Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present additional information received by committees relating to the following estimates:

Community Affairs Committee––1 volume

Economics Committee––2 volumes

Employment, Workplace Relations and Education Committee––2 volumes

Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Committee––1 volume

Finance and Public Administration Committee––1 volume

Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee––2 volumes

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee––3 volumes

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the additional information from estimates for the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee. I seek leave to incorporate my speech, which I understand has been agreed. In addition, I seek leave to table documents which are referred to in my incorporated contribution.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

Estimates is an important time and often we deal with issues relating to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and transport safety in particular.

On 13 August I raised my concern about cabin air quality in aircraft operating in Australia.

I tabled documents that represented agreements between airlines, aircraft manufacturers and component manufacturers.

These agreements provided for compensation for known defects. They contained confidentiality clauses that kept their existence secret.

At the conclusion of my remarks on 13 August I called on the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to investigate the existence of these or any other agreements between aircraft operators and aircraft or component manufacturers relating to known defects.

I called on the Howard Government to reveal whether information about defects has been withheld from the regulator, the courts or the parliament.

And I urged the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee to consider whether one or more witnesses before its inquiry into cabin air quality may have given false or misleading evidence.

I regret that CASA, the government and the committee have failed to answer my call.

I consider this an important issue for the very reason stated in the 2000 committee report into cabin air quality—namely, that:

... chemicals introduced into an aircraft cabin can be an important factor in an aircraft’s safe and comfortable operation. Excessive levels of chemical contamination can affect two aspects of aircraft operations: the operational environment and the working and travelling environment; a fact apparent to airline operators, to aircrew and to every airline passenger.

Since my remarks on 13 August I have become aware of documents that shine further light on knowledge of known defects.

Defects that result in contaminated air entering the cabin space of aircraft operating in Australia.

A 1993 document titled ‘settlement agreement’ contains the terms of an agreement between Eastwest Airlines, Ansett Airlines and Avco Corporation through its Textron engine division.

It says this:

Ansett and EWA have alleged that they experienced engine bleed air problems between the date of purchase of the aircraft in 1989 and early 1993 (the “incidents”) and that their experiences with the Engines has shown that various deficiencies and inadequacies exist in the Engines, and that such deficiencies and inadequacies have resulted in economic loss to Ansett and EWA ...

The document provides for a cash payment to East West of one hundred and fifty thousand US dollars.

It additionally provides for a parts credit in the favour of Ansett and East West of one hundred thousand dollars.

Like other agreements to which I have referred, this agreement contains a confidentiality clause keeping its existence secret from parties including aircraft crew, passengers and the media.

Mr President

A critical issue in the Senate inquiry into cabin air quality was whether the compound tricresyl phosphate—known as TCP—had been detected in an Australian aircraft.

At a hearing on 2 November 1999, Dr David Lewis, the chief medical officer of Ansett Australia, told the committee:

... the chemical that everybody is worried about and is surmising is the cause of the problem has never been recorded in an aircraft. This is TCP, tricresyl phosphate.

This evidence is directly contradicted by an email communication from Allied Signal, a manufacturer of auxiliary power units, to Dr Lewis himself on 4 September 1997.

Headed “Preliminary Trip Report for Air Quality Testing at Ansett”, the communication begins this way:

One ground test and five flight tests were performed while at Ansett Airlines in Brisbane, Australia from August 22 to 25, 1997.

It says, in direct contradiction to evidence received and accepted by the Senate committee:

Tricresyl phosphate is being detected by health and safety measurements during and after pack burns. Levels measured on the bleed air contamination pack burn were 4 times greater than we allow for engine acceptance in our APU facilities.

It’s not just evidence about TCP that concerns me.

In a facsimile communication to Ansett executive Captain Trevor Jensen on 4 December 1997, Dr Lewis made reference to the receipt of an Allied Signal report later that day.

In respect to the BAe aircraft, Dr Lewis notes that the aircraft fails critical safety standards.

First, the aircraft “fails” the standard requiring compartments used by passengers and crew to be ventilated so there is adequate air distribution to all parts.

Second, the aircraft “fails” the standard requiring precautions to be taken to preclude the contamination of air in occupied compartments arising from the use of fluids liable to give off noxious or toxic vapours.

Third, the aircraft “fails” the standard precluding the use of materials which give off noxious fumes leading to the dangerous contamination of cabin air.

Fourth, the aircraft “fails” the standard requiring that the probability of failure of components, pipes and ducting in the air supply system is “greater than extremely remote”.

Mr President

Finally, I wish to bring to the attention of the Senate an email by the toxicologist who prepared Mobil’s submission to the Senate inquiry, Dr Carl Mackerer.

He was identified in evidence as Mobil’s “principal toxicologist”.

In an email dated 4 October 2000—the same month the committee reported to the Senate—Dr Mackerer said this:

... we have not moved forward toward solving this problem.

Of course the oils have not received the same amount of testing as a drug would receive because they are not meant for high dose long term health exposures...

Compounding the problem is that, despite extensive research, no acceptable replacement for TCP has been found that will allow an oil to pass the stringent engine tests, and the market for the oil is very small for a large company to pursue, however, only a large company with [an] existing world wide distribution network can handle such a low volume product (internet not withstanding).

The profit on this product is not high enough to support a very expensive research program by the oil manufacturers  ...

Mr President

The concerns I expressed in this place on 13 August have been met by silence from the government and CASA.

Last month I called on CASA to investigate the existence of agreements between aircraft operators and aircraft or component manufacturers relating to known defects.

I called on the government to reveal whether information about defects has been withheld from the regulator, the courts or the parliament.

Finally, I called on the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee to consider whether one or more witnesses before its inquiry into cabin air quality may have given false or misleading evidence.

I reiterate those calls tonight with reference to the additional material I have brought to the attention of the Senate.

Mr President

We all know we are on the eve of an election.

Election fever is convulsing those on the other side, but that’s no excuse for the government ceasing to govern.

The executive remains accountable to this Parliament for its actions, whatever the political season.

I want an answer to my questions that concern the health, welfare and safety of aircraft passengers and crew.

This is a matter that transcends partisan politics. It even transcends domestic politics.

As I have previously noted, questions about the existence of agreements with BAe have been raised by a member of the House of Lords.

The UK’s Private Eye magazine has recently reported my tabling of agreements in this place, noting that:

Both deals contained secrecy clauses prohibiting disclosure—extraordinary in an industry where issues relating to safety and health should be paramount.

I wholeheartedly agree.

That’s why I am disappointed the government has been silent about corporate deals on cabin air quality—deals that, in my view, should never have been made.

It’s time CASA and the government stopped pointing to overseas studies on cabin air quality and accounted for their own knowledge and conduct over the past decade and more.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the additional information from estimates for the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee.

Question agreed to.