This type of service relates to F-111 Deseal/Reseal workers who were working on the fuel tanks of the F-111 jets at the Amberley RAAF Base in Queensland. As a result of the Study of Health Outcomes in Aircraft Maintenance Personnel (SHOAMP) the then government announced an three tiered ex-gratia scheme for those maintenance workers who fulfilled certain criteria, and an additional health care scheme which provided a white card for those eligible.
F-111 Deseal/Reseal workers, who already had access to the SRCA, were granted access under section 7(2) of the Act which provides for coverage of certain conditions where the incidence of those conditions is higher amongst those employees than others doing different work in the same workplace. As a result of the SHOAMP a number of conditions are covered under the s7(2) provisions. Essentially this means that if the claimant is an F-111 Deseal/Reseal worker, and they are diagnosed with one of the conditions, liability will be accepted under the SRCA.
These cases have traditionally been handled by a specialised team in the Brisbane Office. A recent Parliamentary Inquiry into the F-111 Deseal/Reseal matter has been finalised and a report produced. More information is available on the internet mirror. Delegates who work outside the Brisbane office should not commence investigation on an F-111 without first consulting with their manager. More information is available on TRIM.
During the 1950s, the British Government conducted a number of nuclear tests in Australia which involved Australian Defence Force personnel. The tests were conducted at Emu Field and Maralinga in South Australia and at the Monte Bello Islands off the West Australian coast from 1952 to 1957. A non-liability health care scheme has been established for those persons working, or who were a visitor, in at least one of the test areas while tests were conducted or were present within a 2 year period after the test. Those who participated in minor nuclear test trials conducted between 1953 and 1963 are also eligible.
The DVA website contains the details of who is eligible, thus providing a definition of who falls into this specific type of service:
Definition of British Nuclear Test Participants [4]
Those who have been exposed to the action of ionising radiation as a result of the British Nuclear Tests may have their claim assessed under s 7(1) of the Act. See section 22.1 [5] of this manual for information on how to assess claims under s 7(1).
Where a delegate proposes to use s 7(1) for a BNT claim, a minute with details must be prepared and forwarded to the Director, Liability & Service Eligibility Policy in the Rehabilitation, Compensation & Income Support Policy Group for approval. The policy area contains details on the BNT testing sites and decontamination areas and administers the non-liability health care scheme. Note that if the claimant was not exposed to ionizing radiation (contrast for example radiation heat), their claim must be determined by the usual methods and not under s 7(1).
Delegates should also make sure that the BNT check flag on Defcare has been ticked, whether the claim is being processed under s 7(1) or through normal means.
Further information on the detonation, ADF personnel involved and decontamination locations and process can be found at the following link on the DVA external website:
Dosimetry and Cancer & Mortality Reports on BNT [6]
The Centre for Military and Veterans' Health (CMVH) was tasked with creating a hazard exposure profile for Australian Oberon Class submarines that were in service between 1967-2000 (all of which have now been decommissioned).
Tables 4 and 5, Appendix 5, in the resulting report detail the exposure profiles and level of evidence of the hazards identified in the project. These tables should be used as guidance when assessing a claim for a submariner who served
The profile shown in Tables 4 and 5 illustrate that exposure to certain asphyxiants such as carbon monoxide, hydrogen cyanide and hydrogen sulphide occurred on the Oberon Class submarines (all of which are specified by the Minister under section 7(1)). Additionally, Oberon submariners were significantly exposed to the more traditional types of workplace hazards such as noise, heat, musculoskeletal and psychological hazards. Whilst these types of hazards are not unique to the Oberon submarine, the context (of confined spaces and 24 hour exposures) in which the submariners were exposed was unique.
When considering all future claims relating to service aboard Oberon Class submarines, delegates are now required to have regard to the Tables at the end of this Businessline and also be aware that the provisions contained in section 7(1) of the SRCA may apply in certain circumstances.
Between 1950 and 1985 machines known as 'Jason Pistols' were used on HMAS Supply and HMAS Melbourne to scour paint and rust from the ships' superstructure. Other vessels and bases may also have used Jason Pistols. From time to time the Jason Pistols may have included a compound that included Beryllium which was emitted as a dust when the pistols were in use. When inhaled in dust form Beryllium may caused pneumonia-like symptoms similar to asbestosis. The condition is known as Berylliosis.
Under s7(1) where a person suffers from a disease caused by beryllium and it is confirmed that they were exposed to beryllium, for example, by using Jason Pistols while serving in the RAN, then liability for compensation for the disease will be accepted.
If a delegate is intending to accept a claim for beryllium exposure as a result of service in the Navy, the relevant check-box in Defcare should be selected. As with all other conditions to be accepted under s7(1) clarification from Defence through SAM is required to confirm possible or likely exposure to Beryllium. Some Navy medical records have been stamped indicating possible exposure to Beryllium as a result of using these tools, however not all records are stamped. The presence of a stamp on the medical records can be taken as evidence of possible exposure. Where there is no such stamp normal investigation procedures (i.e. an official response from Defence on possible exposure and other relevant evidence) should be followed.
A specialist's opinion will also be required to determine if the condition claimed is indeed a condition caused by expos — ure to Beryllium. If the claimant does not have a treating specialist, delegates should refer the claimant to a Respiratory or Occupational Physician or an Immunologist in the first instance. If the results are normal, then no further investigation is necessary. If the results are abnormal then the assessor should follow any further suggestions made by the medical practitioner that are considered necessary to obtain an accurate diagnosis.
In cases where the abnormal results indicate the likelihood of a beryllium related disease, and only on the recommendation of an appropriate qualified medical specialist, additional specialist laboratory immunology tests may be required. This may necessitate obtaining a specialised blood test that is not currently commercially available in Australia. It is known as the Beryllium Lymphocyte Proliferation Test (BeLPT). It requires fresh whole blood that is not more than 36 hours. The overseas tests take about one week to undertake, and are expensive. The logistics of getting fresh whole blood to an overseas accredited laboratory within 36 hours are problematic.
It should be noted that urine beryllium tests are only useful for detecting very recent exposure and that the specialist blood test (BeLPT) only shows a “sensitisation” due to exposure to beryllium. This “sensitisation” is a marker of possible progression to the development of the severe lung disease (Berylliosis) but is not by itself a disease.
Where beryllium exposure is confirmed and a disease which is characteristic of such exposure is diagnosed then under subsection 7(1) the claimant's employment can be taken to be a material contribution to contracting the disease and liability can be accepted.
See also: ADF Firefighters Scheme [10].
The Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Fair Protection for Fire-fighters) Bill 2011 was developed in recognition of the high level of exposure to toxins which is experienced by firefighters in the course of their employment and the subsequent medical conditions that may result from that exposure.
The Bill was introduced to the House of Representatives on 4 July 2011 and received Royal Assent on 6 December 2011.
The passage of the Bill resulted in amendments to the disease provisions contained in section 7 of the SRCA (now DRCA). Specifically, subsections 7(8) and 7(9) were included to create a legal presumption in situations where one of twelve “prescribed” types of cancer is contracted by a firefighter who has been employed in that capacity for a particular amount of time and who has been exposed to the hazards of a fire scene within that period. In situations where this is the case, their employment is taken to have contributed to a significant degree to the contraction of the disease for the purposes of the Act, unless the contrary can be established. Delegates should not actively seek to disprove a link to service.
A complete copy of the amendments to the SRCA which established subsections 7(8) and 7(9) is available to view online at http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2011A00182 [11]
The twelve primary cancer types and the minimum periods of service which a firefighter must have been employed, as set out in the legislation amendments commencing from 4 July 2011, are included in the following table. Item 13 also provides for additional types of cancer (and qualifying periods) to be prescribed at a later stage in accordance with section 122 of the Act.
Item | Disease | Qualifying period |
---|---|---|
1 | Brain cancer | 5 years |
2 | Bladder cancer | 15 years |
3 | Kidney cancer | 15 years |
4 | Non-Hodgkins lymphoma | 15 years |
5 | Leukaemia | 5 years |
6 | Breast cancer | 10 years |
7 | Testicular cancer | 10 years |
8 | Multiple myeloma | 15 years |
9 | Primary site prostate cancer | 15 years |
10 | Primary site ureter cancer | 15 years |
11 | Primary site colorectal cancer | 15 years |
12 | Primary site oesophageal cancer | 15 years |
13 | A cancer of a kind prescribed for this table | The period prescribed for such a cancer |
These DRCA provisions are not retrospective in application, meaning that the “presumptive” decision-making only applies to conditions that manifested after 4 July 2011. The amendments are therefore relevant to DVA clients if a former ADF member had the identified role of a firefighter and meets the requisite number of years of service prior to contracting one of the specified cancers.
Subsection 7(10) makes it clear that if a firefighter does not qualify under the new provisions then liability will continue to be assessed using the standard provisions in the Act (on the basis of specialist medical evidence).
From 5 October 2023, eight additional cancers were prescribed for the purposes of subsection 7(8) via amendments to the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Regulations 2019. These changes are prescribed in accordance with the provision in Item 13 of the table at subsection 7(8) of the DRCA, which allows for further conditions and qualifying criteria to be established via Regulations.
The eight new prescribed cancers and their qualifying periods are as follows:
Item | Disease | Qualifying period |
---|---|---|
1 | Primary site lung cancer | 15 years |
2 | Primary site skin cancer | 15 years |
3 | Primary site cervical cancer | 10 years |
4 | Primary site ovarian cancer | 10 years |
5 | Primary site penile cancer | 15 years |
6 | Primary site pancreatic cancer | 10 years |
7 | Primary site thyroid cancer | 10 years |
8 | Malignant mesothelioma | 15 years |
The expanded prescribed conditions apply only to veterans covered by the DRCA. All service by ADF firefighters rendered on or after 1 July 2004, is covered under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 (MRCA). Under the MRCA, there are no prescribed condition provisions. As such, all claims for liability relating to service after 1 July 2004 must be assessed according to the factors set out in the Statements of Principles for the relevant condition where these have been determined by the Repatriation Medical Authority.
Links
[1] https://clik.dva.gov.au/user/login?destination=node/20239%23comment-form
[2] https://clik.dva.gov.au/user/login?destination=node/20434%23comment-form
[3] https://clik.dva.gov.au/user/login?destination=node/20086%23comment-form
[4] https://www.dva.gov.au/benefits-and-payments/british-nuclear-tests/definition
[5] https://clik.dva.gov.au/military-compensation-srca-manuals-and-resources-library/liability-handbook/ch-22-declared-occupational-diseases/221-declared-occupational-diseases-s71-srca
[6] https://www.dva.gov.au/health-and-wellbeing/research-and-development/health-studies/british-nuclear-testing-australia
[7] https://clik.dva.gov.au/user/login?destination=node/20498%23comment-form
[8] https://clik.dva.gov.au/user/login?destination=node/20334%23comment-form
[9] https://clik.dva.gov.au/user/login?destination=node/20213%23comment-form
[10] http://auth-clik.dvastaff.dva.gov.au/military-compensation-srca-manuals-and-resources-library/point-cook-firefighters-adf-firefighters-scheme
[11] http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2011A00182
[12] http://auth-clik.dvastaff.dva.gov.au/compensation-and-support-reference-library/intent-paper/adf-firefighter-scheme