John McVeigh (Groom, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I present the committee's report entitled Inquiry into PFAS remediation in and around Defence bases—First report.

Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).

by leave—Today I present the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade's first report into the Department of Defence's national PFAS Investigation and Management Program. This report follows on from the joint committee's previous review of the management of PFAS contamination in and around Defence bases, conducted in the 45th Parliament.

Per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances, known collectively as PFAS, are a growing environmental challenge. These manufactured chemicals have had wide domestic and industrial application for over 20 years. They are very persistent in the environment and are biocumulative in the bodies of living organisms.

The Department of Defence's national program focuses on remediation of contamination by PFAS based firefighting foams. Aqueous film-forming foams have been very effective in containing fuel and chemical fires. Unfortunately, high concentrations of PFAS are now found in soils and waters around Defence bases and are an environmental hazard for surrounding communities.

The joint committee's last parliament report on this matter, tabled in December 2018, made nine recommendations covering national coordination, health advice and obligations to affected communities, among other matters. With government still considering its response to that review, the report I present today commences a program of scrutiny which will not only monitor Defence's progress but also consider government-wide obligations to PFAS-affected communities.

The Department of Defence established its national program in 2016. At the end of last year there were 28 Defence sites under investigation for PFAS contamination. From experience, like other members of this House, I know the presence of PFAS can be very distressing. Oakey, in my electorate of Groom, was the first Defence remediation site. PFAS can divide communities, disrupt local economies and cause uncertainty, because the health impacts are yet to be fully evaluated or confirmed. In this situation, the government's priority has been to remove PFAS from the environment as quickly and as effectively as possible.

Defence told the committee at its review that its PFAS remediation methods are increasingly effective. Advanced technologies extract PFAS contaminants from water to drinking-water-safety standards. Soil is being cleaned for re-use, extracted PFAS concentrations can now be stored securely and research is underway to break these chemicals down. Defence is also to be commended for its public information program. Its website is now well developed. There are reports on all affected sites under investigation and management, with monitoring data regularly updated.

At the same time, the committee notes that there are no financial or detailed performance reports on PFAS identifiable in either the 2017-18 or the 2018-19 Defence annual reports. The committee also considered that information could be better calibrated so that affected communities get the advice they need on core matters, the implications for property post treatment and, of course, the ongoing health and safety of families in those communities.

At the first hearing in this inquiry, the committee heard from the ANU's PFAS health study of the volume of overseas research being done to establish the health impacts of PFAS. The ANU aims to deliver verifiable local data on both the physical and mental effects of PFAS by the end of this year. Meanwhile, the safety standards for PFAS in soil and water are being made more robust as evidence mounts on the detrimental effects of high-PFAS concentrations in the environment. In this context, this first report from our subcommittee does not yet make recommendations because the committee commits to ongoing and thorough review of the evidence in regular reports as the nature and impact of PFAS and its treatments are being better understood. As I mentioned earlier, in the meantime the committee awaits the government response to the report of the committee in the previous parliament. We are very hopeful of seeing that in the not-too-distant future.

The PFAS subcommittee thanks ANU experts and the Department of Defence for frank evidence given to date, and looks forward to evidence from other agencies in the coming weeks and months. I commend the committee's report to the House.

See this speech in context