Senator Woodley

9.51am - 12/10/00

 

 

 

 

 

Senator WOODLEY  (Queensland) (9.51 a.m.) --I present the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee entitled Air safety and cabin air quality in the Bae 146 aircraft, together with the Hansard record of the committee's proceedings and documents received by the committee.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator WOODLEY --I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

This was a very arduous inquiry, one in which we had to deal with conflicting expert evidence. That is not unusual, but it was a very important inquiry, and hinging on the acceptance or otherwise of that expert evidence were some very serious matters. It was a report that went through numerous drafts because the committee itself was very keen to make sure that what was said in that report would in fact take account of the evidence which we had received and that it put down recommendations which would take us forward in terms of this issue.

I want to thank very sincerely my colleagues on the committee and particularly the committee secretariat. John O'Keefe and Andrew Snedden had to endure many meetings over the report and had to revise the report numerous times. I thank them for their patience and their attention to that detail. I would also like to thank the research person in my office, Vivienne Wynter, who had to endure innumerable phone calls, emails, faxes and letters in an almost constant bombardment for over 12 months from people who were concerned about this issue.

There is international interest in this issue. Inquiries similar to the inquiry which we conducted are being conducted at present in the United Kingdom and in the United States. My office was contacted by media, not only from here in Australia but from the United Kingdom, Sweden and Italy. As part of my interest in the inquiry, I visited the House of Lords committee, which was conducting a similar inquiry, and had a conversation with Lady Wilcox, the chair of that inquiry. They have decided not to release their report until our report is available because they believe that we may have some things to say which they want to take note of. In terms of international interest, I note the interest of Professor Baloet of France and Professor Van Nettan of Canada. There is tremendous interest in this whole issue of air safety and of cabin air quality. I do not think tabling this report will see the end of those inquiries. In fact, I know that it will not.

I want to deal with a number of the issues in the report, first of all with the medical issues. Under this heading, conflicting evidence was received. The committee has noted the behaviour of one of the medical experts who appeared before us, Dr Loblay. We were disappointed that his attacks on other medical witnesses reduced the value of his evidence, but we did include some of that evidence because it gave the other side of the story and therefore enabled us to have balance in the report. We were disappointed, however, that he attacked other medical experts and spent a fair bit of his time in doing that. He did not make a written submission to the committee but used parliamentary privilege to attack others.

The committee noted that the weight of evidence, in terms of those who appeared, was on the side of those who recognised that there is a serious health problem that we are dealing with. The committee recognised that this health problem affects some but not all of those who are involved in flying and crewing the BAe146 aircraft. We note that Alysia Chew, one of the flight attendants, had her case decided in the New South Wales court and that the judge said that her pre-existing illness was exacerbated by the fumes in this aircraft, but underlined that the issue of whether this is a short- and medium-term health problem or a long-term health problem is yet to be decided. For that reason the committee has recommended the National Health and Medical Research Council undertake extensive research into this area. The committee notes that there is dispute about what is called the `aerotoxic syndrome', which is to do with the cumulative effect of exposure to fumes. This is still under dispute, but the committee believes there is enough evidence to raise serious questions and so we, again, have referred this matter to the National Health and Medical Research Council.

There was great debate amongst the witnesses about whether or not this was a health or a safety issue, and there were those who wanted to distinguish between those two. The committee believes that that is an artificial distinction. If health is impaired and therefore performance is impaired for flight crew, then this is also a safety issue. We note that both pilots and flight attendants have been impaired in their operation. Therefore it is not only a health but also a safety issue.

The committee noted that the BAe146 has particularly shown up this problem under Australian conditions. We are not sure why, but particularly the heat and probably the long distances flown may have exacerbated the problem. It has been long running issue. We recognise attempts by Ansett to solve the problem: more than any other airline and more than the manufacturer, Ansett has put a lot of money into trying to solve the problem. The committee particularly thanks Ansett for its cooperation in helping us to understand the issues. However, I need to say that we have not necessarily agreed with the airlines' evidence at some points. So although we thank the airlines, it does not mean that we necessarily agree with them on every point.

The Senate found that this problem potentially breaches several civil aviation regulations of this country. It causes short- to medium- and possibly long-term illness and may jeopardise our safety. The report recommends a major clinical study into the effect of contaminated aircraft cabin air on human health. We have recommended that the problem that I have referred to before, known as aerotoxic syndrome, should be considered for inclusion in the National Occupational Safety Code for reference in future workers compensation and income protection issues. We have asked CASA to go back and have another look at the BASI report. In the first instance they said that they were not going to take up the recommendations in the BASI report, and we have said they must go back and look at it again. The Senate committee believes the manufacturer of British Aerospace Systems could do more to take responsibility for this problem. It is about corporate responsibility and accountability.

Finally, a number of journalists have been very helpful in getting this inquiry out into the public arena, and we certainly want to thank them. I particularly acknowledge the work of former Age investigative journalist Tanya Ewing, Phillip Williams of the 7.30 Report, and ABC Radio Current Affairs. They have all followed this issue very doggedly. Other reporters have taken the time to show an interest, and to them we owe a debt of gratitude; for it was the Senate inquiry and the associated media coverage that placed public pressure on the airlines and CASA to take this problem seriously. I also want to acknowledge some of the flight crew who first brought the problem to the attention of my staff and me. I would like to particularly thank Judy Cullinane, Susan Michaelis, the Flight Attendants Association of Australia, and the AFAP, as well as the medical and occupational health and aviation specialists who worked to shine some light on this issue. It has been a case where the Senate and the institution of journalism were a last resort for the people affected. I also thank the airlines for their cooperation with the inquiry. (Time expired)

 
Back to top