Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Before I start, I thank the member for McPherson for jumping to her feet and filling the gap while we were waiting for the member for Mackellar to come in. This is an important bill. It's a bill that fast-tracks industrial chemicals, and that has benefits. It assists some of those companies that are producing particular industrial chemicals to get their product onto the market quickly so that they can compete with overseas competitors. So it's a good thing. But we need to ensure that we fill some of the gaping holes that are in it. We heard the member for Makin say earlier that he will be moving some amendments and that there are some flaws in the bill, even though this side of the House will be supporting most of it.

The things that are lacking in this bill are, basically, the ability to create a register that tells us where the chemicals are being used, who is using the chemicals, how much of the chemicals are being used, and at what times over a period of time. Currently, companies must maintain records, so we are asking: why not just pass that record on for future governments, for future agencies, to be able to tackle any issues that perhaps arise in the future? Looking back in history, there are many products that were deemed to be very safe, but today we know of their long-term massive health effects on human beings. One of them that comes to mind, and I am sure everyone is aware of it, is asbestos. For many years we used this particular product in everything from buildings to paints—you name it—thinking it was safe. Then, years later, we discovered it was a very unsafe product and actually kills people. Another one is tobacco. For many years people thought it did no harm to your health—even though it is a different type of chemical to the ones we are talking about here—but we now know that it, too, kills people.

For us to get to the results and a final admission of danger to human life, it took many years. With asbestos, even today it can be in the body for years before tests show someone is affected. Therefore, we are saying there should be some form of register with an agency. There could be issues to do with ensuring that that register is used to track when issues do come up, when things go wrong in the future—and let's hope they don't—so that they can go back and know who has worked with that particular product, what sort of work has been done, where it has happened and what needs to be done.

A great example of this really important issue, something that resonates with many in the community, includes former firefighters and others in my electorate. My electorate has the airport in the middle of it, and firefighters use dangerous chemicals. For many years they were testing foams for emergency use at the airport. They were all told it was safe many years ago. They were told it was safe; they wore safety equipment. But now we know that it was very unsafe. These chemicals have seeped into the ground. They seep into the bloodstream of people working with them. I'm really glad that ABC's Four Corners recently raised this issue. They raised the issue of contamination around airports and RAAF bases all around Australia. Today we know that people who worked with those chemicals have had some adverse effects.

I first raised this matter in this place early last year, following a visit to my electorate office from some very concerned firefighters who had worked with chemicals at Adelaide Airport. We know it's not just limited to Adelaide Airport; there's Edinburgh in the northern suburbs of Adelaide; there are many RAAF bases around the country; and there are many airports around the country and in fact around the world that use this particular product. This particular constituent was a retired firefighter. He had 35 years of experience at Adelaide Airport as a firefighter and he was very concerned that when he was working there, in his younger days, this product was deemed to be safe, and then he found out later that it was not. Because it was in a confined area, they know where it was used, where the testing was done, where they did their emergency training and therefore where it has seeped into the ground, so they could contain it.

Many constituents and firefighters are asking for a greater government commitment to develop and to implement a testing and monitoring regime for some of these people. They have raised it with me on many occasions. They've raised it with the government on many occasions and through the firefighters union that covers them. I hope one thing today that these speeches do is raise this issue which has affected many people that worked with this foam in airports around the country and in RAAF bases that did training for fighting fires. It's an ongoing issue of contamination for defence and aviation sites around Australia—and the impact it is having on people in defence and aviation sites. Even residents around these areas are now concerned. But, as I said, because this particular product was used in one area, we know where it was tested and we know where they used it for their emergency training. We know exactly where it is. You can imagine the concern if this particular product was used all over the place—and it was used in many other products—and we didn't know where it was.

This legislation will create a register that's with a government agency. It will tell us where the chemicals have been used, what they've been used for and who has used them, for future reference. It has been said that that may be an onerous job for the industries and the companies that use these particular products, but they already must maintain a record of where they are using it, who is using it et cetera, so why not pass it on? It would be a very simple thing to do. We heard the member talk about ideology and things before. This is nothing to do with ideology. It is about common sense.

The particular substances that were used had great qualities in terms of doing the industrial work that was required. They had the ability to repel oil, grease and water and put out fires. They've been used in firefighting foams and chemicals and many other products around the world. In addition, these foams containing these chemicals have been deployed on fires at traffic and railway accidents, and even at building fires. It's not just those metropolitan areas; it is country and rural areas as well that have an issue with this particular product.

The foams have been used for nearly 50 years on defence and civilian facilities and in airports in Australia due to their effectiveness in extinguishing liquid fuel fires. Firefighters trained every day on airport facilities with these chemicals. Today we know that there have been some tests and that their blood has been tested. Some people have fairly high levels of this particular chemical in their systems. But unfortunately there are no regular checks. The levels may be safe today, but we don't know what the future holds for these people. There should be some form of regular testing for them so we can tell exactly how their health is going and how they are doing with this chemical that we know causes harm to humans. It also impacts our waterways, our groundwater and our oceans. It's not just firefighters and those who work with it; all of us are affected by these particular chemicals.

We heard the member for Mackellar talk about animal testing. There is a loophole in the legislation for a company that wishes to produce a product, if it's for cosmetic testing. We know that there are no animal products that should be used because we also know, as the member for Mackellar said, that companies really want to sell the product to consumers, who don't want to be turned off by hearing about animal testing, et cetera. But the loophole nevertheless exists, if a company wanted to circumvent this particular 'no animal testing' law. If it's for cosmetics, yes, there is no animal testing. But if you are producing a chemical or a product for industry, then you can use animal testing. It's no secret that on this side of the House we would stop animal testing altogether if we could. There is a loophole there and that has to be looked at as well so companies cannot circumvent the legislation that currently exists.

To put it in a nutshell, the bill establishes a legislative framework for the Australian Industrial Chemicals Introduction Scheme, or the AICIS, and that will replace the National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme. It'll regulate the introduction, whether by importation or manufacture, of industrial chemicals. There's a cost recovery principle, which will be retained in the new scheme. The new scheme implements a risk-based approach to the regulation of industrial chemicals. Significantly, there will be less emphasis on the pre-introduction assessment of lower-risk new chemicals and a greater focus on the post-introduction evaluation and monitoring.

As I said at the beginning, I don't think we have a problem with the concept of the bill. It does assist companies to fast-track the industrial chemicals that they're producing. There are benefits for them, and it ensures that they're competing with overseas companies that are producing the same sorts of products. This is a good thing. But we just want to ensure that some of the small loopholes that are there are filled so that we don't go through what we've already been through over the years with a range of other products that we thought were safe. We had human beings who had been working with these particular products for years and it was being denied that there was anything wrong happening to them because of the product they worked with. We saw that with asbestos. We saw the massive court cases that took place, with people fighting and saying, 'No, it had nothing to do with your bad health today.' What we must do is maintain a good register so that, in years to come, if there are any issues with a worker who has worked with these products, we know where to find them and how to track them down so we can give them the assistance that may be required.

Many new products come on the market. They are deemed safe and they look good, but we don't know what the results will be for years. I mentioned two of them very quickly—asbestos and this foam, which has an effect in my own electorate and many electorates around the country that have airports. They are both products that people worked with, that they thought were safe and that did good things. But, in the end, we found out that, for all the good they did in putting out oil based fires and liquid based fires, they also did a lot of damage to the environment and massive damage to human beings. But because those were contained within the airports around the country, we know the people who worked there and we know the geographic land area where these chemicals were used. So we want to ensure that that takes place. We want to ensure that that loophole is closed to keep people safe when they're working with products.

See this speech in context