Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science, Technology and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a distinct pleasure. The coalition supports the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Participants in British Nuclear Tests) Bill 2011. The bill builds on earlier initiatives of the previous coalition government to ensure that both defence and civilian personnel associated with nuclear testing by the British government in the Australian outback in the 1950s and 1960s receive Commonwealth funded treatment for cancer through the passage of the Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests (Treatment) Act 2006. The 2006 act, by way of history, provided non-liability white card treatment to all ex-service personnel and civilians associated with the testing. It was a great foundation. This bill seeks to build on that, to its credit.

In the intervening years, of course, in 2010, parliament passed new laws providing equivalent hazardous non-warlike or operational service to ex-defence personnel associated with those very tests. These amendments to the Veterans' Entitlements Act ensured that disability pensions and war widows pensions were available to ex-service personnel who were associated with those specific tests. By way of a note, where eligible, the ex-service person can receive a disability pension and may also be entitled to a gold card. Where the ex-service person's death is attributed to an accepted war-caused injury or disability, the widowed spouse may receive a war widow's pension.

In broad terms, the purpose of this legislation, which is uncontentious and widely supported, is to give additional powers to the Repatriation Commission to enable it, via a disallowable instrument, to broaden the definition of an eligible class of persons under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 for the purposes of the British nuclear test defence service, as well as the eligible class of persons under the Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests (Treatment) Act 2006. This bill reaches back to 2006 to pull them together. The Repatriation Commission's new powers will enable it to extend the eligible class of persons to include, for example, RAAF personnel who were not stationed at the nuclear testing site but whose work may have involved them in nuclear testing. These changes are anticipated to immediately affect about 10 people. It will give them the opportunity to apply for compensation and/or coverage under the act, and that is entirely fair and entirely reasonable. These changes are fully supported by the coalition.

What is interesting, though, is that, during the Senate debate on the Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill 2011, Senator Xenophon moved an amendment, supported by the Greens, to automatically grant a gold card to those ex-service personnel involved in nuclear testing, regardless of the acceptance or rejection of their claim for compensation by the Repatriation Commission. Senator Xenophon argued that there are around 2,000 ex-service personnel still alive who may benefit from these changes and that the number is rapidly declining. The government opposed Senator Xenophon's amendment, a position supported by the coalition. The likely cost of extending gold cards to this group of ex-service personnel would be something like $100 million over the forward estimates. Further, the automatic grant of a gold card is presently made to only those veterans who have qualifying service—that is, who have fought against an enemy in a war zone in warlike circumstances, are aged 70 and over, or are former prisoners of war. What is interesting about that move by Senator Xenophon and the Greens to seek to attach a gold card to all of the veterans involved in the Maralinga tests is that there were no cost offsets. The government has, to its credit, put forward a sensible, considered and thoughtful bill. Senator Xenophon and the Greens put a rider on a previous bill and certainly sought to do the same thing again. My understanding is that it is highly likely that they will seek to do the same thing with this bill. They sought to put a rider to grant a gold card to 2,000 veterans from the Maralinga testing, without any cost offsets.

What is particularly galling about the rider that Senator Xenophon and the Greens sought to include in the Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill, and that they may seek to do again, was the demand that there be no cost consideration. Yet I remember months and months of negotiating with these two parties, Senator Xenophon and the Greens, on the DFRDB indexation, and they demanded cost offsets for what had a $98 million price tag over the forward estimates—the same price that giving the gold card to 2,000 veterans would cost. I delivered a 33 per cent reduction in the forward hiring of public servants for the Department of Defence, saving $260-odd million, which, incidentally, was picked up by the minister six months later and then became government policy—full credit to the minister. Copying is one of those great accolades in life, of course, with imitation the sincerest form of flattery.

Even after all this work for Senator Xenophon and the Greens, to demonstrate to them that cost savings could be made—even though they had both campaigned in 2010 to index defence pensions—they still voted against the coalition's bill in the Senate. And then they have the blatant hypocrisy to say there should be no cost offsets in attaching a rider about gold cards for those in the Maralinga tests. I say very clearly to the Greens and to Senator Xenophon: you must be consistent in your application of legislation. If you are looking for cost offsets to pay for a widening of indexation and benefits for the veteran community, you cannot demand from the coalition or the government that they produce these offsets and then stamp your foot petulantly and say, 'We won't give them when we want our own way.' There is a very clear message to the Greens and Senator Xenophon: be consistent. The veterans community is not a football you kick around for your own political ends. You had an opportunity with DFRDB indexation bill to stand up. Indeed, it was the Greens stated election policy. They went to an election stating they would index defence pensions, but when given the opportunity with the private member's bill they decided against it. It is rank hypocrisy in the extreme.

The opposition will stand with the government on this bill. The bill is sensible, it is considered and it is thoughtful. Some would argue that it only immediately affects 10 people, and that is correct. But they are 10 people of value and worth who served their country. If it were one person, the coalition would stand with the government to ensure a degree of justice were afforded to them. But only 10 people are immediately affected by this bill. The beauty of the bill is the power granted to the Repatriation Commission will enable them to extend the eligible class of people as they may arrive from time to time, with a disallowable instrument being the power needed to broaden the definition of the eligible class of persons. Knowing the Repatriation Commission's good work, I fully expect they will use the powers appropriately, sensibly and justly, as is the intent of the bill before the parliament.

I would seriously ask the Greens and Senator Xenophon to have a good hard look at this bill and not to seek to use it as another opportunity for populism by reattaching the rider they tried to attach, through their amendment, to the Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill. I caution them not to try to put that amendment back on this bill, to incur $100 million extra across the forward estimates without any degree of offset. They demanded it from the coalition and I am sure they demanded it from the government. They somehow seem to think they are above and beyond their own demands.

With that note of caution to the Greens and to Senator Xenophon I commend the government for its bill and for what it is doing. It certainly enjoys the wide support of the coalition.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I always enjoy following an opposition speaker when they support legislation the government is putting before the parliament. It is a rare and refreshing turn of events. I thank the shadow minister for his support and at the same time I would like to commend the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Participants in British Nuclear Tests) Bill 2011 to the House.

I have a long corporate memory when it comes to nuclear and atomic veterans. When I first came to this parliament it was very difficult for any nuclear or atomic veteran to receive any recognition or any compensation for illnesses that they received as a result of the time they were in areas where they were exposed to atomic waste. I had one constituent in particular who was in the RAAF and was at Maralinga. At the time he was there he worked in trucks. When the atomic testing was on he would go out and then come back covered in dust. He would just walk in and throw his clothes in the washing machine. There was no testing or monitoring to see whether or not he suffered any illnesses or side-effects from his exposure. He actually developed acute myeloid leukaemia. An interesting aside to this is that his wife has developed breast cancer and their first child was still-born. I find it very difficult not to join the dots there and in some way attribute it to the time that he spent at Maralinga.

He has had a long battle over the time to get recognition. When I first met him he received no recognition at all. I pay tribute to the fact that, in 2006, legislation was passed through the parliament that changed the situation slightly. But still he has many battles to face in relation to acceptance of his illness and for the fact that although he may be in remission at the moment there is the psychological impact of his illness and the impact it has on his life, and the fact that his wife is very sick. I do not think it is treated in the same way as other conditions. The bar is just that little bit higher, and I think that is inappropriate.

The legislation before us today amends the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 and the Australian Participants in British Nuclear Testing (Treatment) Act 2006 to enable the Repatriation Commission to determine by legislative instrument additional eligibility criteria for British nuclear defence service under the VEA and nuclear test participation under the APBNT(T)A. This will ensure that there is equitable access to benefits for Australian participants, be they service personnel or not, in the British nuclear tests that took place. It will involve maintenance and decontamination or transport of aircraft which were contaminated as a result of the British nuclear tests.

The constituent I spoke about was actually lucky, if you can say that anyone who was involved in that situation was lucky, in that he was a member of the RAAF. He has been able to get assistance earlier than he otherwise would have. But many people worked out there in different capacities and were not part of the services. The legislation before us will give some equity to those people who were doing their work and suffered as a result of the British nuclear tests.

The APBNT(T)A provides government funded, non-liability healthcare treatment for cancer in the form of a white card for those people who were involved in the British nuclear test program in Australia. Also, disability pensions, healthcare treatment and a range of other benefits are provided for former Defence Force personnel. I reiterate that that was not the case for a very long period of time. It is the case now and I think it is really important for that assistance to be extended, and this legislation does that. I do not see how any member of this parliament could object to the legislation. The amendment to the VEA allows newly-found eligible assistance participants to have their claim treated in the same way as they would have had they been eligible in the first instance. Once again, that is the correct way to handle it, and it shows a little compassion for those people who have suffered for such a very long time. As I previously mentioned, they have suffered not only physically but psychologically. People do not know when they may exhibit side-effects from their exposure to the British nuclear test program. Governments should be very mindful of the fact that many people suffer as a consequence of decisions made in the past, and this bill recognises this.

To run through a few facts and figures, 3,235 Navy personnel, 1,658 Army personnel, 3,223 RAAF personnel and 8,907 civilians, including 10 Indigenous people, were involved in the British nuclear test program. Many of those 8,907 civilians are still surviving, and the bill will give them access to similar treatment and benefits as those personnel in the defence forces. I commend the legislation to the House and congratulate the minister on having the foresight to extend the eligibility to this program in the way that he has.

Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Along with my colleagues, I support the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Participants in British Nuclear Tests) Bill 2011 before us today, which will enable further support for our veterans by legislating more eligibility criteria for British nuclear test defence servicemen under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 and nuclear test participation under the Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests (Treatment) Act 2006. I am proud to be a member of the Liberal-National side of politics, which has a strong record for standing up for and protecting our veterans, and has done so since our party's creation in 1944. It has always been, and will continue to be, the Liberal way to hold veterans and their families in the highest regard, and support them for the service, sacrifice and contribution they have made to our nation.

During the 1950s and 1960s, Australian defence personnel were involved in the testing of nuclear weapons by the British government in the outback of South Australia and off the coast of Western Australia. Since their service there have been a number of claims by veterans that their involvement in these tests as part of their service has left them incapacitated. These claims must be taken seriously, and in 2006 the parliament passed legislation to provide these ex-service personnel, and indeed other civilians, including members of the Australian Federal Police, who worked at these nuclear testing sites, with assistance for treatment of all cancers through a white card issued by the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Support for veterans who were involved in these nuclear testing situations was increased again in 2010 with the establishment of a new classification of service under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 known as 'British nuclear test defence service'. This provides a classification equivalent to hazardous non-warlike operational service to ex-service personnel involved in nuclear testing. To be eligible for compensation under this classification, an ex-service member must be able to prove a link between any incapacity and their defence service. The repatriation committee then determines a claim based on the relevant links between the cause and effects of an ex-service member's disease with their service. Once this process has occurred, eligible ex-service personnel will receive a disability pension and gold card. If their death is related to their service, an ex-service personnel's widow may also receive a war widows pension and gold card. These changes were supported by both sides of the House in 2010.

The legislation before us today makes minor amendments to the class of persons eligible under the Veterans' Entitlements Act and the Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests (Treatment) Act 2006 to allow the repatriation committee to broaden the definition of 'eligible persons' to incorporate not only personnel immediately involved on the nuclear test sites but also those such as RAAF pilots and ground crews involved in the testing but based outside the immediate testing area. The Department of Veterans' Affairs has found that approximately 10 people have been identified as potential beneficiaries of the amendments before us today.

Whilst I am pleased to support the amendment today, which provides further support for our veterans, it remains hugely disappointing that this Labor government will not introduce fair indexation for DFRDB payments, and earlier this year once again voted this proposal down when it was moved by the coalition in the Senate. I would like to take this opportunity whilst we are discussing support for veterans to put on the record yet again that the coalition is committed to addressing the needs of DFRDB superannuants. Despite the amendments today, affecting approximately 10 veterans, this Labor government continues to deny a problem in the area of DFRDB superannuation, and I believe that it is this stance that truly epitomises the value that the Labor government places on our veterans.

My electorate of Ryan takes in the Gallipoli Barracks at Enoggera and like most electorates around the nation is home to many active returned and services leagues who continue to support and advocate for our returned and currently serving defence personnel. I know these service men and women, I know these veterans, and I know the issue of fair indexation for DFRDB payments is of vital importance to them. I also believe that all members of this House would be in a similar position: they would also know service men and women in their electorates and veterans in their electorates. That is why it shocks me that this Labor government continues to approach this issue with such a closed mind and continues to neglect the men and women who have served their country and deserve to be treated fairly.

Our veterans deserve fair indexation of DFRDB superannuation. Our veterans are a vital part of the fabric of our nation, a nation built on the legend of Gallipoli and the bravery of our Anzacs. Our veterans deserve our support. The bill before us today is one step in providing some of that support, but I take this opportunity to call on the government to take the more important step of the fair indexation of DFRDB.

Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Participants in British Nuclear Tests) Bill 2011 seeks to extend access to compensation and health care for those Australians who participated in the British nuclear tests through amendments to the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 and the Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests (Treatment) Act 2006. Those affected are people who were involved in the maintenance, transport and decontamination of aircraft used in British nuclear tests in the 1950s and 1960s.

The Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests (Treatment) Act 2006 has been amended on two occasions to extend coverage to previously ineligible personnel. These amendments were made as new information came to light. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs made the point in his second reading speech that, given the secret nature of the operation, it is not out of the question that further new information about groups of people affected may come to light. On that basis, the legislation will enable the Repatriation Commission to determine, through legislative instrument, additional eligibility criteria relating to participation in the British nuclear test program.

The government announced these changes in the 2010-11 budget. Currently, the nominal roll of Australian participants in the British atomic test program—this is information I obtained from the Parliamentary Library—is as follows: Navy, 3,268; Army, 1,657; RAAF, 3,201; and civilians, 8,590, including 10 Indigenous people. Of the total participants, 48.6 per cent were military personnel; therefore it is not impossible that further participants may come to light.

The original changes were made under the Howard government in 2006 as a result of the Clarke review. Within the terms of reference of the Clarke review was an examination of the claims by nuclear test participants for government assistance. The recommendation was the accreditation of participation in non-warlike hazardous service. The British nuclear test program was conducted in the Montebello Islands in 1952 and 1956 and at Emu Field in 1953—two tests—and there were seven tests at Maralinga in 1956 and 1957. There were tests at Christmas Island and Malden Island, but Australians were not involved. There were also 600 minor trials between 1953 and 1963, including the testing of bomb components.

The history of claims about adverse health reactions and deaths suffered by nuclear test participants goes back many years, far longer than the first studies and reports undertaken in Australia, which commenced in the early 1980s. There were two key issues underpinning this. Firstly, many of the participants themselves considered that they were exposed to hazardous radiation during the tests, especially given what is now known about the dangers of radiation. Secondly, the participants continuously reported incidences of illness and death that they considered to be abnormal and therefore associated with the tests.

The bill before the House today seeks to ensure that the interests of those who have been affected will be looked after. It also ensures that any who may be further identified will also have their health needs acted on. That is the way it should be, and what also should happen is what is happening: bipartisan support for this. For too long officialdom were in denial. For too long it was too difficult for people to be properly compensated in relation to the health effects that they suffered as a result of these tests. There is no doubt in my mind that people looked the other way. It was all about the dollar; it was all about minimising compensation, minimising payouts. That also happened in relation to asbestos. But we are more enlightened now in relation to asbestos and also these tests. It is appropriate that there be an expansion of those who have been adversely affected and are eligible to be considered. I think it is something that the parliament and the minister should continue to watch, and we should be a little bit more generous just as with those who went to Vietnam and came back having been affected by Agent Orange—again denial for a very long time as to the impacts. Gulf War syndrome: denial for a very long time as to the impacts.

I have a large veterans community in my electorate. For the 21 years I have served in the parliament an area that my office has specialised in has been the assistance of those veterans with their claims, in many cases successfully and in other cases not successfully. But I have seen a change of attitude over time, and it changed because the government mindset changed. So I am quite pleased to support the bill before the parliament today and am pleased that it is receiving bipartisan support, because we have got to stop the denial. In my opinion, if you have a situation where people are affected as a result of these actions, then you should be facilitating looking after them, not creating barrier after barrier while hoping that people will die or go away before they get their due compensation.

It is worth while again having a look at what is in the explanatory memorandum because that explains it in plain English, so I think it is better to add into my speech for the record what the explanatory memorandum says. I have already covered some of this in my speech but it is worth repeating. It says:

The Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests (Treatment) Act provides that Australian participants in the British nuclear tests (defined as a `nuclear test participant') are able to receive treatment and testing for malignant neoplasia (cancer) through the Repatriation Commission and the Department of Veterans' Affairs.

Amendments were made to the Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests (Treatment) Act in 2008 and 2010 to provide extended coverage for members of the Commonwealth Police (now known as the Australian Federal Police) and Protective Service Officers who were responsible for patrolling the exclusion zone at Maralinga throughout the testing period and up to 30 June 1988.

They were previously excluded. Further on it says:

It has become evident following the receipt of a small number of claims from Defence Force members claiming British nuclear test defence service, that some personnel undertaking the specific tasks of maintaining, transporting or decontaminating aircraft (other than Royal Air Force Canberra aircraft) used in the British nuclear test program should be, but are not currently, eligible under the Veterans' Entitlements Act or the Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests (Treatment) Act … The proposed amendments will allow the Repatriation Commission to determine, by legislative instrument, additional eligibility criteria for `British nuclear test defence service' under the Veterans' Entitlements Act and for `nuclear test participant' under the Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests (Treatment) Act. The amendments will facilitate eligibility under the Veterans' Entitlements Act and the Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests (Treatment) Act, through enabling the making of a legislative instrument, in respect of these claims and will enable future claims of a similar nature to be dealt with more expediently. This will ensure that any newly found eligible personnel will receive benefits and treatment provided under the respective Acts with the minimum of delay.

This is as it should be.

A lot of these changes have been achieved by people in the field agitating for them, producing evidence, arguing their case, rearguing their case and convincing the authorities that they were taking too narrow a view of the world as it then was and that that was affecting their eligibility. So I think we are debating a very good thing this afternoon. A lot of people deserve a lot of credit for taking up the fight over the years. These things are not easily proved. To have authorities change their attitudes is not easily achieved, but attitudes have changed; attitudes have improved. It is good, as I said, that both sides of the House support this legislation. It is good legislation. I commend it to the House.

Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to support the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Participants in British Nuclear Tests) Bill 2011. As other speakers, including the member for Banks, have said, back in the 1950s and 1960s Australian defence personnel were involved in British testing of nuclear weapons in South Australia, particularly at Maralinga, and also off the coast of Western Australia. They did their jobs bravely and many have paid a very high price in the form of serious health problems. Quite rightly, they deserve compensation for the harm they suffered.

In 2006, the former coalition government introduced legislation to give these ex-service personnel and other civilians, including Federal Police, who worked at the nuclear-testing sites non-liability treatment for all forms of cancer. Those found to be eligible were provided with a Department of Veterans' Affairs white card. We all remember those pictures of the young airmen and soldiers washing down aircraft in nothing more than their boots and shorts—no protective clothing whatsoever. I imagine it was the same for the Federal Police and other civilian officers who carried out associated services around the nuclear sites. As I said, if they were found to be eligible, the Department of Veterans' Affairs provided them with a white card.

This support was further enhanced last year with a new classification of service called the British Nuclear Test Defence Service. This was brought in to provide further compensation to these veterans after they proved a link between any incapacity or illness and their defence service. If such a link is proven, the Repatriation Commission will provide a compensation pension, and if the recipient is already receiving a disability pension at or above 100 per cent of the general rate, they will also be eligible for a gold card. Along with this, if their death can be linked to their defence service, their widow may be eligible to receive a war widows pension and a gold card. These changes were made through amendments to the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986.

The bill before us today provides further changes to that act and to the Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests (Treatment) Act 2006. The changes will broaden the eligibility criteria for these benefits. I am a passionate advocate for our veterans and believe that we owe them the very best possible health care and social support in recognition of their service to our nation, and even more so when they carried out that service in hazardous conditions. This bill goes some way towards that goal by giving the Repatriation Commission greater discretion in determining the eligibility for support of former Australian defence personnel who played a role in the British testing of nuclear weapons in the 1950s and 1960s. This bill is specifically inclusive of those who were involved in the maintenance, transporting or decontamination of aircraft used in the British nuclear test program. This included RAAF pilots and ground crew who were involved in the testing but who were based outside the immediate testing area.

It is thought that these changes will bring 10 individuals under the umbrella of the two acts, giving them access to health services, benefits and compensation that they previously could not access. Although the number of beneficiaries may be small, this is an important piece of legislation. It signifies more than a mere extension of benefits to a handful of veterans. It is a matter of important recognition. It has taken many years to get to this point of recognising our responsibilities to the men whose health has suffered because of their service to the nation. I feel there are more out there who deserve consideration for extra assistance from the Australian government.

By way of an aside, I would like to show a parallel construction. It is much like the F111 deseal-reseal workers who may be eligible for counselling services, ex gratia payments, compensation and health coverage following a parliamentary inquiry. I feel that former service personnel who worked as petroleum operators deserve consideration for similar assistance. Their cases are in parallel with those who worked under the British nuclear program and those who worked on the F111s. Their activities may not have been exactly analogous, but the principles upon which their compensation should be paid are much the same.

I want to draw the attention of the Main Committee to Mr Bob Ney, a constituent of mine from Hervey Bay, who previously served as both a warrant officer and a commissioned officer in the Army, working as a petroleum operator. His duties included supervising the storage and supply of fuel, the cleaning of storage containers and the maintenance of these devices. In recent years, Mr Ney has carried out extensive personal studies involving numerous former colleagues and service personnel to ascertain what, if any, health problems they experienced working in that petroleum field. He has documented many quite frightening cases. I have actually seen his research. He has case folios on individuals who served in that fuel area, along with photographs of the particular activities that they carried out. Back in the 1960s and 1970s, Mr Ney reported that it was quite common for petroleum operators to access storage tanks with little or no protective equipment. They would wear their standard leather boots, cotton uniforms and quite rudimentary breathing masks. You can see the parallel between the nuclear people, the F111 deseal-reseal people and the people in the petroleum field. In hindsight, there was very little knowledge of occupational health and safety and an apparent lack of adequate training in the handling of petroleum products, according to Mr Ney's research. The associated illnesses and conditions he reportedly found amongst former petroleum operators who were exposed to petroleum during the course of their duties included the following conditions: skin conditions, blood abnormalities, chronic medical conditions and even instances of cancer.

I have met with the minister to see whether a study similar to that conducted with respect to the F111 deseal-reseal program can be carried out. I must say that all of Minister Snowdon's communications with me have been courteous and helpful, and he has said that once the F111 study is completed he expects to look into other fuel related matters. While I do not doubt his sincerity for one moment, I think it is important that the work of people like Bob Ney be front and centre of the government's priorities. It is only right that people who have served our nation in the armed forces and who then require special medical treatment and compensation because of the specific duties they performed receive it in a fair, timely and appropriate manner. If they have been exposed to toxic environments as part of their professional work duties, they cannot be treated in later life as some form of military flotsam and jetsam to be put conveniently to one side. I thank the member for Banks for saying that. He said that people cannot just be put to one side and that we cannot turn a blind eye to some just because we hope to avoid a bit of compensation. These people should not have to fight to have their cases heard and nor should they have to claw their way back into the arena of public opinion to get a hearing.

Whether it is these 10 people to whom we extend the Commonwealth benefits dealt with in this bill today, whether it is the people in the F111 deseal-reseal activities, or whether it is the people who carried out fuel duties for the RAAF and the Army, who have not yet been recognised, there is a continuum there, and that continuum carries with it a responsibility that we do something about it.

I thought that it would be wise in this debate today to put Bob Ney and his colleagues on the agenda.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think it is important to adopt the principle that a wartime Labor Prime Minister enunciated—and these are my words, not his—that a grateful nation really ought to make sure that it pays debts to those people to whom we owe so much.

The reality is that because the conditions under which people served in conjunction with the British nuclear tests were so varied, and there were so many people and so many different categories, it is impossible when legislation is first enacted to cover the situations of all persons who deserve the protection of Australian law and indeed who deserve the protection of the veterans legislation. That is why I want to commend successive governments for being prepared to say that circumstances have changed, that new information has come to light, and that consequently the eligibility criteria ought to be widened. I believe that this bipartisan approach is something that all Australians would support.

We all know that between 1952 and 1963 nuclear weapons tests were conducted in Australia off the coast of Western Australia in the Montebello Islands and at Emu Field and Maralinga in South Australia. I would imagine that in 2011 no government would tolerate nuclear tests taking place in Australia, and nor would the Australian people. In principle we do not support nuclear tests taking place anywhere. But these tests did occur with the full agreement of the then government of Australia and they would have enjoyed broad support from the Australian people. Various amendments to acts of parliament have extended over a period the eligibility criteria for access to benefits, and as more medical and other knowledge becomes available it is only appropriate that we ought to continue to include others within the net of those people who are able to seek redress. After all, I do not believe that, at the time this service was conducted, the knowledge we have today on the adverse health effects could have been apparent. Today, were people involved in similarly hazardous activities then many more precautions would be taken. The honourable member for Hinkler, in his contribution, mentioned workplace health and safety. I suspect that, during the time these weapons tests were conducted, while the workplace health and safety standard then believed to be necessary was obviously followed, the extreme medical conditions suffered by so many people who served their nation in this way could not possibly have been envisaged. And it would be appalling were the government of the day to say, 'Well, too bad.' That is not the Australian way; the Australian way is to look at people who have served their nation, whether they be Commonwealth police, now members of the Australian Federal Police; whether they be protective service officers; whether they be people actually involved in the tests themselves; whether they be people who were involved in transporting material. All of those people played a very important part in making sure that the purposes of those tests were successful. And if, as a unwitting consequence, their health is adversely affected, as so many people have tragically been adversely affected in a health sense, it is vital that a compassionate nation recognises the debt that we owe these people who have made such an important contribution to their nation.

It is also very healthy that, in 2011, we do not in our community say that we do not support nuclear tests so therefore we are not going to give the medical assistance and other compensation necessary to give redress to people who were involved in those tests in Australia. One cannot reinvent history. The reality is that these tests took place in Australia. They were British tests but they were tests that took place with the full support of the Australian government and, in my view, the Australian people at the time. So I want to commend the minister and the government for bringing this legislation into the chamber. I anticipate that, as more information with respect to service and medical conditions becomes available, ministers in the future will bring in other amendments as required to further widen the field of those people able to access benefits. I commend the bill to the chamber and I congratulate the government for introducing it on this occasion.

Debate interrupted; adjournment proposed and negatived.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, I thank the members for Fadden, Ryan, Fisher, Hinkler, Shortland and Banks for their contributions to this discussion and to this bill, which amends the Veterans' Entitlements Act and the Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests (Treatment) Act 2006. The amendments will improve access to compensation and health care for former Defence Force members. You may be aware that claims have been received from a small number of personnel who should be, but are not currently, eligible under the acts in respect of their participation in the British nuclear test program. Unfortunately, previously British nuclear test eligibility under the acts was restricted to specified test sites defined by a kilometre radius during specified periods. Personnel who were either in the specified test sites during the specified periods or involved in the transport, maintenance, recovery or cleaning of equipment, vehicles or aircraft used in the specified sites during the specified periods are eligible. However, up till now this eligibility has not extended to transport, maintenance, recovery or cleaning of aircraft outside of the specified periods or used to measure fall-out outside the specified test sites. Personnel who worked on these aircraft prior to their decontamination should be in our view—but currently are not—eligible under the act as the work or contamination occurred outside the specified test sites or specified periods.

This bill will enable these and any future eligibility issues to be rectified in a timely manner. This will be achieved by enabling the Repatriation Commission to determine additional eligibility criteria relating to participation in the British nuclear test program, under both the Veterans' Entitlements Act and the Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests (Treatment) Act, through a legislative instrument. Due to the quality of the records from the test period and the secrecy surrounding the operation, further extensions of eligibility cannot be ruled out in the future. The use of legislative instruments to determine new eligibility criteria will enable the Department of Veterans' Affairs to be more responsive to British nuclear test participants and will enable compensation and health care to be provided with a minimum of delay. These amendments are a demonstration of the government's commitment to continually improve the services and support we provide to our current and former military personnel.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

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