Arch Bevis (Brisbane, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I present the committee’s report from the inquiry into RAAF F-111 deseal/reseal workers and their families entitled, Sealing a just outcome.

Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.

by leave—The sight of an F-111 with its afterburners blazing has provided excitement for a generation of Australians and an assurance that the highest priority of defending our nation was being met. However, those who worked to keep these aircraft in service for the defence of our nation were being exposed to health risks which, for some, were life-threatening. In testimony to the inquiry, Air Vice Marshal Brown noted:

… the Air Force hurt a large number of our people involved in F111 fuel tank maintenance between 1973 and 2000. We are grateful for this chance to look at what has been done to help them and we believe that more could and should be done.

The recommendations in this report are intended to produce a fair and just outcome to help many of those who the RAAF correctly note were hurt. In the very limited time that is available to me today it is not possible even to summarise the key points in this report, much less the thousands of pages of submissions, exhibits and transcripts received by it.

At the very core of most complaints were the policy flaws, inconsistencies and confusion embedded in the ex gratia scheme established in 2005 for some of those involved in F-111 fuel tank repairs. The exclusion from the scheme of about 2,000 personnel who undertook pick-and-patch work in squadrons, whilst providing benefits to those doing identical work in other units, caused understandable anger. In addition, the 2005 scheme provided payments to people who reported no ill-health effects at all, whilst denying the same benefits to workers whose health had suffered. That simply aggravated the anger.

In truth, there was no link at all between health problems and access to the scheme. The painfully slow and at times indifferent handling of concerns by the agencies responsible also produced despair. During one of the public hearings I commented that the scheme was born of a fuzzy logic, shrouded in misleading spin and then administered in confusion. Now at the conclusion of the process, I can confirm that is still very much my view.

The committee’s recommendations ensure that access to the ex gratia scheme is based on the work undertaken, not the unit in which the work was done, not the year in which an application was made and not the year in which a former worker died. Those former F111 personnel involved in civil legal actions will of course be required to meet the necessary legal tests based on the facts of their own case. The committee will, however, be seeking regular reports from Defence on progress in finalising these matters in the hope that they can be concluded in a reasonable time frame.

Increased counselling support for some families is also important in helping those affected to move on with their lives and is the subject of recommendation in this report. In particular, the report recommends an expansion of counselling services to include group counselling—something which the families have identified they need; something which Defence, DVA and governments of all persuasions in the past have recognised for others in similar situations.

The report also makes recommendations about the need for DVA to review its training. I want to refer to one example that was drawn to our attention in the public hearings in Brisbane, where a former defence personnel member and his wife came forward. This particular gentleman had sought access to the ex gratia scheme. He, along with others, had suffered both physical and mental health issues. He was in hospital on suicide watch when the Department of Veterans’ Affairs thought it would be opportune and appropriate to advise him that his application had been rejected. It astonishes all of us that the considered view of DVA could be to provide that quite shattering bad advice to a former RAAF officer when he was on suicide watch in a hospital. There is a need for DVA to review its training procedures and the committee makes recommendations accordingly.

During the course of our investigations, important system-wide problems were also identified and they require urgent attention. For example, eight years ago the F111 board of inquiry recommended that Defence should specify certain medical positions as requiring qualifications in occupational medicine, yet today, amazingly, Defence has only one person engaged full time on that vital task. How can that be when we hear so often that our men and women are our greatest asset—and indeed they are—yet eight years after the board of inquiry said Defence needed to improve the delivery of services in occupational health and safety and to have appropriately qualified medical officers, there is one full-time officer in the entire ADF?

The committee was encouraged to review the work of Professor Hopkins and some comments he made in a book on the problem of support for workers within the ADF. Professor Hopkins was also a member of the F111 board of inquiry, so he has very detailed knowledge of the circumstances that were under review by the committee. I want to refer to one part of the report, quoting Professor Hopkins. He said that, shortly after the board of inquiry, a striking example came to light of the way the priority of platforms over people had operated—in this case in the Australian Navy during the Vietnam War. The Navy’s ships needed to draw water from overboard for both drinking and use in the ship’s boilers. The water had to be distilled before use to remove the salt. Navy patrols spent considerable amounts of time in estuarine waters in Vietnam which were known to be contaminated with a range of substances. The Navy therefore chose to not use the distilled water from the estuaries for its boilers lest it damage the ship’s engines. The water for boilers was to be produced only from pristine water offshore. The distilled water from the estuaries could however be used as drinking water. It was not fit for the ships but it was fine for the sailors!

He went on to note that, in fact, the estuaries were contaminated with Agent Orange. Ironically the distillation process served only to concentrate these substances, and that is what the sailors were drinking. This, I have to say, is a serious, shocking problem. For me, as somebody who has participated in many defence issues for many years in this parliament, this is deeply worrying. Professor Hopkins concluded:

Until the Air Force puts the same effort into securing expert safety advice as it does into securing expert advice on materials, until it applies the same level of quality control to ensuring the safety of maintenance workers as it applies to ensuring the adequacy of maintenance processes, it will remain vulnerable to the criticism that it puts platforms ahead of people.

This has to change and it has to change now. If it does not, we will see repeats of the tragic circumstances that were the subject of this inquiry. An essential step in that process is to expand the medical positions focused on occupational medicine.

The report also reviews a wide range of research on the possible health impacts of fuel tank work. It recommends further research with respect to the implications of working with aviation fuels. This is important and it has implications well beyond the F111 community—indeed, it has implications well beyond Defence—but it is important, given the evidence presented to the committee, that that research be undertaken to ensure that not just defence personnel but those who are working with aviation turbine fuel are doing so in a safe manner that is acceptable in the 21st century.

I repeat in these comments my thanks to the Defence and DVA staff for their assistance throughout this inquiry. I especially want to thank the senior RAAF personnel, whose participation and support were invaluable. The willingness of Air Vice Marshal Brown to attend every inquiry did not go unnoticed and was appreciated. I also record my personal recognition of the work of the CDF, who instituted the board of inquiry as then Chief of Air Force. Given the fact that so much information had been around for many years, I think it took a degree of leadership—which he exhibited—to commence this process, without which we would not be standing here today reviewing these matters. I commend the CDF for the decisions he took as Chief of Air Force. Indeed, at the time he took those I was the shadow minister. I took the opportunity then to acknowledge the right and proper steps that he had taken, and I do so again.

I thank the members of my committee who participated in this inquiry in a constructive and bipartisan matter. I especially thank the member for Fadden, Stuart Robert, who was with me at all of the hearings and whose advice I appreciated. I hope I have not given you the kiss of death, Stuie! I thank the staff of the secretariat—Dr Margot Kerley, Colonel Paul Nothard, who worked with the committee throughout last year, and Wing Commander David Ashworth, who joined the inquiry this year—for their contributions. The advice that we receive from all is greatly appreciated. The Defence Subcommittee could not function nearly as well as it does were it not for the participation of the defence advisers. Over the many years I have been in this parliament we have been fortunate to have high-quality defence advisers. It is appreciated by the committee and should be acknowledged by this parliament.

Special thanks are due to the inquiry secretary, Mr Muz Ali. It fell to Muz to deal with many hundreds of phone calls, emails and approaches from a wide range of people, not always in the easiest of circumstances. He also had the daily task of getting on top of what was a very complex, detailed, difficult and in some cases quite technical area. He had to put up with me as a chairperson annoying the hell out of him on a regular basis. I am very grateful for the way in which Muz did his work and wish him well now that he has moved on to other, bigger and better things in this parliament.

Most importantly, I again record my thanks to the F111 fuel tank workers and their families. We all—especially all of us in this parliament but also all of us as Australians—firstly owe them our thanks for ensuring that one of the critical defence platforms available to Australia’s defence in the last generation was serviceable and was able to be deployed in the defence of our nation. Their work enabled that to occur. They are due our thanks for that especially. I also thank them for their patience. When this inquiry was commenced I rather optimistically thought that we could complete it within six or seven months. It became plain as we got into the details that that was an unrealistic time frame. I know that many of the people who were involved in the F111 community and who were very interested in this inquiry were concerned when they saw the time frame of this inquiry shifting out. I can assure them that the only reason that time frame shifted was to enable the committee to thoroughly and properly go through all of the details and information, to follow all the leads, to try to find the records and to look at all of the suggestions we had as to how there may be records in place. Sadly, none of those produced the necessary outcomes. One of the frustrations that we had to contend with, as has everybody else who has looked at this issue, was the total absence of records for most of the period in question—they simply do not exist. But I do want to record my thanks for the patience of those who were most closely involved in this work and who have followed the work of this inquiry. I thank them for their willingness to allow us to get on with the task on an extended time frame.

My overriding concern in this inquiry has been to ensure that the health care and the support needs of those adversely affected by their service on F111s are properly met. I believe that the recommendations in this report do much to achieve that outcome. I very strongly commend the report to the House and to the government.

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I rise to lend support to the bipartisan report from the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade entitled Sealing a just outcome: report from the inquiry into RAAF F111 deseal/reseal workers and their families. It is important that the coalition puts on record its tremendous thanks to the Chair of the Defence Subcommittee, the member for Brisbane, Arch Bevis, for his leadership in delivering what I think is an outstanding report to bring closure to what has been a very difficult issue that has gone on for over 35 years. I also thank my colleagues who were part of the committee, the secretariat—Dr Margot Kerley and Muz Ali, the inquiry secretary—and our defence advisers, Colonel Nothard and Wing Commander Ashworth. I extend a special thanks to the Deputy Chief of Air Force, Air Vice Marshal Geoff Brown, for his attendance at all committee meetings and his tremendous honesty.

The people of our nation may not realise that the F111 is one of the great unique aircraft of the world. First delivered to Australia in 1973, it has an enormous range of many thousands of kilometres, but to achieve that range it literally shoves fuel into every nook and cranny that you could possibly imagine on an aircraft. Modern aircraft have purpose-built fuel tanks and bladders—not the F111. If there was a space into which anything could go, fuel would be shoved there to give the aircraft its incredibly long range. Unfortunately, when the aircraft was delivered in 1973, having sat in hangars for a number of years, the sealant inside these nooks and crannies had begun to fall apart and the aircraft literally leaked fuel. It was not as simple as a hole in a balloon with water coming out. The leak could run along a line where metal joined and, where the sealant had broken down, the leak might come out one or two metres further downstream on the aircraft.

Thus, from the very first year of delivery, 1973, RAAF men were sent inside the smallest nooks and crannies imaginable in F111 aircraft. In 1973 out on the tarmac there were no sheds, no covers. In scorching heat, in an Amberley summer, these men would crawl in, many of them in shorts and T-shirts with no personal protective equipment, to carefully pick off the sealant, trace where the hole was and then reseal it. Prior to that activity, they would drain all the fuel from the fuel tanks, but these men would still be sitting in fuel for many, many hours at a time to trace these leaks and to reseal the fuel tanks so that our forward strike bomber could continue its role and continue to provide both a deterrent and a strike capacity. For over 25 years, men were sent into fuel tanks, first of all to pick and patch and then, as part of four formal programs, to fully deseal and reseal fuel tanks. Whilst in the latter part of those 25 years personal protective equipment and oxygen were used, in the early years none of that existed. The photographs in the report and the evidence we received are testimony to that.

Over time it became evident that men were getting sick and were suffering from a whole range of ubiquitous and unknown illnesses. It came to a point where one doctor on base who was there for an extended period of time pulled all the threads together and realised: ‘Houston, we have a significant problem.’ To the current CDF, who was then the Chief of Air Force, must go immense credit. A board of inquiry was instituted to look at the issues regarding the F111 desealing and resealing. This was followed by an interim healthcare scheme and a study of the health outcomes in aircraft maintenance personnel called the SHOAMP study. In August 2005 the former government moved to provide an ex gratia payment to those who had been involved in the four formal programs only.

Then this inquiry was born. I was immensely impressed when, at the very start of the inquiry, the Deputy Chief of Air Force, Air Vice Marshal Geoff Brown, stood up and said, ‘We are here because the Air Force has damaged its personnel.’ There was no move by the Air Force to run and hide. They sent in the Deputy Chief of Air Force, their No. 2 man, to stand there at a public inquiry and to admit that the Air Force had damaged its men and, as a consequence, had damaged Air Force families. I put on the record my great pride in the Defence Force for standing up and admitting that there was a problem and that they indeed had got it wrong.

It is with some pleasure that I join the member for Brisbane, and all members of the committee, to table the report and to point out its significant recommendations. They include widening the ex gratia payments to those involved in the pick and patch operation to recognise that it was not just under the four formal programs that men went inside the nooks and crannies of the aircraft. Many, many men, from 1973 until when the four formal programs began, squeezed themselves into the narrowest of holes in the sides of aircraft to spend many, many hours at a time, sometimes using delicate dental equipment, to carefully pick the sealant off the frames of the aircraft. As part of the inquiry we went down to Amberley. I managed to squeeze inside one of the nooks and crannies of these F111s. I can tell you that, after spending only a few minutes in there, I would dread the thought of spending hours and, in cumulative terms, days carefully picking off sealant—and, in the early days, doing it in a pair of shorts and a shirt, covered in aviation fuel.

Other recommendations include widening the healthcare support to those members of the pick and patch operation and removing any cut-off dates that may restrict access to this healthcare support. The committee also recommended allowing statutory declarations to be used in order to prove entitlements, cognisant that records going back some 35 years in many cases do not exist. We recommended providing counselling services and significant respite care to families who are dealing with very, very sick former Air Force men. Seeking a review of all cases where DVA has knocked back claims because of inadequate statutory declarations is, I think, another important recommendation.

Part of the important information the hearing took had to do with health care. Substantial studies have been conducted. Looking at the third health study, it was shown that the cancer rates in those men who were involved in this work, going back to 1973, were 44 per cent higher than the control group or the average population in the nation. Unfortunately, in medical terms this was deemed to be statistically insignificant—a phrase I have come to despise. I understand why the medical fraternity call it statistically insignificant when they are only dealing with fewer than 900 cases. But what I found disappointing was that it would have been statistically significant if two more cancers had been recognised! If two more RAAF men had contracted cancer, bringing the number higher than 44 per cent, it would have been statistically significant. I think we can all assume that a 44 per cent higher cancer rate in men who went into fuel tanks to deseal and reseal is significant. The significance is such that this report is being tabled today.

One of the causes of the cancers was assumed to be a product called SR51 that has a dreadful odour and was used to deseal inside the fuel tanks. It was surprising to me and other members of the committee that no medical evidence was found to support the claim that SR51 was indeed involved. The evidence would seem to point more to a combination of environmental, chemical, heat and other substance factors all working together. Further health studies have been strongly recommended in the report, especially into the impact of aviation turbine fuels on the health of individuals.

I think the report is significant. It significantly widens access to the ex gratia payments and, more importantly, to health support for those who were involved in all areas of crawling into tanks to keep our operational aircraft online. It is fitting that I conclude my remarks by thanking our F111 community in its entirety. Since 1973, men, women and their families have worked hard to keep our operational bomber strike aircraft online. Sometimes in the most dreadful of conditions and the most terrible of circumstances, they have sacrificed much to ensure the safety and security of our nation. We owe a lot to heroes like these who sacrifice their time to serve us, the wider Australian community. So I thank the F111 community. I thank those who sacrificed so much to ensure that a strike capability and a great deterrent was operational in the skies above our land.

Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the House take note of the report.

In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.