James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Burston for raising this important issue in the Senate. I have listened carefully to the contributions so far by other senators, including Senator Rhiannon, Senator Gallacher and Senator McGrath. One of the things we should all bear in mind when we deal with issues that are sensitive like this, where there is community concern and fear—and Senator Rhiannon certainly raised the fears that some people hold about this issue—is that we do so in a very measured and very considered way that is based on evidence and doesn't engage in speculation. When people are afraid, it does not help them at all to play on those fears, to play up those fears, and not actually to provide them with the scientific evidence we have available on this issue.

I want to make one other general point before I get to the substance of the issue. I was interested to hear Senator Burston talk about how rare it is that he and One Nation agree with the Greens. That is certainly the image that One Nation likes to portray to its supporters, and no doubt that's the image the Greens like to portray to their supporters. But the truth is that the Greens and One Nation are political bedfellows much more often than any of the voters who send them here would like to think they are, particularly on economic matters. When it comes to questions of trade and questions of banking or financial services, time and time again the Greens and One Nation take a very similar populist line on economics and vote together, and they did so only last week.

But that's obviously not the substantive matter we're here to consider today, which is the issue of PFAS. In listening to the debate so far, one thing I have noticed that has not been explained is the ubiquity of PFAS as a class of chemicals and how common they are in household products and items. If you had listened to the debate so far, you may be under the impression it's only the armed forces and the emergency services that have used them on bases. But, in fact, over the last 50 years, in Australia and globally, PFAS has been used in a range of industrial, medical and consumer products, including stain protection for carpets, fabric and furniture; cosmetics; sunscreens; paper coating; water-resistant packaging; rubber; plastics; electronic parts for printers and copiers; insecticides; metal plating; plastics etching; photographic materials; aviation hydraulic fluid; non-stick frying pans; medical devices; and, of course, firefighting foam, as we've heard. PFAS as a class of chemicals is so widespread in its use that almost every person on earth has been exposed to it and would have a degree of it within their blood.

The question of health impact is a very important one. We do know that these chemicals can persist in human beings, in animals and in the environment. But I'm advised that there is currently no consistent evidence that PFAS is harmful to human health. I will come back to that in a moment, but the important thing there is that the evidence is not consistent.

We do know also that the human body can get rid of PFAS over time. Once that exposure is reduced or stopped, any PFAS in the human body will reduce. That's why the government have taken, I think, the very sensible and prudent step to allocate $12½ million to the national research program into the human health effects of prolonged exposure to PFAS, which we're undertaking at the moment across Oakey, Williamtown and Katherine. It is a best practice study that will that help us better understand if there are any long-term human health impacts.

It's absolutely true, as Senator Burston said, that there are some studies which have found associations between exposure to these chemicals and health effects, but there are also other studies that have not found that same relationship. In addition, those studies that found associations were not able to determine with certainty whether the health effects were caused by the chemical being studied or by other factors such as smoking. It's very important to understand the causal relationship there if we're to be able to deal with this issue appropriately. It's very clear that more research is required before we can be absolutely definitive about this issue of causality. That is what the government is supporting.

As you've heard, the Department of Health has established an expert health panel to advise the government on the potential health effects associated with PFAS exposure and to identify priority areas for further research. It's expected that the panel will provide its advice to the Minister for Health in late February 2018, later this month. I'm advised that the panel will be releasing its advice publicly soon after it's made available to the minister. The panel will also provide its advice on priority research areas to the National Health and Medical Research Council to inform their targeted call for research for these substances.

The Australian government is improving the understanding of the potential health effects related to PFAS exposure by undertaking a long-term epidemiological study, which is running concurrently with the voluntary blood-testing program. It will contribute an important body of evidence to an emerging area of research. The study will produce high-class information that will be available first and foremost to the community and the government, and this will help us make informed judgements about how to deal with this issue, rather than speculative judgements based on inadequate research.

The PFAS task force was established by the Prime Minister in December 2016, as we have heard, as part of the Commonwealth's response to develop a collaborative approach to manage PFAS contamination. The task force brought together Commonwealth agencies and state and territory governments to support greater consistency and the sharing of information. This oversight includes engaging and collaborating with relevant Commonwealth agencies, state and territory governments, and industry stakeholders.

Some of the contributions to the debate so far, particularly Senator Gallacher's, sought to suggest that the government is taking very little action on this. I think that's a very unfair characterisation to make. As I've mentioned already, there's the $12½ million research program and of course the much more tangible and direct measures to support the affected communities, which I want to spend a moment to talk about because, if you have been listening to the contributions to this debate so far, other than Senator McGrath's contribution, you may be under the misapprehension that the government has not done so.

There has been $55 million allocated to support the communities in Williamtown, New South Wales, and Oakey, Queensland, to reduce exposure, to manage environmental impacts and to provide additional dedicated mental health and counselling services. There is the voluntary blood-testing program and the study into the potential health effects from exposure, which I mentioned. In addition, $5.7 million has been provided to support the Katherine community through access to a voluntary blood-testing program, a study, and additional mental health and counselling services. There has been $15 million allocated to the national PFAS Remediation Research Program to support the development of innovative technologies to investigate and remediate PFAS contaminated areas, including soil and other solid contaminated debris, groundwater, waterways and marine systems.

An intergovernmental agreement on a national framework for responding to PFAS contamination, which has been developed with the states and territories, includes best practice guidance for all government agencies to effectively and efficiently manage PFAS contamination at any site. As senators have noted in this debate so far, this is a historical legacy issue that this government is now dealing with. The government is also contributing to the PFAS national environmental management plan, which has been developed cooperatively by the environmental agencies across Australia. There are activities to monitor and manage PFAS contamination at water sources, conduct research into soil solidification and stabilisation, conduct studies for PFAS uptake in plants, chicken and eggs, and provide alternative drinking water to the affected communities.

There is a comprehensive report by Food Standards Australia New Zealand that provides health-based guidance values for site investigations, a dietary exposure assessment, and risk management advice for authorities investigating PFAS contamination. There are ongoing detailed site investigations to determine the extent of spread of PFAS, and regular, transparent community engagement and consultation activities at sites where PFAS contamination has been detected to ensure that accurate and complete information is available to all the affected communities as soon as it becomes available.

The issue of compensation and the potential impact on people's personal financial situations, of course, has been mentioned. That's something that the PFAS task force is considering, and it has been meeting with a number of financial institutions in its effort to clarify the issues. They've provided to them the most current scientific information available on PFAS, including the nature of the chemicals and environmental concerns, and highlighted the lack of consistent scientific evidence on adverse human effects from PFAS exposure. As I said, this is a worthy issue for the Senate to be debating, but it should be done in a measured and sensible way.