Brian Burston (NSW, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) supports the efforts of the Department of Defence and other Commonwealth and state government agencies responding to environmental and health issues arising out of firefighting foam contamination at RAAF Base Williamtown in New South Wales and Army Aviation Centre Oakey in Queensland, including engaging the University of Newcastle Family Action Centre (UNFAC) to develop and deliver mental health awareness and stress management activities in the Williamtown area;

(b) notes that:

  (i) some landholders in the immediate vicinity of Williamtown Air Base and Oakey Army Aviation Centre are reporting difficulties accessing equity, property value impacts and difficulty selling their land,

  (ii) the Department of Defence has met with a number of lending institutions and the Australian Property Institute to discuss property lending policies and practices and how valuations are conducted in the Williamtown area, and

  (iii) the Department of Defence has committed to review the issue of property acquisition once detailed environmental investigations at RAAF Base Williamtown and Army Aviation Centre Oakey have been concluded; and

(c) calls on the Government to expedite environmental investigations of the impact of firefighting foam contamination at Williamtown and Oakey to enable landholders to address the dilemma of land remediation or relocation, and move on with their lives and deal with issues of mental health and stress management.

During the 2016 election campaign, I was approached by the Salt Ash Community First group, through my twin brother, Graham, who was a One Nation candidate for the seat of Paterson. I attended a meeting at a private residence in Salt Ash to be briefed on contamination of residents in an investigation zone that the local residents call 'the red zone', allegedly from the RAAF base at Williamtown. The contamination is caused by leaching of contaminated carcinogenic firefighting chemicals from the base to surrounding areas. These chemicals are in the form of firefighting foam known as aqueous film-forming foam, AFFF, and are used primarily to control fires involving flammable liquids such as fuel and oil. The foam suppresses fire by producing a film over the fuel and oil that effectively starves the fire of oxygen. Defence used this foam across many of its facilities in fire control systems, in the testing and maintenance of those systems and in firefighting training.

The acronyms for the contaminants contained within AFFF are PFOS and PFOA. These contaminants were a common ingredient in household products not so long ago. You might remember Scotchgard. They can still be found in non-stick frypans. The contamination is not confined to the RAAF base at Williamtown but can be found locally at another 16 Defence bases around Australia. Possible federal government liability extends to a further 20 privately owned airfields, being a total of 36 bases Australia wide.

The major concern of the contamination is that it cannot be neutralised and has a cumulative effect over time in the human body. The chemicals are known to be associated with testicular cancer, kidney cancer, liver disease, thyroid disease, immune suppression, reduced fertility and hypertension. More than 650 homes as well as a primary school are caught up in the red zone. This may well involve 2,500 to 3,000 men, women and children at Salt Ash alone. Advice to residents throughout the red zone includes warnings not to drink water from dams, ponds or bores or to drink milk from cows or goats or to eat eggs or fish produced in the red zone. Commercial and recreational fishing in the Tilligerry Creek and Fullerton Cove has been suspended, with compensation being provided by the government. The fishing ban has since been partially lifted, about two weeks ago, although the ban on the consumption of flathead fish is still in place.

The Department of Defence has identified contamination in Moors Drain, which carries stormwater from the base and discharges into Tilligerry Creek. During heavy rain, flash flooding occurs on properties adjacent to Moors Drain. The defence department refers to the drain as an off-site mitigation pathway for the chemicals. The Salt Ash area has a very high water table and, during heavy rain, contaminated surface water rises and lies in many drains and gutters, where foaming is clearly visible. You can just imagine the effect this has on the residents. I have also witnessed this foaming, particularly along the main road through Salt Ash. The chemicals can also be transmitted through the atmosphere and humidity.

Health risks are not the only impact on residents. Residential and business properties are deemed worthless, with banks not willing to provide loans against equity that would allow affected residents to relocate or carry out their own mitigation works. Valuers are not willing to put a valuation on any property in the red zone because of the contamination, and therefore the property owners have lost all their equity. As a result, the residents feel trapped in their own homes, unable to carry out any remediation work or to relocate to a safer environment.

During a briefing about three weeks ago from the Minister for Health and Aged Care and the Minister for Defence, I put a suggestion that the government consider meeting with major banks and the Real Estate Institute to implement a scheme to allow affected properties to retain their values, and as such restore the equity that existed prior to the contamination being publicly known. Defence Minister Payne agreed with that request and has kindly responded as in the motion. Towards the end of the briefing, and following concerns I raised in relation to mental health issues that I consider will soon arise, the health minister indicated to me that the University of Newcastle family action strategy was about to be announced by the government. The plan is to alert local practitioners of the human health programs in place to deal with any medical conditions that may be linked to the PFOS and PFOA contamination.

A Senate inquiry in May was very critical of Defence's response to the contamination as 'slow and reactive' and 'seemingly focused on limiting its liability rather than addressing the needs of residents'. This is borne out in a confidential report commissioned by Defence in 2003—yes, 2003, 13 years ago—when this contamination was first investigated. At the end of the executive summary of that report, it states:

In addition to environmental harm, such obvious pollution incidents have the potential to seriously damage Defence's reputation as an environmental manager and good corporate citizen.

It is apparent that Defence has covered up the contamination issue since 2003 and has not acted on any of the report's recommendations.

I will highlight the key findings and recommendations to make the point. Some key findings of the report were:

Defence currently uses—

aqueous film forming foam—

AFFF product that contains non-biodegradable … (PFOS/PFOA) that are environmentally persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic to animals and humans.

PFOS is acutely toxic to frogs and honey bees. Both PFOS and PFOA have been implicated with a variety of cancers and toxic health effects in humans that have had long term exposure to products containing PFOS/PFOA.

In 2002 the US EPA forced products containing PFOS/PFOA off the market.

The repeated uncontrolled or poorly managed use of AFFF products that contain PFOS/PFOA is cause for major environmental and health concern. There is the risk that poor AFFF management practices across some of Defence’s facilities may have resulted in PFOS/PFOA contaminating of soil, surface water and groundwater, both on and off base. Furthermore, the biodegradable part of AFFF consumes a lot of oxygen as it breaks down. The consumption of oxygen may influence the biological/chemical/geological conditions of groundwater and surface waters by driving anaerobic systems and causing the asphyxiation of aquatic fauna.

…   …   …   

The main issues associated with fire fighting foam waste-water management are based around how it is collected, contained and disposed of…. there are no regulatory actions that specifically encompass the use and disposal of products containing PFOS/PFOA.

…   …   …   

Most reports distinctly state that fire fighting foam waste-water should not be disposed of into watercourses, soils, or foul stormwater drains …

…   …   …   

Best management practice for AFFF waste-water, as indicated by reports and literature, include the appropriate collection and containment of AFFF waste-water, and disposal via a sewage treatment plant or by incineration.

There has been some issues with AFFF waste-water affecting the oil separation process, with many separators requiring constant repairs or replacement.

…   …   …   

In many cases across Defence the AFFF waste-water is being released into the environment … with the potential of AFFF pollutants … contaminating soil and groundwater on Defence bases as well as contaminating surrounding farm land and surface waters.

The recommendations of the report were:

Defence should consider undertaking site testing … to determine if its facilities are contaminated by PFOS/PFOA and the extent of the contamination, and also consider establishing monitoring wells in areas where AFFF is repeatedly used and released …

Defence should consider restricting the use of AFFF across its facilities in accordance to NICNAS recommendations.

Defence should consider facilitating industry partnerships into researching the behaviour of AFFF mixtures and waste-water as they may occur in the Australian environment.

AFFF waste-water management system should be designed to contain the most probable worst case AFFF discharge, to minimise the risk of any AFFF waste-water reaching watercourses, soil, or stormwater drains.

The management of AFFF across Defence should meet the best practice methods used by others, as indicated in reports (manufacturer recommendations, US Defense, UK Defence, consultants’ reports) and in scientific literature.

If open ponds are used to store AFFF waste-water they should be managed to restrict access by fauna (e.g. using netting or synthetic liners).

It is imperative to contact the local waste authority to determine suitable waste disposal methods and if any pre-treatment or dilution is required.

At a recent briefing I had with a defence spokesman, he admitted the existence of the report and stated that it was the catalyst for the actions that are taking place now—some 13 years later. This contradicts the information I received at another briefing in Newcastle, just after the election, by the then acting CEO of Hunter Water, Mr Jeromy Bath. He stated that Hunter Water knew of the foam contamination several years ago and had reported it to all of the appropriate authorities, believing they would immediately act on it. However, it was not acted on until about 18 months ago—well after authorities were alerted by Hunter Water. Mr Bath said that Hunter Water was very remorseful in not making the contamination issue public themselves when they first became aware of it.

Further, Hunter Water has received $3.5 million to provide reticulated water to affected properties within the red zone. This work should be completed by April 2017 and under budget. In the meantime, bottled water is being provided at no cost. An issue that has arisen is that, when the houses of residents are connected to the reticulated water, some houses may not withstand the increased water pressure and the plumbing will need to be renewed to current standards. These supplementary works should also be part of any compensation package.

Prior to the election, the Prime Minister promised $55 million Australia-wide for blood testing, which is voluntary, and an epidemiology study. The Defence Minister confirmed that commitment in an answer to a question I asked in the Senate recently. Unfortunately, the minister also confirmed in that answer that any compensation package or buyback will not be forthcoming until the results of that study are known. This could take several years. I have firmly suggested to the minister that this time frame is far too long and that, if the government does not act sooner, it may have another asbestos-type crisis on its hands in 20 years.

More recently, enHealth has released new safety guidelines for PFOS and PFOA levels. The new tolerable daily intake levels for PFOS are 0.15 micrograms per kilogram per day, and 1.5 micrograms per kilogram per day for PFOA. These are 78 times higher than the levels deemed safe by the US EPA. EnHealth's drinking water guidelines are 0.5 micrograms per litre for PFOS and five micrograms per litre for PFOA—excessively above the 0.07 micrograms per litre adopted by the US EPA. EnHealth's recommendations of these acceptable levels were endorsed by the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee, made up of chief health officers and a Department of Defence representative on 15 June this year. This commission is made up of members that held defence contracts worth many millions of dollars, and obviously there is a perceived conflict of interest. I am not suggesting in this chamber that there are any illegalities in the process. This decision reversed Australia's practice of adopting standards in line with those set by the US EPA. The US EPA drastically toughened its PFOS and PFOA guidelines, with stronger health warnings just three weeks before the Australian decision. This has raised suspicions in the community that the weaker safety standards are designed to reduce the number of people who will be eligible to be compensated and the quantum of payout.

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the notice of motion from Senator Burston in relation to this issue of firefighting chemicals—PFOS and PFOA—and the situation that people find themselves in in Williamtown. Firstly, I acknowledge the member for Paterson, Meryl Swanson, who is here in the chamber. Williamtown is part of her electorate, and I am very pleased that Meryl is here to listen to this debate, because this is an issue that affects her community and an issue that she, along with the Labor Party, is extremely concerned about.

I have to say: I am absolutely gobsmacked by that last contribution from Senator Back. Senator Back, a man who tells you that wind farms can kill you from 10 kilometres away, is now saying that you need scientific knowledge on every issue about these chemicals before you can say there is a problem. I have never heard such a turnaround by any senator in this place in my career in the Senate. Apparently wind farms are a problem, but these chemicals are not. The chemical pollution in Williamtown? Not a problem! If you listen to Senator Back, you would think you could spread it on your toast in the morning and you would be okay. I do not think it is as clear as that. I do not think it is as simple as that. I have had a look at some of the reports that have been done and the reports are not clear.

As a union official, for years and years I had to deal with members of the old metal workers union and the AMWU who were dying with mesothelioma after exposure to asbestos, after they were told that it was okay: 'White asbestos is okay; it won't hurt you. Don't worry about it.' I used to go up to Barraba mine and see people there—boilermakers, fitters, machinists, labourers—covered in asbestos, their skin as pale as anything, dying young because of mesothelioma, and the company was telling people that there was not a problem.

I do not want to say there is a problem up in Williamtown, but I think we should take every precaution and we should do everything we possibly can for the people of Williamtown to give them some idea of what the situation is. But for Senator Back to come here and run the nonsense that he did just beggars belief. If you are part of some right-wing conspiracy theory on wind turbines, you can come and say whatever you like. But if you are a resident in Williamtown who has a genuine concern about chemicals affecting you, about chemicals affecting your kids and about chemicals affecting your livelihood, then you are, basically, dismissed. Bring in all the expert opinion you like and dismiss the concerns of the good folk of Williamtown!

Well I don't dismiss those concerns so quickly, and neither does the Labor Party. We do not dismiss those concerns, on the basis that our leadership has gone up on a regular basis to Williamtown to talk to the community about the implications for them and the concerns they have. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, went up there on 28 September 2016 to talk to the community about the issues affecting them. Richard Marles, then the shadow minister for defence personnel, went up on 15 August 2016 and spoke to the people in Williamtown. Former senator Stephen Conroy, the defence minister at the time, went up in June 2016 to talk to the community. Shadow minister Gai Brodtmann and local member Meryl Swanson have been there many times and have continued to talk to the people about their issues. Sharon Claydon, the former member whose area covered Williamtown prior to the redistribution, always had a concern for the citizens of Williamtown. I welcome Senator Burston's concern for the communities in that area. When we had the banking inquiry, Pat Conroy, the member for Charlton, forced the Commonwealth Bank to stop foreclosing on a family in Williamtown. Just think what we could do if we got a royal commission into the banks if we could do that sitting at that stupid forum that the Prime Minister established.

These are big problems and to simply dismiss the issue by trying to pretend that you are some expert because you are a vet beggars belief. I cannot understand that a doctor who runs a cattle ranch up in Queensland is suddenly an expert. He cannot see any clinical signs! I can tell you, you would not have seen any clinical signs in some of my mates, the boilermakers and fitters, that worked with me. There were no clinical signs for them for about 30 years before they started dying with asbestos disease and mesothelioma. We should not dismiss this matter just because so-called experts are saying these chemicals are okay. We should take every precaution we possibly can. That is why we made a range of recommendations to deal with this issue.

I know there is a view that some companies do not see this as a serious problem. I am told that Canada and countries in Europe have major corporations operating within them that are very good lobbyists, and they certainly do not want any claims being made on them. In this place you almost have to talk about the Defence Force in hushed tones, as if the Defence Force can do no wrong. Every time a coalition member stands up they wrap the Australian flag around themselves and they talk about the Defence Force in hushed tones. Well the Defence Force can get it wrong too. The Defence Force is pretty well known for its capacity to avoid any legal implications for the actions that they take. Thankfully the Defence Force has some pretty smart people, but they also have some pretty smart operators trying to make sure that no litigation comes their way. So you have to take it with a grain of salt when the Defence Force says there is not a problem.

I have had a brief look at what has been said about this issue. There has been a five-year analysis of these chemicals in the United States, from 2010 to 2015, called the PFOA Stewardship Program. Nobody can tell me that the US are backwards in their scientific capacity. Nobody would be arguing that. Their conclusion was that these substances should be banned. They said that they would work towards the elimination of these chemicals, and went on:

EPA launched the PFOA Stewardship Program in January 2006 because of concerns about the impact of PFOA and long-chain PFASs on human health and the environment, including concerns about their persistence, presence in the environment and in the blood of the general U.S. population, long half-life in people, and developmental and other adverse effects in laboratory animals.

So in the US they have concluded that it has affected laboratory animals. I do not know where Senator Back's mate, the part-time farmer/part-time doctor, gets his ideas from but certainly I would be more inclined to look at the EPA in the US as a guide rather than that farmer. The companies that participated in this program included Asahi from Japan, BASF Corporation, Daikin, 3M/Dyneon and DuPont. These major corporations were involved in this program for five years, and they determined that they had to get rid of these chemicals. For the coalition to come in here and just dismiss this view is absolutely obnoxious. If it is a wind turbine it is a major health problem; if it is a chemical produced by a major multinational corporation, suck it up. That is the tenor of Senator Back's proposition.

The report from coalition senators questions the value of conducting blood testing. They question every little thing. They say there have been no confirmed links, but after a five-year study the US decided to ban these chemicals. So you cannot tell me there is not a problem, and I would rather have the precautionary principle any day—the precautionary principle is absolutely essential in this.

We have gone up there. Labor has been onto this from day one. I myself met with some of the fishermen in a meeting in Parliament House last year, when they were concerned about the effects on their livelihood. So I am glad that Senator Burston has joined the Labor Party in dealing with this issue.

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I said 'in dealing with this issue'. Senator Burston, I am very happy to support this motion. I am sure there will be other motions that you put up that I will be appalled with and will not support, but I think this one is a good start. If your career in the Senate is about doing things like this, you will have a good career. If your career in the Senate is to run some of the rhetoric and nonsense I have heard over the last few maiden speeches, I do not think your career is going to be that—

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cameron, address your remarks through the chair.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Anyway, well done for bringing this to the Senate. Labor has had inquiries into this issue. This is a big issue for the people of Williamtown.

I want to finish on this. This is not about a Senate inquiry hearing from some farmer-come-doctor in northern Queensland who cannot see any symptoms. This is about the precautionary principle. This is about taking steps to ensure that people who may have been affected by this are looked after and that, if they are affected, they are compensated. That is the issue here. It is pretty simple. When some of the weirder members in the Liberal Party—and their numbers are getting greater by the day in this place—simply say that wind turbines are a problem but firefighting chemicals are all okay, I really just do not get it. I stand beside the community in Williamtown, as does the local member, Meryl Swanson, and as does the Labor Party. We want the government to do more. The minister, Marise Payne, has only been up there once since this happened. I do not think that is good enough. I think the minister should be in here telling us exactly what is happening and how this can be fast-tracked. In fact, the minister should be in here now supporting this motion to get this resolved and not sending her minions in here to give us the nonsense that we just heard from Senator Back.

So I support the motion, and I hope that we can provide some support and some comfort to the residents of Williamtown and other areas that are affected by this. I am a New South Wales senator, so I particularly know about the issues in Williamtown. I am not across the issues elsewhere, but the principles will be the same. When multinational corporations are producing chemicals that could be carcinogenic, are long-lasting in the soil and are polluting the water system, something has to be done about it. I do not think the government is treating it seriously enough, so I welcome the opportunity to continue our concern about this issue. Again, Senator Burston, thanks for bringing this to the Senate today.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to contribute to this debate and thank Senator Burston for bringing it to the attention of the Senate. As always, I will be very frank. Until a few days ago, I knew nothing about this issue at Salt Ash and Williamtown. I think the problem has been around for years; in 2003 or so it was first brought to light. I do not know if that is true or not. If it was, I question what Senator Cameron did about it in the six years they were in government, but we will not go into the politics of that. But it came to my attention because I had a call from a journalist, who said, 'There are some problems with the residents here at Williamtown because the banks are giving a couple of them a bit of a hard time.' What I mean by that is that this journalist—and I am not going to name people or institutions, banks or whatever—said that people's properties have been devalued because of this contamination. You would be aware of it, Senator Burston. The value of their properties has gone down, so their loan-to-value ratio has gone up and there are some concerns. So the first thing I did was phone Steven Munchenberg from the Australian Bankers Association just a few days ago and explain the situation to him.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

'Hey, Steven, it's Wacka here,' and Steven goes, 'Uh-oh!'

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A terrible interjection from Senator Cameron over there, Mr Acting Deputy President—you should pull him into line! Anyway, Steven Munchenberg was very good, as always. I get on very well with Steven and the Australian Bankers Association. I called representatives of the big four banks to say, 'Look, there's a problem here. People's properties are being devalued through absolutely no fault of their own.' This foam was being used for many years to put out so-called fuel fires. It is a pollutant and it has spread. Has it gone into the water system? Has it gone into the ground? I do not know. There has to be a lot of research to find the facts out here. But the point I make is that it was no fault whatsoever of the residents there. Their properties have been devalued and perhaps are not even saleable, with the media et cetera going around. In my opinion, we have to have a good, close look at this. As I just said to Senator Nash, imagine if some government department or someone else came along to the edge of my little farm—my wife, Nancy, and I have a little property out at Inverell—and polluted the creek and our property or poisoned the soil or whatever. We would want to know why. It would certainly devalue our little farm. If we were totally not responsible for the damage, the pollution and the devaluation, I would certainly be asking questions, just like the residents of Williamtown. I am not familiar with the situation at Oakey; I only talk from experience and what has been brought to my attention. They have serious concerns.

I do thank the Australian Bankers Association and the representatives I have spoken to from the four big banks to say, 'Look, we're not going to be doing any panicking. We're going to work with these people.' It may be a different situation if you are in one of these houses, you have your house mortgaged to a business, your business is going bad, your cash flow is going bad and you cannot maintain your payments. Then you will have to talk to your bank and try to work it through. But the point I make is that, if these properties have been devalued through absolutely no fault of the owners of the properties, we have a problem to work through. And I do appreciate the Australian Bankers Association and the banks for being considerate and listening to my calls. I do not think there are going to be any problems for the residents as far as their mortgages go, so long as it is about the valuation and not, as I said, if they are running a business and their business is in trouble or for some other reason their cash flow has been dramatically reduced.

It is a very testing time for these people at Williamtown. This PFAS—that I had never heard of before I found out about it this week—is a serious chemical. There is talk about its listing on the Stockholm listing of chemicals. I think it is a case of banning these chemicals. The case I want to put is: what can the government do? The first thing we are doing is supporting these people, with some money going in from Defence to help Hunter Water put water into these houses that are not on town water so that they can be supplied with clean water. That is a good plus in itself. Certainly, we are helping them in the health department with the situation of blood tests and so on. There is also some mental health support, which is most important. Imagine if you lived there, Mr Acting Deputy President O'Sullivan, and you found yourself under financial pressure. You had bought a property and house that might have been worth $500,000. All of a sudden, you think it is worth $300,000—or even less. You owed $200,000 or $300,000 on your property and you thought you were getting ahead. You had half your house paid for—its value—and, all of a sudden, you were back to owing the whole value of the property. It is not a good thing to have on your mind. Mental health issues may be a serious problem there as well. I certainly hope that the Department of Health are doing all they can to assist these people through these tough times.

As far as I am concerned—and, Senator Burston, you would know more about this than me—we need to go right through this testing to see where the pollution is. The first thing to do is to stop any further pollution. No doubt these chemicals are no longer being used by the Defence department. We need to see that the pollution does stop—that this PFAS is not being used. Then we need to do the testing of the soils and the water to see how far the pollution has spread. We need to see if it is from the source of the Defence department and prevent the spreading. Then we need to see what we can do to clean up the mess.

As far as I am concerned, if it is the cause of the Defence department and the property values are seriously devalued, then I think the Defence department should compensate those people for the devaluations. As I said, they may be just living in their house—they have bought a property; they may have bought a block of land there, Senator Burston, and built their house—and thinking that everything is hunky-dory and fine. Then, through no fault of their own, just because of where they bought—near the Air Force base at Williamtown and at Salt Ash—they have suffered an enormous financial blow because of someone else or some department. I should not say 'someone else'; many people would have made these decisions, and they would have been advised, no doubt, years ago that these PFAS foams for fighting the fuel fires were safe, effective and the new modern way to put these fires out, especially in the case of emergency. If you had an airline crash, or whatever, and fuel had spilt everywhere, you would need something very effective to put that fire out. It could be a case of saving lives at the time. It would have been a great invention at the time. But many chemicals were great inventions—arsenic for drenching ship and dipping sheep for lice. Everything was a great invention years ago on the farm until they were banned and until people realised the carcinogenic effect of such dangerous chemicals. This may be a case of the same situation with this PFAS, where they have designed something—invented a chemical that is very effective for fuel fires—only to find later in life that, 'Hang on; this is not a pure chemical. It's actually a pollutant; it's dangerous. It can cause enormous damage to the environment and to people.' Who knows! I am not a doctor; I am not a specialist in this field.

I do sympathise with those people for what they are going through. I have done my best and I am very confident that the financial institutions will stick with them through this period of research, which I think must be carried out, to research the level of pollution, of contamination, so to see what can be done to clean it up, and how it can be cleaned up. If it cannot be cleaned up and if the people have to be moved out of there—I do not know the final situation; I have not visited there. But I hope that in the near future I can go down to Salt Ash to talk to the locals and see what we can do for them.

I thank the journalist for bringing it to my attention. I am sure that she appreciates very much the work I have done to contact the banks and institutions to see that those people are not under severe financial pressure and more stress. Only time will tell, but I know that the department is certainly working on it. I have discussed it with Minister Payne. She is very aware of the situation. When I phoned Minister Payne she was in America at the time. Thankfully, she rang me as soon as she could. She rang me straight back after I texted her to give me a call to assess the situation. She is certainly onto it, and so is the Department of Defence. I repeat that—

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

'On to it'?

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cameron, when did this first occur? If you want a political argument, I will gladly take you on. Had this PFAS been distributed when you were in government? Should I ask the question: what did you do for Williamtown in your six years in government?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister has been there once.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What did you do?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister has been there once.

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order on my left!

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So what did you do in those six years? You did nothing. You are just a great political hand grenade thrower in this place, where it is all about saying—

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Address your remarks through the chair, Senator Williams.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My sincere apologies, Mr Acting Deputy President. I did not realise. I will certainly come back to you. Mr Acting Deputy President, when it comes to political hand grenades, Senator Cameron is probably the best chucker of those around the place. You may have even experienced some of that in your own personal life in the Senate here, Mr Acting Deputy President.

Instead of making a political issue out of this for those people of Salt Ash, let us try to work together to see if we can get a solution. I thank Senator Burston for bringing this to the chamber. Just out of what you have done here today, through you, Mr Acting Deputy President, of course, this will get more publicity and give more support to the people of Salt Ash. As I said, I cannot comment on Oakey. I am not familiar with the situation at Oakey, but clearly there is something similarly wrong up there. Let us hope that the contamination, as I said, is no longer being spread, that they can determine the borders of how far the contamination has spread and that they can then, perhaps, clean it up through neutralising the chemicals through some way or another—some design of a balancing chemical. If they do not do that, then I believe those people deserve compensation. I will repeat it again: if you have your place devalued through no fault of your own, the people—the department that are responsible for that devaluation should compensate you.

That is my contribution. I thank Senator Burston once again for bringing this very important issue to the attention of the Senate.

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Williamtown story of contamination has thrown the lives of so many people into uncertainty and disarray. It is actually a story that is repeated, we are learning, in many other areas around the country, and it really does underline why this government has to act urgently. People are living with possible health problems, the loss of property value and the inability to continue their lives. Some of them have lost their livelihood completely; fishing folk in and around Williamtown are an example of that. Each time I visit this area I find that the mental health of many of the local people is deteriorating, and it is understandable. When you have got your future ahead of you, and part of your future is where you live, your income, your property and home, and you are uncertain if you should even be living there but you cannot see any way out because your property now has no value, it clearly is incredibly alarming.

One of the saddest stories I heard was about a young couple who had decided to move from Sydney to this area to start their home. They liked the semirural lifestyle. She fell pregnant—after very much looking forward to starting a family—and then, while she was pregnant, the story of the contamination broke. She was then not sure if she should breastfeed the baby—if that was best, or if it was not best. Might she be poisoning her baby through her breast milk? These are the questions that people are asking themselves and that really underline that sense of insecurity that so many people are living with.

The banks are now becoming a big part of this story. The Commonwealth Bank has sent foreclosure letters to residents in Salt Ash, one of the areas affected by PFOS and PFOA contamination. We have heard from the Commonwealth Bank that it is not planning to foreclose—it has backed down on that, and it has said, 'Well, that was a bit of a mistake.' It is actually claiming that sending the letters was an administrative error. But anybody who has been involved in this crisis would have to be very sceptical of that claim.

The fact is that residents' homes have been devalued, residents have had difficulty getting bank loans, and resident have had difficulty selling. Many are begging the Department of Defence to buy them out. Again, that is something that has been repeated so often when I meet with locals at Williamtown, particularly because many of them went to the Senate inquiry that we had at the end of last year. That gave them some hope—because the Department of Defence have to turn up—that Defence would listen and then respond.

The government admits total responsibility. There is no wriggle room and no excuses. They admit that they have caused this contamination. So, understandably, people expect, 'Well, this is the government. They will do the right thing. They have admitted that they have made this very serious mistake and we are now living with contamination.' But there is nothing. The months keep rolling by. So this issue about the value of people's property and their future is becoming bigger and bigger.

ANZ, the Commonwealth Bank and NAB have all refused to offer new lending in the area known as the 'red zone'—the area that has been marked out as severely contaminated. There is a risk associated with these properties that the banks do not want to go near as they now have reduced value due to the high levels of contamination. So this is huge. Imagine how we would feel if we went home this weekend and we found that that was the situation for where we live—I guess most of us own our places—and then all of a sudden we could not get a loan and we could not sell our property. This is extraordinary. Who has caused it? In this case it was the government.

Real estate agents in the area have confirmed that they are struggling to sell properties. If the Department of Defence is responsible for the devaluation of the properties—and they are; we know that—then they are also responsible for ensuring that the affected residents are compensated for those property devaluations as well as for the loss of income, the health difficulties and the disruption that they have endured through no fault of their own.

Again, I want to underline, and I know I have said it but we need to keep saying it: the government has admitted that they are responsible. The local people, through no fault of their own, are now in this incredible situation—a situation of constant uncertainty. This is causing stress, anguish and, in many cases, depression. I have been very concerned with what some people are saying to me about what they think that they might have to do with their future. It is extremely alarming, and it goes back to this failure of government to deal with what is happening.

It is the obligation of the Turnbull government to sort this out with the banks. This is precisely what a government should do. They should put the public good first. The public good has been damaged here. They should put the public good first, and, as the banks are part of the problem, they should be helping sort that out.

It is also the obligation of the government to compensate for the huge financial losses that the residents are coping with. Again, that should be obvious. There was a clear recommendation from our Senate inquiry that the government start working on this. But nearly a year later—nothing. It is also the obligation of the government to provide free health tests to residents.

The government should be working with state agencies to remediate the contaminated land and water. It is absolutely critical that the government sets out a clear timeline detailing its plans for remediation. That remediation is critical for residents and also for workers at the base. The level of problems in this area really are mounting as this goes on. I have had many shocks and surprises, both in listening to residents and in hearing how the government is handling it. One was when I learnt that the government initially had no plans for remediation. Now that is not nearly as extensive as it needs to be.

I feel that the coalition government is dodging this issue. I found out, when I first asked questions about this in estimates last year, that the government has actually known about this for many years—certainly for much longer than the one year that the local people have known about it. The Department of Defence have known about it for years. International studies have been done. So it was in the literature. It had been reported. But again the local people had been left in the dark.

I am pleased to be able to speak on this. Sadly, I think we will have to come back to this time and time again. But the ball really is with the government. We know the problems banks have in ever doing the right thing by people. That is why the government needs to address the issue of how the banks are operating, as well as to take up their own responsibility to do health tests properly and not run these scam ways of doing them by saying, 'If somebody goes and pays for the health tests then they can get the money back.' Many of these people do not have that sort of cash, to be able to manage it in that way. So there is much that the government needs to do, and they really need to get cracking.

Question agreed to.