Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. I refer to the crisis regarding contamination by PFOS chemicals that's been documented in the media over the last week. In my home state of Victoria alone, it's been reported that there are possibly 16 sites where elevated levels of toxic firefighting contamination have been found. Given that, what is the government's plan to undertake a thorough clean-up of this pollution and provide compensation for those who have lost income and value on their property because of the contamination?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Rice for that question. Our priority, as has been documented for some time, in relation to this issue is the health and wellbeing of the affected communities in managing the potential impacts of PFAS on the environment. That is why we are continuing to support local communities affected by PFAS contamination with a new $73.1 million package. We are providing $55.2 million for a drinking water program—and I should acknowledge here that a number of senators in this chamber, and indeed a number of members in the House of Representatives, have strongly represented their communities in this space, including and in particular, of course, Senator Burston in more recent times, which is a matter of public record. So we're providing $55.2 million for a drinking water program. The program has commenced and will continue to support property owners in communities surrounding Army Aviation Centre Oakey and RAAF bases Williamtown, Tindal and Pearce who use bores as their primary source of drinking water. We know that the human body gets rid of PFAS over time, so it is important to focus on reducing exposure by providing alternative water to communities.

We are also providing $17.9 million to the Department of the Environment and Energy as part of our ongoing commitment to respond to PFAS contamination issues, protect the environment and minimise human exposure, including by continuing the work of the PFAS task force. In developing our response, the government has been guided by expert advice on the potential health effects of PFAS. The independent expert health panel's recently released report on PFAS exposure concludes:

There is no consistent evidence that exposure to PFAS causes adverse human health effects.

Their findings support our approach to responding to PFAS contamination, which focuses on removing exposure pathways, removing sources of contamination and remediating contamination where possible. (Time expired)

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Rice, a supplementary question.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Department of Health maintains there is no consistent evidence that the toxins cause 'important' health effects. In contrast, the US EPA has concluded that these chemicals are a human health hazard that can cause immune dysfunction and cancer. Given this, when will the government ratify the United Nations Stockholm convention agreement to ban PFOS chemicals and bring Australia into line with the 171 other countries that have ratified this agreement?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The best available advice in front of the government is consistent with what Senator Rice referenced in her question. That is the advice that we're acting on. If there is anything further that either the Minister for Health or the Minister for the Environment and Energy wants to add to this, I will come back to the chamber.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Rice, a final supplementary question.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yet the government, through the study you were talking about, Minister, is admitting that the evidence linking PFAS to negative health effects is not conclusive. Isn't that justification for applying the precautionary principle and offering to buy out residents who want to leave? What will the government say to people if it refuses to buy them out and the four-year study does, in fact, conclude that there are negative health effects and that they have been suffering them for years?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The advice in front of us is that there's no conclusive evidence in relation to the link between PFAS and the health effects that Senator Rice references. We are, of course, taking action. We are taking precautionary steps. We're not going as far as Senator Rice is suggesting because, in all of the circumstances and based on all of the advice in front of us, we don't believe that that would be justified at this point in time.