about veterans. I have touched on that and shown what an absolute nonsense her words are, given the important coverage and support that civilians, public servants and third party contractors rightly deserve.

The member for Shortland said the government did not want to address the issue. We could not be more transparent about this. The reports are available. There have been scientific advisory committees and consultative committees. The data is out there. If the member for Shortland has any examples regarding the proactive and positive obligation on the Department of Veterans’ Affairs to support and compile information that enables claims made by veterans to be determined in a fair, considered and equitable way, I am more than happy to pursue those individual cases.

I have touched on the cost of travel. That is not a correct statement by the member for Shortland either. The member for Bruce suggested that Major Alan Batchelor had raised points with me that had not been responded to. Again, that is a completely false statement from the member for Bruce. I have written back to Major Batchelor and thanked him for his participation in this process. I acknowledged that he had experience and some insights to share. I also acknowledged that he had some differences of opinion with the scientific experts on the scientific advisory committee and that not all of his arguments could be incorporated because they were not considered to be able to be supported by the scientific advisory committee. To say his concerns have not been addressed is a blatantly incorrect statement by the member for Bruce. I have two letters here that go back to the very issues that Major Batchelor raised and how they had been accommodated in the study process.

Another person, by the name of Jack Lonergan, was mentioned by the member for Bruce. Again, the member for Bruce was asserting that he had not been responded to. That is not correct either: Mr Lonergan has been responded to. We have recognised his great interest in this work as well as pointing out to him the government’s response, the circumstances that gave rise to it and the availability of the detailed report.

Finally, another issue that the member for Bruce mischievously tried to elevate was that there had been some degree of secrecy around all of this. He sought to suggest that a newspaper article by Paul Malone published in the Canberra Times on 14 September 2006 was proof positive that there had been some secret adulteration of the report. How odd that he did not go on to read the rest of the article, where it actually acknowledges that my department’s research partners identified some tables that had been incorrectly tabulated in the report, how that had been identified on the website and how an addendum was available in the published copies of the report to point to the changes in that material. A senior researcher at the University of Adelaide was involved in a study and advised our department on 28 August 2006—which was some days before the publication of this article, I might add—that the publication error had occurred in relation to one table. So, despite the claims of the Canberra Times, repeated in here by the member for Bruce, this was the only error of which I and my department were aware and it was identified by those involved with the study.

The publication error has no effect on the study’s overall findings, an issue that is understood and acknowledged by all those concerned, and the remedy has been provided by a change to the material available on the website, including a note pointing to those changes. You could hardly say that was secret. It has been mentioned in the newspaper from which the member for Bruce sought to quote to prove his point and it has also been publicised on the website and in the printed copies. This is a positive response to the circumstances associated with all those participants involved with the British nuclear testing. That was the government’s undertaking, that was our goal, that has been my ambition as a member of parliament for many years and that is what is delivered through this package. I commend these bills to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.

See this speech in context