Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Democrats I wish to make some comments on the provisions of the Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests (Treatment) Bill 2006 and the Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests (Treatment) (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2006. This legislation is the government’s response to the findings from the dosimetry and mortality in cancer incidence study of the Australian participants in those tests, which were released in June this year. The study identified increased cancer rates and cancer deaths amongst participants of the tests. Cancer rates were in fact 23 per cent higher among the participants than in the general population and death rates were 18 per cent higher. This legislation essentially provides the equivalent of a veteran’s white card for cancer testing and treatment of surviving participants in those tests during the 1950s and 1960s.

The Democrats support efforts, however long overdue, to provide fair and just treatment to those Australians who were involved in the tests. This is a welcome step in the right direction: a bill providing for non-liability treatment for cancers for the participants. It is now 50 years since the tests took place. Many people were exposed to the radiation and it has harmed them. These people have been poorly treated in our view over the last half a century or so. Indeed, about half of the test participants—that is some 5,000 to 6,000 people involved in the tests—have died without recognition and without justice.

Unfortunately, this bill does not go far enough. It is an inadequate and miserly response. It does nothing to address the longstanding issues that service personnel and civilian participants have been asking to have resolved. The reality is that the people involved in the tests are getting older and the longer the government takes to respond to their concerns the fewer participants will be around to benefit.

It took years for the government to commission the study into the health consequences of exposure to radiation at the test sites and it took a further seven years for them to finish the study. I acknowledge that this is a difficult area to research and to find hard evidence. It was difficult because a lot of that evidence was kept secret, or in fact was not kept at all or was tossed away. Research gets harder of course the longer it is put off, but it does need to be acknowledged that there have been many criticisms of this government funded research—its methodologies, the findings, the processes involved in overseeing the report and of course the way that government has interpreted and used it. Those criticisms include: the nominal roll of participants used to create the sample for the study was deficient; the radiation dosages allocated to participants in the study were underestimated and the effects of the radiation dosages were underestimated. The evidence was said to be inadequate to explain the higher rate of cancer among the nuclear test participants by other, non-radiation, causes.

The study assessed the correlation between all cancers experienced by the study population and radiation doses, instead of focusing on the correlation with increased cancer experience. The study ignored what is commonly referred to as the ‘healthy soldier’ effect, instead preferring to use the general population as a comparison. The study did not include cancer related deaths in the assessment of cancer incidence in the study population. The study focused on ionising radiation and did not assess the health impacts of exposure to other substances related to participation in the tests, such as asbestos, beryllium and highly enriched uranium. It did not address other non-cancer effects of participation in the tests such as sterility, defective immune systems and the like. Due to lack of data the study did not cover the period prior to 1982, and other studies indicate that the incidence of cancer and cancer deaths among test participants may have been highest then. And the study did not include Indigenous people and others exposed to the effects of the tests such as pastoralists. All of these criticisms identify ways in which exposure to radiation and consequent illness would have been underestimated. It needs to be pointed out that these criticisms have been raised on a number of occasions and in various ways, but the government has failed to respond in any meaningful sort of way.

The government also ignores the recommendations from the Clarke review. Back in 2003 that review recommended:

Participation by Australian Defence Force personnel in the British atomic tests be declared non-warlike hazardous and the legislation be amended to ensure that this declaration can have effect in extending VEA coverage.

The review also recommended that the cancer and mortality study be finalised quickly. As I said, the participants in the tests had to wait three more years for the study results, and then all they have is this lame response. The committee’s main report acknowledges that, according to the Clarke report, coverage as hazardous service under the VEA would provide greater entitlements than offered by this legislation, particularly to the widows of service people.

The fact is that this legislation provides an ability to treat people for cancer but it does little else. It does nothing to respond to the other health needs of participants. It does not respond to the health needs that the children of participants may have. It does not do anything for the partners and families of participants who have died as a consequence of their exposure to radiation during the tests. And the legislation does not go to the question of compensation—and that is the glaring deficiency in terms of this legislation.

Compensation, as we all know, has been very difficult for these victims to obtain. Only nine cases to date of compensation related to the effects of ionising radiation have been made by the Australian government under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988. The current compensation pathways present many difficulties for participants trying to obtain compensation. It is time consuming, very expensive and places the burden of proof on the individual. I might say that it is also the case that the government has fought these cases actively. In 2006 there were no successful cases under that scheme. These individuals of course have difficulty accessing hospital and dosage records and are ill-matched to meet the resources of the government.

The government, through the provision of these compensation payments to a small number of successful claimants, has acknowledged its liability for exposure to radiation during the tests. The compensation provided by the British government and subsequent efforts to remediate Maralinga are also recognition of the contamination resulting from the tests. The government has finally recognised that it has an obligation to provide at least cancer treatment for test participants.

We say that the government should act with integrity towards those who participated in the tests and their families. It should stop hiding behind denials of the consequences of exposure to radiation and address the issue of compensation. But the government has missed the point. This is not simply about health care for cancer; it is about a great debt that Australia owes to those who were exposed to, in some cases, very high levels of radiation as a result of being participants. Often those people did not understand that this was likely but went in good faith to work on those tests. Some would say that their reward was grossly inadequate.