Meryl Swanson (Paterson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1) calls on the Government to:

(a) establish a national inter-governmental taskforce to co-ordinate the response of state/territory and federal government agencies to the perfluorinated and polyfluorinated (per- and poly-fluoro) alkyl substances contamination on and around Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) bases at Williamtown and Oakey, and throughout Australia;

(b) develop a nationally consistent approach for screening and health guidelines, assessments, containment, management standards and remediation protocols for Commonwealth sites and their surroundings that are identified as being contaminated with per- and poly-fluoro alkyl substances;

(c) provide:

  (i) a breakdown and schedule of spending of the $55 million allocated from the Defence budget to deal with contamination at and around RAAF bases caused by per- and poly-fluoro alkyl substances;

  (ii) transparency into the Government's per- and poly-fluoro alkyl substances interdepartmental committee, including a breakdown of its composition, terms of reference and meeting schedule; and

  (iii) a timeline for when, how, and by whom the issue of per- and poly-fluoro alkyl substances will be brought to the COAG; and

(d) inform Williamtown residents when its proposed dialogue will begin on buybacks of properties contaminated by per- and poly-fluoro alkyl substances; and

(2) while welcoming the New South Wales Environmental Protection Agency's lifting of fishing bans implemented as a result of the contamination, calls on the Government to:

(a) ensure income support is available to affected commercial fishers through to March 2017; and

(b) advocate for leniency by lending institutions with respect to business and home loan repayments and lending practices involving properties in the Williamtown investigation zone.

I move this motion today out of sheer anger at the Turnbull government's failure to help the people of Williamtown, people who are stuck in a red zone of contamination caused by firefighting chemicals, known as PFAS, leaching from the RAAF base; people who are worried about their health, their families and their future; and people who have already felt the impact, with elevated levels of these chemicals in their blood, with land that has been devalued and is no longer fit for purpose, with businesses that are struggling because banks will not lend them money, with the stigma of living in a contaminated zone and with anger and frustration at a government that will not deliver. So, yes, I am angry at this government as it sits idly by, failing to deliver on the commitments it made during the election campaign, while my community struggles.

This contamination does not affect the people of Williamtown only. They and the people of Oakey in Queensland are merely guinea pigs, and there are more communities to follow. There are more Defence bases contaminated. At sites throughout Australia, environmental investigations have only just begun. In Williamtown, environmental investigations have been going on for 15 months. Fifteen months might not sound like a long time, but when you are living with it, when you are lying awake every night worrying about the future, 15 months feels like a life time.

This government promised voluntary blood testing, but it took too long, so the community did it themselves. This government promised—the Prime Minister himself promised—to begin a dialogue on voluntary buybacks of properties once environmental testing was complete. Now my community fear that environmental testing will never be complete. My community were promised action. Now they feel they have no choice but to take legal action against Defence for the damage it has done and the losses caused.

We simply do not know if these PFAS chemicals are affecting health in our community. Australian health authorities maintain there is no proven link with ill health, but in the United States DuPont has been found liable for a man's testicular cancer because it discharged these chemicals into waterways. It is the second case in which the company has been found liable, and there are 3,500 more cases to come. I do not say that to be alarmist, nor to challenge the authority of Australian health experts, but the jury is quite literally still out on these chemicals. They have come to the notice of the United Nations Stockholm convention on persistent organic compounds and they have come to the notice of the American courts, and this will continue.

What must occur in Australia and what was committed to by this government is a nationally consistent approach to PFAS chemicals and the communities impacted by them. We must have, as Labor suggested in the first place, a proper intergovernmental independent task force. We must have national guidelines. We must have transparency around government action. We must have support for affected communities.

A remark that is made to me over and over again is: if this were a company that had contaminated the water supply, the commercial fisheries and private property, there would be holy hell to pay, and yet this is our government that has caused this grief. This government must step up. I urge the members of this House to support this motion so that my community in Williamtown, Salt Ash, Oakey in Queensland and the many other communities who are affected and will be affected by PFAS contamination are dealt with promptly and fairly. We cannot wait for the science to be completely known. We cannot risk another asbestos.

I have felt like a lone voice on this issue, such has been the silence from this government, and I note there are no speakers on the Notice Paper today for this. I am now pleased that I have my own colleagues in Labor by my side in the House who have joined me, and we collectively have worked so hard. Gai Brodtmann, the federal member for Canberra, who joins me in the House, has worked so hard; she has had countless sleepless nights alongside me with this as well. The member for Newcastle, who also joins me in the House, has been by our side and her community's side, particularly in relation to commercial fishing. I urge this House: back me, back all the communities in Australia that have been impacted and please support this motion.

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Paterson. Is the motion seconded?

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

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

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

I am pleased to advise the chamber that I rise to speak on the motion of the member for Paterson. The Turnbull government certainly recognises community concerns around the potential impacts of what we know as PFAS chemicals. This is a challenge many decades in the making, and it requires a comprehensive and fact-based response.

As a government and for me as the member for Groom—which takes in the beautiful community of Oakey—we understand the impact and the need to respond as soon as practicable. But this is not a simple issue with a simple solution, and it is not just a localised issue in certain locations, such as Williamtown or Oakey. National implications make it even more important that the government gets this right and that it follows appropriate scientific investigation processes to gather the evidence that we need to underpin sound decisions for the long-term future.

I have been engaged with our Oakey community on this issue since before my election this year right through to a meeting between some local landholders and the Minister for Defence Personnel just last week. That engagement will continue in the coming weeks, in the coming months and, in terms of community recovery, in the coming years.

I know Oakey. It is the community where I spent my childhood. We meet in homes, in businesses, in the main street and in public halls, and we will continue to do so until we reach the outcomes that we need. Make no mistake, Oakey residents and landholders are frustrated. They are angry and they are stressed, and understandably so, both in terms of the time required to get the science and basis for future decision-making right and the divisions that have been caused in our local community based on differing views of those impacts and potential solutions.

But I firmly believe the role of government is to focus on the science to develop those answers as soon as possible. Rather than the approach of those opposite, who seek to politicise this issue, the Turnbull government's actions and decisions are informed first and foremost by medical experts. To date, the advice is that there is no consistent evidence that suggests exposure to PFAS causes any adverse human health effects. Whilst this is the expert advice to government, we do understand this offers small comfort to people living in impacted communities.

The government is also on the record as considering the matter of property acquisition and compensation now that the interim health reference values have been established and detailed environmental investigations are concluding. Now would I like to see those answers available today? Of course I would. I know Oakey landholders wanted to see them yesterday. But to ensure the highest prioritisation that the Turnbull government believes that it deserves, the Prime Minister has directed that the whole-of-government task force coordinating its response be moved into the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to ensure a comprehensive, whole-of-government response is developed with the states and territories. The consultation is essential and I, amongst others, have been critical of earlier consultation by Defence. But now it is now time that we focus on progressing these investigations through to finalisation. We are on track for delivering our election commitments: blood testing, epidemiological study, mental health community liaison officers and remediation. Alternative drinking water supplies are in place in the meantime.

Science and fact are the best approach for strategies to reduce exposure for the community and for management and remediation. To suggest that this should be rushed or that corners should be cut displays a complete disregard for the expertise and resources required to undertake what will be one of the biggest environmental investigations ever undertaken in this country. One thing this government is not going to do is put at risk the integrity of those investigations to meet a politically convenient time frame. It is greatly distressing that those opposite are unashamedly saying that that is what they would do.

The calls for the establishment of a national intergovernmental task force and other approaches are simply playing catch-up with what is already in place.

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

I rise to support the member for Paterson's motion. This is a very important motion. It helps raise awareness of this issue around the nation and in this place. It is an ongoing issue of contamination of defence and aviation sites around Australia and the impact it is having on those that work on the defence and aviation sites, airports and the residents in and around those places. These particular contaminants or chemicals have been used for years on airports and RAAF bases. These particular substances have the ability to repel oil, grease and water. They have been used in the firefighting foams and chemicals that are used to combat fires. In addition, these foams containing these chemicals have been deployed on fires at traffic and railway accidents and even building fires. So it is not just in those areas but all over the metropolitan, country and rural areas as well.

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 train on airport facilities with these chemicals or used to train with these chemicals. Thankfully, these chemicals have now been more or less phased out from firefighting foams in Australia. However, these particular chemicals are biologically very stable and resist typical environmental degradation like other chemicals. They stay in the environment for many years and they do not degrade. Significant residual contaminants have been identified at many sites globally, for example, around 49,000 of the world's airports—civilian and military. In South Australia's case, there are three sites: The RAAF base at Edinburgh, Parafield Airport and in my electorate, the Adelaide Airport which is in the middle of the electorate. It is causing quite a bit of angst with residents in and around the electorate of the airport.

In December 2011, Defence added these chemicals to its routine environmental monitoring schedule particularly at facilities where firefighters may have been using them including at Edinburgh and Adelaide Airport. This was a welcome move as was the Senate inquiry into contamination of defence property and CFA training ground at Fiskville. The committee was chaired by Senator Gallacher and brought down its recommendations in November. However, we must remember that over the years many firefighters and workers on these airports were repeatedly exposed to these potentially toxic substances. It is not just firefighters who have been exposed to these chemicals but also support personnel and workers who perhaps are not firefighters but who were involved in working with these foams on and outside of the airports. These workers are not classified as professional firefighters, the ones who were working outside of airports, and are often overlooked. It is important that they also be included in any testing program or future management schemes around this issue.

In the first few weeks after I was re-elected, I was contacted by a constituent who raised his concerns about this very issue. This constituent is a retired firefighter, with 35 years of experience at Adelaide Airport. Many constituents, others and our former firefighters are asking for greater government commitment to develop and implement a testing and monitoring regime for these people. I understand that blood tests have been offered, but only on a voluntary basis. So many people have yet to be tested and may never be tested. It is necessary to fully understand the effects of these compounds on workers exposed to those chemicals.

These workers want answers. They want their concerns addressed and they want to be taken seriously. Many of them are firefighters and workers who have worked at Adelaide Airport. We all understand the monitoring of these substances is still in the early stages. There are many unknowns about the effects of the contamination and the exposure and the inconclusive results from animal testing, but it is precisely the fact that not enough is known that is causing angst with residents and workers. This is leading to fear and mental anguish issues for many involved, including their families.

It is our responsibility to ensure that they are monitored and that their workplaces are safe. We need to continue to monitor and research these sites in order to better understand the effects of the compounds on the workers exposed to the chemicals and, of course, if there is any exposure to the residents in and around the airport. The response to this problem has now been too slow, as we heard from the others. We need action now.

Gai Brodtmann (Canberra, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to commend the member for Paterson for this motion. It is a very timely motion and I also want to commend the member for Paterson for her tireless and fierce advocacy on this issue. Since she was campaigning, since she was preselected, she has been on this issue talking with the community, working with the community, to get the best results for that community. I want to commend the member for Paterson for her tireless and fierce efforts on this issue.

I never thought I would wish for the Prime Minister to be more discursive. I never thought I would keenly await a word from the Minister for Defence Industry. I never thought I would be checking my inbox on a Friday afternoon, hoping to find a media release from the Minister for Defence as she takes out the trash before the weekend rolls round. And yet, here we are. Here we are—three weeks since the Department of Defence released the preliminary sampling report into the extent of legacy firefighting foam contamination at 12 defence sites around the country. Three weeks have passed and the Turnbull government has not said anything. Not a thing! Three weeks have passed since 12 communities had it confirmed to them that, yes, the local defence base has been contaminated and, no, it is not clear what happens next. Three weeks with no action from this leaderless government.

We on this side of the House will not sit on our hands while those opposite sit on theirs. Labor is doing what it has always done on this emerging national issue and it is leading from the front. The government has just sat on its hands. Labor led from the front when we initiated the Senate inquiry into the contamination at defence and other Commonwealth sites. Labor led from the front when we developed a comprehensive policy response to the issue, and it was the Turnbull coalition government that copied it. Labor led from the front when we called for the establishment of an intergovernmental task force to coordinate a consistent response across the country. The news that the member for Groom mentioned about this interdepartmental task force in PM&C—that is news, member for Groom. Labor led from the front when we supported offering blood tests to residents, and the government copied it.

Labor lead from the front again today in our call for air sampling in the Williamtown investigation zone. We call for it because there are concerns amongst residents that they may have been exposed to contaminants through breathing the dust outside. Considering the ingestion of dust has been recognised to become a low-level source of PFAS exposure, we believe this course of action to be the right thing to do. It is important to note that the Williamtown Human Health Risk Assessment recognised the potential for inhalation of surface soil-derived dust within the investigation area.

The assessment deems the risk it poses to be low and tolerable under the numerous pathway scenarios modelled—but certainty is everything here. When we are dealing with a fast-moving, emerging national issue such as that of PFAS contamination, it is important to bring the community along with us every step of the way. While the scientific literature continues to evolve at this pace, it is inevitable that residents will receive conflicting advice from different sources. It is a recipe for uncertainty at a time when certainty is critical.

It has been three weeks since the release of the preliminary sampling report and since Defence said it will start more comprehensive tests in 'early 2017'. Residents might not have results until 12 months after testing starts, whenever that will be. That is a long time to wait for answers. Labor has called on the government to intervene and accelerate the testing time line. The sooner the Turnbull government acts, the sooner the communities will know the extent of the contamination—and they deserve to know. Communities deserve better than this government, which is overflowing with Defence ministers and sorely lacking in leaders. Not one of the Turnbull government's three Defence ministers has managed to say so much as a word on PFAS contamination. Not one has managed to pierce the uncertainty that has developed since the preliminary sampling report was released three weeks ago—not one word. One party is supporting residents and the other is ignoring them.

Communities are facing uncertainty right around the country. They should not be left to suffer in the Turnbull government's silence. Residents deserve a government that listens to them and responds to them, that says to them: 'We hear you, communities who are suffering.' That says to them: you are not on your own. It says to them: we are here to help. Residents deserve a government that says something to them. Yet, here we are, waiting for a word, and all we can hear from those opposite is the sound of empty chairs.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for External Territories) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank my colleagues the member for Hindmarsh and the member for Paterson for putting this motion on the Notice Paper,and I also thank them and the member for Canberra for their contributions. I think they have done a very good job of outlining the deficiencies in the way in which the government has dealt with this issue.

I was involved in the first consultation in Katherine some many months ago now and, sadly, apart from me and a couple of local councillors, no-one from the public turned up. That raised serious questions about the engagement of the Department of Defence with the local community on this issue or, alternatively, the lack of information that was made available to them. I do not at all suggest that the people responsible at RAAF Base Tindal were in some way doing the wrong thing. There is no doubt that they were operating on the best information available to them, which is bloody poor information. And we have got to a point, as we have heard, where a report was released some little time ago now about the testing at various sites across the country, and people have been left to wonder. That is the issue here.

I fully recognise that departmental officials who go around consulting on behalf of the government, who are talking to people, do not know the answers to many of the questions. They freely admit they do not know the answers to many of the questions. That is a very positive thing in a way, because they do not try and con people by saying, 'Look, it's okay.' In fact, what they are doing is saying to people is: 'Because of the potential risks, what we want to do is operate on the side of caution and, if, for example, you are drinking bore water from an area which has been tested to be contaminated, we suggest you drink other water, which we will supply.' That is a very profound and good thing to do. But then people ask a series of other questions, such as: 'What do you know about these products?' 'Not a lot.' 'What do you think the medical impacts will be?' 'We don't know.' 'What is the international experience?' 'Well, we're not quite sure of that either.'

It seems to me that this is creating a great deal of uncertainty and concern and, indeed, harm in many communities, as the member for Paterson knows only too well in her own community. In her case, I think it was partly brought about by the stupidity of the department of environment people in New South Wales making a pre-emptive declaration on the land around the base. What they need to be doing is working in partnership with the Commonwealth and not raising fears but being alive to the fact that people's relevant and important concerns need to be addressed. As the member for Canberra said, the next set of testing will take place over the next 12 months. That is simply not good enough. Again, I do not want to somehow mean that the departmental officials are not doing their job; but the fact is that they need additional resources to do the work that is required to satisfy the concerns of people in these communities right across the country. It is very simple: make the resources available, take some responsibility and make sure that the people who are concerned about this have their concerns properly addressed and their fears allayed. If you do not, what you are doing is perpetrating something upon those communities which they do not need and which is not welcome.

And it is not good for government. It is certainly not good for Defence Force officials who are working in communities where they are trying to manage relationships. These are important Defence assets. And it is not only Defence; the civilian community needs to be concerned about the impact of this on civilian airports and in fire and emergency services right across the country. Yet they appear not to be involved in this discussion. It seems to me it is about time we took a whole-of-government approach looking not only across federal government but also state jurisdictions. The Civil Aviation Authority ought to be heavily involved in these discussions because they run airports which have used this firm in the same way the Defence Force has. In one sense, the Defence Force has been on the front foot—although they do not have sufficient information. We need a lot more out of this government. I say to the three ministers: one of you take responsibility, for God's sake!

George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.