Annette Hurley (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs) Share 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.