Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The coalition support the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (2010 Budget Measures) Bill 2010 and related bill. It makes five minor housekeeping amendments to the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986. All the provisions are noncontroversial and we support them. We have one criticism of the process. This has been languishing in the House of Representatives for seven months and we believe that it should have been dealt with in a more timely fashion. Nevertheless, the coalition support the bills.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will make some brief remarks on the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (2010 Budget Measures) Bill 2010 and related bill. Veterans of British atomic weapons testing that occurred in Australia between 1952 and 1963 at Maralinga, Emu Field and the Monte Bello Islands have been calling for compensation for a very long time. Some of them have joined a class action in Britain now that the EU high court has ruled that they deserve a day in court so that they can make their case.

Former opposition Labor spokesman, now Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, Alan Griffin, acknowledged, during the 2006 election campaign, that Australian members of the armed services were used as guinea pigs in its tests and that the strategic ambitions of the UK were given priority over the safety and wellbeing of people that the Australian government should have been protecting. That was a very clear acknowledgment of responsibility and perhaps even liability. The bills we are debating today address the neglect that these people have endured for decades. Of course, the Greens welcome this. I add my comments to those of Senator Parry that these bills have been held up, for some reason that we simply do not understand, in the House of Representatives. We believe that the compensation is clearly insufficient but it is welcome that these bills are with us today.

We believe that given these people were exposed to ionising radiation and that there are severe health impacts arising from this, they should get full comprehensive health care, in particular at a gold card standard, as many of their advocates have been claiming. I understand that in this legislation as it is drafted there is no automatic access to the gold card for British nuclear test participants. However, if they become eligible for a disability pension of a rate equal to or greater than 100 per cent of the general rate, my understanding is that, as the bill is written, they will receive a gold card. Widowers of nuclear test veterans and participants who become eligible for a war widow or widowers pension will receive a gold card.

The Greens believe that it is not too much to ask to simply extend this protection further and extend the gold card as a matter of routine to these participants in the tests. There is strong evidence internationally of genetic effects of nuclear tests on children and grandchildren of those exposed, that the damage wrought by ionising radiation affects the very DNA that makes us human, and that these effects are carried on through the generations. For families and particularly the children of nuclear veterans, we believe the government should be taking great care to recognise if second and third generations have been affected by their parents’ or grandparents’ exposure to this radiation and, if they have been, then we have an obligation to care for them.

While this legislation does not address this issue, the belated acknowledgment of the health impacts on veterans should lead also to acknowledgement of effects still being endured by Aboriginal people. Of course, this legislation is completely silent on those who were inadvertently and against their will exposed to radiation, to the fallout and to the trauma of having their lands bombed for British nuclear tests. The compensation and the recognition for Aboriginal people has been utterly insufficient. It has been a shameful and terrible story which is deserving of an apology, because these people were not warned and they were not looked after.

Senator Faulkner recently provided information to the Senate in response to a question of mine about the very small sums of money that have been paid that pale into insignificance when compared with the budget line items set aside in this and future budgets for veterans. I am of course not arguing for the funding to veterans or to service personnel to be cut; I am arguing that Aboriginal people affected by the tests should also receive just compensation and health care. To date, the government’s response has been utterly insignificant to the trauma that these people experienced.

I am hoping, if the system is working, to move a second reading amendment. I will read it through so that the chamber is aware of the second reading amendment that I am seeking to move. It reads:

… the Senate calls on the Government to extend eligibility for the Repatriation Health Card—All conditions (known as the ‘Gold Card’) to former ADF members in the new category of service established by this bill, the British nuclear test defence service, and to their medically-affected dependants.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will be supporting the second reading amendment of Senator Ludlam and I join with him in his sentiments and his concerns. These British atomic weapons detonation tests that were conducted at Emu Field, Maralinga in South Australia and the Monte Bello Islands off the west coast of Western Australia were conducted to enable the United Kingdom to develop nuclear fission bombs and later nuclear fusion, or hydrogen, bombs; and the tests were carried out with the full cooperation of the Australian government under Prime Minister Menzies. More than 17,000 Australian soldiers and civilians were directly involved in the tests and assessment of the fallout from the tests. Many of these Australians have gone on to suffer a range of illnesses as a result of dangerous and continued exposure to high levels of radiation from cancers to genetic diseases inherited by their children. In May 2007, Professor Al Rowland, from Massey University in New Zealand, published a scientific paper on chromosome damage, providing hard evidence of the relationship between the exposure to the ionising radiation from the atomic blasts and certain cancers and birth defects.

Today only 2,500 ex-service men and women out of the 8,000 who were involved in the nuclear testings are still alive. Over the past few months that I have been approached on this issue, I have been contacted by veterans who were involved in the nuclear testing. One of them was Geoffrey, who was 23 years old when he served at Maralinga with the Air Force. He arrived in the middle of 1961 just after two major bombs had been tested. During his 12 months on the base, tests on smaller nuclear weapons were continuing as well as assessment of the fallout from these bombs. Geoff tells me how he recalls walking in the dust, wearing nothing more than a singlet and shorts. He admits he volunteered to go there but says had he known of the risks, had he been told about the risks, he would have stayed away as far as possible. Geoff has survived a brain tumour, and both his son and grandson suffer severe health effects. Geoff blames these illnesses on his time at Maralinga. Sadly, Geoff’s story is one of many. Some veterans have told me about how they did nothing more than turn their backs for mere moments before turning back around to watch the aftermath of the explosion.

I am pleased that through this bill the government has finally introduced one of the recommendations of the Clarke review to recognise veterans in the atomic tests as ‘non-warlike hazardous’ under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act. That is a good thing. Under this amendment, veterans will be able to access a disability pension and healthcare treatment for conditions arising from their service, and war widows and widowers can access pensions where the death of the service person is attributable to that service.

Another thing that needs to be said is that in 1993 the government accepted a ₤20 million ex gratia payment, valued at approximately $100 million today, from Britain. The deal was negotiated by the then Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, Simon Crean, and the then Minister for Foreign Affairs, Gareth Evans. The government argued that this fund was to go towards repatriation of the land; however, in a speech to the House in October 2006, Minister Crean said:

We successfully got the British government to make a contribution of some ₤20 million—an outcome that was designed to, in its own words, support future claims for compensation for participants.

In other words that fund should have been used to give direct compensation for participants, not used just for cleaning up the land. He went on to say that ‘it was recognised that there could be future claims’. As I understand it, that money has solely gone for rehabilitation of the land and not for compensation of victims.

There is now a court case in the UK which Australian veterans are seeking to join—it is a very difficult and expensive case—so that they can get lump-sum compensation, and I wish them well in that class action. Unfortunately, even if they were to be successful in this lawsuit, under the agreement of the 1993 ex gratia payment, any compensation may have to be paid to the Australian government. That is an area of real concern. In any event, I hope that they are successful with their claim.

I commend the government for at least acting on the Clarke review recommendations. We need to go further, as Senator Ludlam said, but at least this is a first step to assist veterans.

Mark Arbib (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Government Service Delivery) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Ludlam and Senator Xenophon for their comments and their sentiment. The government appreciates the Greens’ concerns on this issue, but their position unfortunately is not supported by the evidence. This would not be a responsible measure, and therefore the government opposes the amendment.

Question negatived.

Original question agreed to.

Bills read a second time.