Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Although I am not a member of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, with my Defence Force background I welcome the opportunity to make a contribution on the report and on the circumstances surrounding this matter. As an Army officer I recall visits to RAAF Base Amberley, the home of F111s, and seeing F111s in the sky on other occasions in connection with my duties. Even at the 2000 Olympics, the sight of an F111 fighter-bomber was impressive. From an Army perspective our understanding of the F111 was that, even though it was quite old, it was nevertheless a highly effective and potent force multiplier in terms of stand-off attacks as well as close air support. When I saw those aircraft—and I am sure that when the crowd at the opening ceremony of the 2000 Olympics saw the F111 dump fuel and light it up—there was no knowledge of the other threat that has now been revealed. I am talking about the health problems that have been revealed so starkly in this report.

As we have seen in this report, the need to repair the unique fuel storage system on the F111 and the manner in which those repairs were accomplished—in an environment not replicated on any other RAAF aircraft—is at the very core of this inquiry. Between 1973 and 2000, toxic chemicals were used to strip back and replace sealant inside the fuel tanks to avoid fuel tank leaks. Three squadrons were involved: No. 1 Squadron, No. 6 Squadron and, before them, No. 482 Squadron. For the task, airframe fitters, later known as aircraft technicians, climbed inside the fuel tanks and had to strip off the old seals and then reseal the joints from the inside to ensure that no fuel would leak out of the fuel tank. But to accomplish this task they were not provided with adequate protective clothing. Even with the protective clothing that they were given, gloves, it was the common practice that they removed them in order to more effectively carry out the task. It has been established that the chemicals were absorbed through the skin. Those involved are 44 per cent more likely to get cancer and also have a history of kidney stones, kidney problems, psoriasis, depression, hypertension, rectal failure and chronic fatigue. The list goes on. These problems have been linked by studies to the work carried out in the deseal/reseal duty undertaken by airmen in the RAAF.

I understand from the report that, unlike most inquiries conducted by parliamentary committees, this inquiry went well beyond broad policy issues. At its core has been a consideration of specific cases directly impacting on upwards of 2,000 ex-service personnel and many more family members, all of whom have been exposed to the chemicals in some shape or form. It must also be remembered that, apart from the chemical being absorbed into the skin of the airmen, the fuel residue was soaked into their overalls and that clothing, with that combination of liquids, was then handled by wives at home when the uniforms were washed. The other aspect was contact with the husband. When sharing the same bed with his wife, the toxic chemicals came out of the pores of the worker’s skin and transferred to his partner. This has also caused issues for both of them in terms of wanting to have and raise healthy and normal children.

As for doing the right thing by all involved, the report says:

Without doubt, the ex-gratia scheme announced by the government in 2005 was the focus of many submissions and the cause of many complaints. Whilst it was intended to provide assistance with specified healthcare costs and a one-off financial payment for some, and did, it also created a series of anomalies that angered an already distressed group of people.

One of the problems with the ex-gratia payments was that Defence did not have records accurately identifying every person who had been involved. Although the lack of accurate records served to undermine the eligibility of many of those affected for the original ex-gratia payment, this situation has been exacerbated by the inconsistent approach taken by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. Naturally, examples of inconsistency do nothing more than increase the feelings of frustration and resentment. As a result, the report recommended that in certain circumstances statutory declarations be used to establish entitlements. For deceased estates, a statutory declaration from the next of kin should apply with the same guidelines as those set out in the report. Considerable time and effort has been given to the health research involving the F111 issues. As the report makes clear, this research does not support some of the concerns of the workers. However, other research does raise other potentially serious matters that will require further investigation.

Some of those in the F111 community seek substantial compensation payments. Beyond the no-guilt statutory compensation schemes and the ex-gratia scheme payments, any additional payments have been determined to be a matter for common law. The report itself, Sealing a just outcome: Report from the inquiry into RAAF F-111 deseal/reseal workers and their families, gives 18 recommendations, which range from removing some time limits and other constraints, to helping to make more people eligible for the ex-gratia payments, to group counselling for families and the need for additional OH&S staff and suggestions on change.

Air Vice Marshall Brown perhaps best summarised it in the first public hearing when he said:

… 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 reality for me is that I make my comments from a distance, never having been in the Air Force and not having the ability to empathise with those affected by both health issues and the frustrations of seeking resolution through the system. I believe that real progress can now be made and I hope that the changes will provide for the men and their families, as well as for the widows, some comfort as we make progress towards a final resolution. I also congratulate the chair and the members of the joint standing committee for their report and all those who offered evidence to the committee as part of the inquiry.

Damian Hale (Solomon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this very important issue. In this place, we do many things. I do not think that I have so far, in my nearly two years as a parliamentarian, had a more emotional experience than being on this inquiry. When I went to Brisbane, I met with families of people who have died through cancer and people who have kids with disabilities. The responsibility of being a parliamentarian really hit home. I would like to congratulate all the people who came and gave evidence. It was very hard to sit and listen to the stories. I support the member for Cowan’s comments in regard to the women who were at home washing the clothes of these pitch and patch workers. It was gut-wrenching stuff, to be honest, to listen to these stories of the hardship that had come upon these families due to this activity that these workers were carrying out with the F111 program. It really drove home the importance of this inquiry and of what we were doing.

On 21 May 2008, the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, the Hon. Alan Griffin MP, wrote to the Chair of the Joint Standing Committee for Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, Senator Michael Forshaw, noting that one of the election commitments of the Rudd government was to conduct a parliamentary inquiry into the inadequacy of the support for the health needs of the RAAF deseal/reseal workers and their families. It was very important that we brought this issue to a head and were able to address what had been off the agenda for a long time, the needs of this group of people.

Listening to the evidence, as I was saying, was gut wrenching. These guys crawled inside F111 tanks. Often, there was still some fuel inside. When you see movies of when F111s are flying, fuel is coming out of the fuselage. It is very hard to seal them. After a run, the planes would come back. These guys would get in and first pick all the old goo out of them. Then they would re-goo them, basically, and try to seal them as best they could for when the plane was back in the air. The chemicals that they were using to strip the sealant were found to be toxic as well. These people were often sitting in fuel as well as this chemical in order to do this job. We did not have the same sort of OH&S obligations then that we do now. They were not in place. Often, these guys were swimming in this stuff. They were smoking cigarettes as well. As a lot of them said, there was a culture of smoking cigarettes in the workplace. I would suggest that working with kerosene and fuel and smoking is not a really good thing for your health at the best of times. These guys were subject to this. They wore thongs and very little protective clothing and they certainly had no respirators. We have learnt. Thank goodness that we have progressed in the way that we look after our workers now and how we deal with hazardous chemicals.

I would like to commend all members of the committee. There was a lot of care and compassion shown by the committee in these hearings. They were difficult hearings. The chair, the member for Brisbane, did a very good job in bringing this matter to a head. As the member for Cowan alluded to, there is a list of recommendations that have been put forward. I will not go through all of those recommendations. There are about 18 in total.

Certainly for the families of the victims, their kids and the people who are left behind, it does, to some extent, bring a little bit of closure because there has been a parliamentary inquiry and there is a list of recommendations. These people can feel satisfied, to a point, that the government has acted in an appropriate way with regard to this. As I said, it was a very gut-wrenching experience, because we were dealing with the lives of these people.

The committee received over 130 submissions and there were 12 supplementary submissions from organisations and the general public. In all, the committee received 743 pages of submissions. The committee also heard evidence recorded in more than 360 pages of transcript covering six public hearings. It was very thorough. The committee received a private briefing on the nature of the fuel-leak repair work and inspected training facilities, tools used and an F111 airframe.

Inspection of the various fuel storage areas in the F111 provided a very graphic understanding for all of us of the extremely small spaces that were involved in this work. Entry to some fuel tanks would make it difficult for even a small person to enter. I had no chance of getting in there. But certainly, once inside the tank, some work areas were so confined it was difficult to understand how personnel could spend hours at a time in such a cramped and physically unpleasant environment. And they did so with a range of chemicals surrounding them as well. A lot of this work was done in Queensland, where they were subjected to the hot summer conditions.

It was a pleasure to be on this committee. I think it was a very important committee. I fully support the list of recommendations. Once again, I congratulate and thank all the people that gave evidence on this issue. I also thank my colleagues from both sides of this place for the time that they put into considering the evidence and working towards the list of recommendations.

Debate (on motion by Mr Hayes) adjourned.