Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise in response to the general business notice of motion moved by Senator Burston. Can I congratulate Senator Burston on raising this matter and also for the terms of reference as he has presented them before the chamber. I come to this discussion on two bases. I come to it as a member of the committee which has been investigating this issue and, of course, as a participant in the three inquiries we have had—one in Canberra; one at Williamtown or in Newcastle, New South Wales; and in Oakey, Queensland. I also come to it from a background of having been, as you know, Mr Acting Deputy President Sterle, chief executive officer of the Bushfires Board of Western Australia—an agency that used firefighting foams.

It might be of some interest to anybody listening to this discussion to know what the purpose of adding firefighting foam to water is for extinguishing fires. It is simply to create, at the microscopic level, a film around the material or the fuel that is to be burnt, and, in so doing, starve that fuel of oxygen.

As we all know, the fire triangle is one of fuel, oxygen and a source of ignition. We can assume, therefore, that, by the time firefighting foam and water are being used, we have already had the oxygen and we have already had the source of ignition—and we have fuel. So the purpose of firefighting foam is to add to the effectiveness of water by creating, at the microscopic level, a capacity to be able to starve the fuel of air—oxygen—in which case, of course, it does not burn.

I just want to make some comments with regard to the process and those who appeared before us in the hearings we have had and to also speak of the actions being coordinated by the Minister for Health and Aged Care and the Minister for Defence.

With my veterinary hat from earlier days on, I put a question doctors in Newcastle. What we would normally expect to have happen is that a doctor might find a number of cases for which they have no clinical explanation, and that would usually cause them to talk to other doctors in their clinic and their practice and say to them: 'Look, I think I am seeing an unusual set of circumstances. Are you also seeing it?' Those other clinicians might say, 'Yes, as a matter of fact, we are', and generally they would consult with others in their district.

In the event that they think there is a 'cluster', as the term is used, it would be normal for doctors to get in touch with the state health department and say, 'Look, in this geographic area, a number of us believe we are seeing a range of clinical conditions for which we have no explanation.' It would then be the case that the state health department would be asked to come and inspect and do what is called an epidemiological study to establish if there is an epidemic of a certain circumstance or set of clinical signs and, therefore, what might be causing it. In Newcastle, I asked that very question of witnesses—are you aware of any such cluster in the Newcastle area as a result of the PFOA and PFOS presence in the water courses that have emanated from RAAF Base Williamtown?—and nobody was able to tell me that there had been such a circumstance.

I want to place on record immediately the recognition of the deep concern that residents in these communities have—and it is your state and mine. We now have it appearing around RAAF Base Pearce at Bullsbrook, north of Perth. Probably every military base and every large commercial airport in Australia has used PFOA and PFOS at some time in their firefighting foams. We know, of course—and Senator Burston may have mentioned it—that from 2004 they ceased to be used in the Defence Estate.

It needs to be understood that pretty well everybody in the western world, including all of us in this chamber, have levels of PFOA and/or PFOS in our bloodstreams. Why have we? Because, as has been said by my colleague, it is the substance used in Scotchgard, non-stick frypans and other products in common use. In fact, it has been recorded from the research that I have done that the person with the highest ever recorded blood levels of PFOA and PFOS was a lady working as a domestic cleaner in commercial buildings in a city in the United States.

Again, we do not have any record of adverse health effects. So, I wish to direct the chamber to the comments of Dr Eric Donaldson in Oakey in Queensland. Dr Donaldson was the base doctor at the base of Oakey, which for those who do not know, is directly to the west of Toowoomba on the way to Dalby, where I spent a good deal of my time as an undergraduate student whilst I was at vet school in Queensland. Donaldson also owns a very significant amount of farming land around the base at Oakey, and he runs beef cattle.

I asked Dr Donaldson—and, of course, it is in the evidence of the hearing on Wednesday, 9 March 2006, under the chairmanship my colleague Senator Alex Gallacher—'Did you, at any time during the time you were the base doctor, ever observe any clinical signs in personnel resident on the base, those working for the military or their families, or did you have reason to believe there were clinical conditions for which you had no explanation?' and he said, 'No, I have not.' I then said to him, 'Well, you continued on in Oakey as a clinician?' I asked him the same question as a civilian doctor, 'Have you seen any evidence?' He said, 'No.' I said, 'Have other doctors?' He said, 'No.' I said, 'What about the medical professionals in Toowoomba?' He said, 'No, we haven't.'

I said, 'Well, you have been a very active cattle breeder.' I, of course, am associated somewhat with the Pascoe family—Dr Reg Pascoe, a very eminent Darling Downs veterinarian, and his two sons, John and David, both of whom I worked with at UC Davis in California. David, now with a doctorate himself in equine reproduction, is working back in the Darling Downs. I know very well, from his interests, that Reg Pascoe would have also and did have long conversations with Donaldson about the condition of their cattle. I put that same question to him. I said, 'Have you ever had any occasion—you or Reg Pascoe—to consider any pathology in cattle, be it abortions, be it early-term births, be it foetal abnormalities or anything at all?' He said, 'No, Senator Back. I have never ever had occasion and neither, I believe, has Dr Pascoe.'

We then had evidence from a Professor Jochen Mueller, who is the professor of environmental toxicology at the University of Queensland and who cut his teeth on the toxic chemical dioxin at his university in Europe. He is of interest to this debate because he is the only person to have actually done any definitive work on a group of people who might have been at risk. I think it was in about 2005 or 2006 that Airservices Australia engaged his services to work with 155 firefighters to look at possible pathologic impacts of PFOA and PFOS as a result of their exposure. He also looked at cholesterol levels and uric acid levels. He looked at issues such as obesity, whether they smoked et cetera.

For those interested, it would be important again to have a look at the Hansard of the conversations that Senator Gallacher and I had with Professor Mueller. Mueller has not been able to ascertain any pathology at all from those 155 firefighters associated with their exposure to PFOA and/or PFOS. I asked him that specific question. I asked him about someone who had 300 micrograms per litre. We—if we have it in our systems at all—probably have three, four or five. Dr Donaldson, as I recall, told us that he had levels of about 20 micrograms per litre, and his children—who have long been away from Oakey, working in other states of Australia—had levels higher than his, and I could not understand why. So I asked Mueller the question: what does a level of 300 micrograms per litre mean? He said:

I do not think there is any pathology that that person should expect, or can expect—

as a result of the 300 micrograms. He said:

I think that person should live as healthy a life as somebody that has eight nanograms per millilitre. We do not have any evidence that says a person with 350 has a different life expectancy. I am not saying that there are no health effects, but we do not know that there are health effects. As long as we do not know … we should not concern anybody about health effects when we do not know them.

I led him through a number of questions, because I think Mueller is a person that we need to take a lot of notice of in this whole debate.

Why do I say these things? Because the point that he made was that he believed members of the community of Oakey have been unnecessarily caused to be concerned by these. We had one witness, a young gentleman whose wife had just delivered a child in either Oakey Hospital or Toowoomba Hospital, and he did not know whether to bring his wife and daughter home. So this is clearly an event of great emotional concern, and nobody should belittle that concern. But at the same time, from an epidemiological point of view, we must be very guarded about going out and accepting and then escalating something for which there is not medical evidence to a level where it unnecessarily causes concern to a community of people. I believe Mueller to be a credible witness.

Having said that, I note that there is obviously a responsibility on government, because of people's concern for their own mental and physical wellbeing, valuation of land, and whether they should consume water, milk or eggs from chooks that drink the water. And, of course, particularly among those associated with Williamtown, there are those whose businesses, particularly fishing businesses, have been severely and adversely affected.

Ministers Payne, in the Defence space, and Ley are now taking a leadership role, and I for one am willing to accept that I think they are late on the train—not those two ministers but governments generally. It is governments of both persuasions, so neither one of us can take any partisan sort of advantage in this space. But, nevertheless, Minister Ley has commissioned work to be undertaken here in Australia by Adjunct Professor Andrew Bartholomaeus, who is an expert in toxicology and chemical regulation here in Australia. He completed a report which I understand he either has presented to Minister Ley or will present in the next few days. There was the commissioning of the University of Newcastle's Family Action Centre, a mental health awareness and stress management initiative which I believe my colleague Senator Burston has previously referred to. There has been the appointment of community liaison officers both in Williamtown and in Oakey. Of course, there has also been the commissioning of a study into what may be regarded as the health effects.

It brings me to the question of blood testing, because it is a very interesting question: do you encourage people to come forward and have blood tests or not? It all started, in fact, with Dr Donaldson, who of his own volition started to have blood samples taken from the community in Oakey and then provided that information, with the permission of those who had been sampled, to the Department of Defence. It was interesting that, when we had the hearing on Williamtown at Newcastle, the advice of the New South Wales Department of Health was that they did not understand where the value would be in having blood tests, simply because, again, as Mueller said, the question is: what information does it provide you? If you have five nanograms per millilitre, are you happy? If you have 300, are you unhappy, and what is the effect of that?

I thought to myself: what would I do in my circumstance? Would I have myself tested and encourage the members of my family to be blood-tested? Personally, my answer is: yes, I would. And I would not just have one set of blood tests, because those of us who know a bit about haematology actually know that one test only is of very, very doubtful significance or interest. You have to be tested over a period of time. Therefore, there has been some confusion and this has landed at the decision of voluntary blood testing by members of those communities who have the opportunity to do so.

I want to speak briefly about the conclusions drawn from a human health risk assessment associated with Williamtown and Oakey that was commissioned by the government. It was undertaken by an independent international environmental consulting group called AECOM, and their objective was to assess potential human health risks, including exposure through soil, groundwater, surface water, sediments, plants and animals within the investigation areas. It is my understanding that the work they did was as a result of the review and the endorsement of the toxicologist Professor Bartholomaeus. The words 'low' and 'acceptable' appear throughout their report regarding both Williamtown and Oakey in terms of human health risk assessment. This was completed in accordance with the National Environment Protection Measures.

I am not suggesting for one minute that we know the full answer to this question. But I think an incredibly ill-disciplined, ill-founded and regrettable comment was made by a person who was then in the defence service. As I understand it, that person addressed the first public meeting in Oakey and stood up and said, 'This is the new asbestos.' That person had absolutely and utterly no clinical history to use to make that statement. The person might be right. The weight of opinion—from my reading of the scientific literature over the last 12 months—is that they are not right. But it quite rightly has raised in the mind of the community very, very real concerns. Can they sell their land? Should they run livestock on their land? Should they live there? Should they move away?

As we have said, and as Senator Burston has drawn to our attention, there is the whole question about land valuation. If they want to move away, to whom can they sell their properties? Regarding the adjacent fishing fleets and the flow-down from RAAF Base Williamtown, to what extent can those people re-establish their lives? They have received some compensation—I would have thought it is not sufficient. We had one witness who had only just invested heavily in a new fishing enterprise, and he saw his life being ruined. But this is not just a short-term issue. For every airport—Mascot, Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth, the RAAF bases and the Army bases—this is a very, very important, key, long-term study, and it must be looked upon with a high degree of maturity. Government must continue to support those involved. We must continue to try and get epidemiological understanding and clinical knowledge so that we can inform the wider community as PFOA and PFOS impacts emerge. Senator Burston, thank you for raising this issue.