Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to 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.

Annette Hurley (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This legislation is of particular interest to me because many of the people involved still live in my home state of South Australia, or their families do. Labor supports 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 in their provision of non-liability treatment and testing of cancers among participants in the British nuclear tests in Australia.

Whilst Labor does support these bills, it should be noted that the bills do little to address the longstanding issues of recognition and compensation for the ill effects that are claimed to have been suffered by the nuclear test participants. The issues of recognition and compensation are especially pertinent to the Australian servicemen who participated in the tests. These servicemen have argued for a long time that their service should be classified as ‘non-warlike hazardous’ under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act. They argue that a declaration of non-warlike hazardous service is justified due to the very unique nature of the tests.

The decision to grant a declaration of non-warlike hazardous service for any conflict or group can often be very controversial. Therefore, it is no surprise that the government asked the Clarke review to examine the standing of the Australian servicemen in respect of the VEA. The 2003 Clarke review examined this issue. Their conclusions were as follows:

The Committee believes that the British atomic test series was a unique, extraordinary event in Australia’s history. Atomic devices were exploded in Australia, with Australian forces potentially exposed to levels of radiation beyond what would today be considered safe levels. By common sense and by any reasonable measure, service in the test operations must be regarded as involving hazards beyond those of normal peacetime duties.

There is evidence that members of Australia’s armed services were placed in danger from ionising radiation and other toxic materials used in the test program, and natural justice for these members is long overdue. The Commonwealth Government should provide these members of Australia’s armed services with compensation coverage under the VEA.

The Committee considers that service with the British atomic tests should be assessed as non-warlike hazardous service for the purposes of the VEA. A declaration of non-warlike hazardous service would provide the ADF personnel who participated in the testing program with, at least, immediate and free health care for all cancers and for posttraumatic stress disorder whilst claims for compensation are made and determined under the VEA.

The Committee notes the development of a nominal roll of Australian atomic test participants. While it appears that many of the people whose names are on the preliminary roll may have left test sites prior to any tests being undertaken, the Committee also notes advice from DVA that the Department is aware of concerns about the accuracy of the roll and that work is continuing to refine it further. The Committee also notes that a proposal for reconstruction of dosage estimates is being considered. These matters need to proceed quickly and Government should assist with additional resources if necessary. The Government should also consider thoroughly addressing the concerns of the atomic test participants about access to records.

The committee recommended that:

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

The Government move quickly to finalise the cancer and mortality study.

With these bills today, the government appears to have ignored these recommendations of its own taxpayer funded independent review. Not only has it ignored the recommendations of this independent review but also it has ignored a wide variety of ex-service organisations.

The Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade examined these pieces of legislation and the report was tabled yesterday after a public hearing on Monday. At the public hearing a number of ex-service organisations supported bringing the servicemen who participated in the tests under the VEA. These organisations included the RSL, the Australian Nuclear Veterans Association, the National Servicemen’s Association of Australia, the Regular Defence Force Welfare Association, the Injured Service Persons Association and the Australian Veterans and Defence Services Council. It is a shame that the government has failed to take the advice of these organisations in its decision to not extend coverage under the VEA for servicemen who participated in the tests.

I must admit that I find the minister’s refusal to implement this recommendation disappointing given that, when he was a backbencher, he wrote a submission to the Clarke review on this issue. I would now like to quote from it. It says:

Of all the individual cases and VEA ‘disappointments’ I have canvassed ... two distinct classes of claims seem unfairly treated.

I write in support of operational service such as mine clearing and nuclear veterans’ service being declared Hazardous Service under the Veteran’s Entitlements Act 1986.

Nuclear Veteran’s service should be declared as Hazardous service by the Review of Veterans’ Entitlements (Clarke Review), as Australian Defence Force (ADF) personnel involved in the British atomic tests in Australia were placed in a life threatening environment. Only now are they and the community experiencing the true consequences of their service, in particular, the devastating impact of exposure on the health and wellbeing of our veterans.

A high proportion of our veterans involved in the atomic tests have experienced conditions attributed to their exposure to radiation, with many losing their lives.

The current minister, then a backbencher, concludes:

Veterans involved in British Atomic tests and mine clearance exercises deserve to be recognised as having carried out Hazardous Service. Although the battlefield may be less conventional the threat to life and the danger to which our veterans were exposed amount to an active deployment into harms way.

This raises the question of why the minister has dropped his support for the atomic test veterans. Why, when the minister finally had the chance to fix what he himself has called ‘unfair treatment’ and ‘disappointments’, did he not take it? Why, when so many ex-service organisations have come out in support of the Clarke recommendations, has the minister ignored them?

Labor support the bills, especially the awarding of non-liability treatment to all participants. However, servicemen are not included. Our position is that the government has not gone far enough and that, under the VEA, this legislation should have also awarded coverage to servicemen. It has been a longstanding position of the Labor Party that, when in government, we will reconsider this government’s refusal to recognise the service of the atomic test veterans as ‘non-warlike hazardous’.

Finally, I urge the minister to read the committee report and to consider some of the issues that were raised with regard to the health study which formed the basis of this legislative response. The committee report noted criticisms of the study—which Senator Allison outlined in her contribution—which included that 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; the effects of the radiation dosages were underestimated; and there was insufficient evidence to explain the higher rate of cancer among the nuclear test participants by other non-radiation causes. Further, 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 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. The study did not address other non-cancer health effects of participation in the tests, such as sterility and defective immune systems, due to lack of data. The study did not cover the period prior to 1982, when other studies indicate that the incidence of cancer and cancer deaths among test participants may have been highest. The study did not include Indigenous people and others who were exposed to the effects of the tests.

It should be noted that the committee in no way could validate any of these concerns. However, the committee noted its concern that the department’s conduct of the consultation process had drawn criticism from a range of people and organisations. I urge the minister to address some of these concerns, and I suggest that he organise meetings with some of the more strident critics of the health study. While these bills do not go far enough and fail to address the issue of recognition for servicemen, Labor will support them. We hope that they will make a big difference to those most in need of this treatment.

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

I move the second reading amendment standing in my name:

At the end of the motion, add “and the Senate:

             (a)    notes the criticisms of the findings and methods of the Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests in Australia Dosimetry and Mortality and Cancer Incidence Study;

             (b)    affirms that the bill does not preclude subsequent compensation claims and arrangements; and

             (c)   recommends consideration of continued data collection and epidemiological studies of cancer incidence and deaths subsequent to 2001”.

Sandy Macdonald (NSW, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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 give effect to the government’s decision to provide non-liability treatment and testing for cancer for eligible Australian participants of the British nuclear tests. I thank Senator Hurley and Senator Allison for their general support of the legislation. The government will not be accepting the second reading amendment moved by Senator Allison on behalf of the Democrats. However, the decision on the amendment will made by the Senate.

The government has recognised the special health needs of some nuclear test participants identified through the Mortality and Cancer Incidence Study conducted on behalf of the Repatriation Commission. Although the study found that the rate of some cancers among nuclear test participants was higher than in the general Australian population, it did not link the increase in cancer rates to exposure to radiation. Despite this lack of association between cancer rates and radiation exposure, the government has decided that it is appropriate to provide treatment for nuclear participants who have any form of cancer.

Persons who may be eligible under this legislation are Australian Defence Force personnel, Australian Public Service employees and third-party civilian contractors. Treatment will be provided through the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, and persons eligible will have access to extensive healthcare services, including GP services, hospital care and pharmaceutical benefits. Persons eligible under this legislation will also be entitled to travelling expenses for costs incurred in receiving treatment or testing for cancer. Furthermore, Australian nuclear test participants will have continued access, under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, to existing statutory workers compensation schemes and to the administrative scheme administered by the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations.

These bills will also assist in addressing the health needs of the Australian military and civilian personnel who participated in the British nuclear tests and they demonstrate this government’s commitment to this group of Australians. I commend these bills to the Senate and note their part in providing good social policy outcomes for Australia’s veteran community to whom we owe so much.

Question negatived.

Original question agreed to.

Bills read a second time.