Malarndirri McCarthy (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I present the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade's inquiry into the management of PFAS contamination in and around Defence bases, together with the minutes of proceedings of the committee and the transcript of evidence.

Ordered that the report be printed.

by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I would like to firstly thank those families, organisations and individuals for attending our hearings in Katherine, Oakey and Williamtown. And I'd like to say to those families: your patience and perseverance in explaining and sharing your story to committee members—yet again, for many of you—your experiences with the chemical PFAS, the contamination of PFAS and its impact on you and your lives is deeply appreciated. Some of you spoke quite personally about the troubling health concerns you have while others spoke passionately about the financial impact you're experiencing as a result of a drop in property values, and your inability to have the option to move from your contaminated location. Some of you gave evidence that you do not wish to move at all but would appreciate the financial ability to stay.

The committee heard evidence on the anxiety around a lack of coordination, particularly between government agencies both at a state and federal level. It's why the committee has strongly recommended the establishment of a coordinator-general role—in order to do exactly that. The role should include providing ongoing monitoring of PFAS levels in all management areas using a range of sampling methods and publish the results as soon as practical in a publicly accessible format. The coordinator-general role should provide leadership to drive effective, transparent and consistent responses to PFAS contamination at sites across the country. The role should identify gaps and priorities for investigation and remediation based on the extent of contamination and risk to human and environmental health in each area. The role should also work across portfolios and with state, territory and local governments, to overcome barriers to cooperation, to coordinate actions, to clearly communicate outcomes and advice to the public, and to provide a national point of contact and accountability for the government's response to the PFAS issue, including annual reporting to the parliament.

Consistently we heard in each of those three locations—Oakey, Williamtown and Katherine—the concerns around coordination. In the Katherine region in particular, there was major distrust with Defence in relation to coordination across all three areas. The committee took evidence that that lack of trust was largely due to the fact that Defence is seen as the contaminator in terms of the product, PFAS, emanating from Defence-owned land on to properties and water in surrounding areas. So, as a result, we've highly recommended coordination. We recognise that Defence can't be seen to do everything yet it must do a consistent amount. However, there has to be an even higher level of accountability in having this particular role recommended in our report.

I take this moment, as well, to mention the role of my fellow Labor colleagues on the committee—Meryl Swanson MP, Sharon Claydon MP, and Senator Claire Moore. Personally, as deputy chair of this subcommittee, I appreciated their expertise and advice in those respective areas where we went to gather evidence and to listen. I also take the time to acknowledge the chair, Andrew Laming, who I worked with very closely throughout our seven or eight months working on this.

It was incredibly difficult to listen to the stories of families who were deeply traumatised, in some cases, and deeply affected by the impact of this chemical on them. I note very strongly, here in the Senate—to all senators—that it does not matter how much you hear about the contaminant PFAS, know this: it is a very real and impacting problem in terms of the lives of those families across all those regions—not to mention, really, all of those who we were unable to get to. I certainly appreciated that we received around 80 submissions to the committee. Of course, it is still an unknown concern that still needs to be explored more broadly across the country.

In recommendation 5, we recommended:

… that the Australian Government assist property owners and businesses in affected areas for demonstrated, quantifiable financial losses associated with PFAS contamination that has emanated from Defence bases. This is a challenge Priority for compensation, including the possibility of buy backs, should in the first instance be given to the most seriously affected residents …

This is a challenge put down to the government to act immediately—to make sure that not another Christmas goes by when these families are filled with uncertainty about their future. I think it is critical that we acknowledge there are serious issues here that need to be dealt with.

In terms of the other recommendations in the report, recommendation 6 is:

… that the Australian Government make available free, individualised case management and financial counselling services to those affected by PFAS contamination.

And we also went on to recommend:

… implement legislation and policies to:

We also urged the Australian government to:

… urgently ratify the listing of PFOS under the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants.

Further, the Committee recommends that the Government expedite the process for ratification of PFOA and PFHxS in the event that they are listed under the Stockholm Convention in the future.

We made a total of 10 recommendations. I urge senators here to read them, please, and to take heed of the concerns of families who we listened to across the jurisdictions of Queensland, New South Wales and the Northern Territory. We urge that senators push their respective leaders as best they can in regard to these recommendations.

I also just want to take the time to say thank you personally especially to my constituents in the Northern Territory, to the people who gave evidence. It was a very difficult time, certainly, for all concerned—not just for the families but also for Defence. I do commend the work of Steve Grzeskowiak and acknowledge the tremendous amount that he carries in all of this, along with his team. But, at the end of the day, the people out there expect greater leadership from this parliament. They see that coordination is not happening in the way that it could; we could be better at what we do in this regard. That's why there is the urgency in the coordinator-general role.

I would like to finish by thanking the secretariat for their work. It's always wonderful to work with them—people who put so much time into the logistics of that kind of work: the travel across the country and the many witnesses who come forward. It was an incredibly important time for our parliament to listen to those concerns across the country. I say a very special thank you to all the staff in the secretariat: thank you very much for your patience and your diligence in getting us through this report.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We'll come back to Senator Faruqi on this topic, because the sitting of the Senate is suspended until 7.30 pm.

Sitting suspended from 18:30 to 19 : 30

Mehreen Faruqi (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on behalf of the Greens to speak on the report of the inquiry into the management of PFAS contamination in and around Defence bases, which was tabled earlier today. I want to thank the committee for establishing the inquiry into this important issue, and thank my fellow senators and MPs in the other place who were on the subcommittee and did a very detailed inquiry and produced a report that makes some quite strong recommendations. Thank you, also, as always, to the committee secretariat, who do such a wonderful job of organising the hearings and all of the work that happens behind the scenes to make sure that we have all the information to produce a report that is useful and can hopefully be used effectively. Most of all, though, I want to thank and acknowledge community members across the country for their continued advocacy for the protection of our environment, the scarce water resources we have in Australia and the health of our people and communities.

I recognise the significant stress and anxiety that PFAS contamination has caused, particularly for communities around the RAAF base in Williamtown in New South Wales, the Oakey Army Aviation Centre in Queensland and RAAF Base Tindal at Katherine in the Northern Territory. We know other sites in New South Wales, my home state, including HMAS Albatross, near Nowra; RAAF Base Richmond; RAAF Base Wagga Wagga; Holsworthy Barracks; Singleton Military Area; and Blamey Barracks at Kapooka, are similarly affected.

I came to the Senate and joined this committee when this inquiry was well underway, so I particularly want to pay tribute to my predecessor, Senator Lee Rhiannon, who did much of the Greens work in this area and did it very passionately. Unfortunately, I did not have the opportunity to travel for the hearings of the committee to meet the community in other states face to face, but the PFAS contamination in Williamtown is something I am quite familiar with from my previous work as New South Wales spokesperson for the environment. Over the years, I have been contacted by many community members who are worried for their health, for their environment and for their families. I want to pay special tribute to the work of the Port Stephens Greens, people like Robin Williams and Nigel Waters, who work across party lines to get outcomes for their communities. Groups like the Williamtown and Surrounds Residents Action Group have been at the forefront of organising for their communities as well.

This is an extremely serious issue. Per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances, PFAS, are persistent in the environment. They are bioaccumulative and toxic in certain species. First and foremost, we must apply the precautionary principle when there are concerns about human health and environmental impacts, especially with chemicals such as PFAS, which are highly persistent and mobile. The precautionary principle demands that preventative action be taken in the face of uncertainty—that if there are threats of serious and irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent damage to human health or the ecosystem. It is based on shifting the burden of proof to the proponents of an activity, exploring a wide range of alternatives to possibly harmful actions and increasing public participation in decision-making.

The Royal Australasian College of Physicians, in their submission to the Australian government established expert health panel to advise on the potential health impacts associated with per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances, recommended:

The current Australian Environmental Health Standing Committee (enHealth) advice is likely to be confusing for the public. It weakens approaches that apply the precautionary principle when advising the public about food and water consumption at sites potentially contaminated with PFAS. We advocate for a change to the national health advice that incorporates the latest international evidence for adverse human health effects.

The Australian Greens recognise that there is a need to provide accurate advice to communities about the health impacts of PFAS contamination, and that the Commonwealth government needs to do more to ensure the most up-to-date advice and information is provided.

Reading the submissions, it is clear that this issue has had a significant effect on people's mental and physical health. People have had to delay their retirement and actually increase their work hours because of this huge financial impact. Others talk about stress, anxiety and depression, and even cancers, heart attacks, pregnancy loss and developmental issues with children. This is not a simple issue, but community consultation has to be the cornerstone of resolving these matters. By 'community consultation', I don't mean a tick-box exercise in consultation—I mean consultation that is genuine, that is extensive, that is proactive and that is transparent. It must consider and actually incorporate the input from the community in outcomes and responses.

It should not have taken years of community campaigning for Defence to be accountable for the contamination that it had caused. The failure of Defence to take responsibility for this matter may have had significant health and social implications for communities. As noted in the report, the United States Environmental Protection Agency wrote to the Australian government 18 years ago to draw attention to the long-term risks of PFAS to human health and the environment, but existing stocks of the product continued to be used by Defence until at least 2011. Consistent with the polluter-pays principle, Defence has an obligation for all costs associated with testing, containment and remediation, as well as compensation of affected people.

I want to talk about buybacks. The government has decided that there will be no property buyback scheme. This is unacceptable. The reality is that the effects of PFAS contamination are not yet known, and we know that some properties will be significantly affected. There are no options but for compensation to include buyback. The government is responsible for the pollution. The Australian Greens strongly encourage the Commonwealth government to urgently develop a buyback program for properties where contamination is significant. This issue is not restricted to Defence properties either. Other federal government properties, as well as properties formerly owned by the federal government, such as airfields and former Defence sites, should be fully investigated by the Commonwealth government.

I want to highlight one case at Tamworth. The Tamworth Regional Council has spent up to $150,000 on containing PFAS contamination impacting Tamworth Regional Airport and nearby waterways. When asked why the federal government wasn't paying for the cost, the local member, the Hon. Barnaby Joyce, said, 'It will cost billions and billions and billions of dollars to do so across our nation, and that is why the government needs to make sure they've got their information right before they start spending that sort of money.' Well, we do have that information right. While the federal government equivocates having known about the potential harm that PFAS can cause for 18 years, local communities pay the social and financial cost. That's unacceptable.

The committee has made some strong recommendations, including providing leadership to drive effective and transparent responses to PFAS contamination, including monitoring, identifying gaps, priorities for investigation, and upscaling investment in the containment of PFAS blooms. This should be done by appointing a coordinator-general to coordinate a national response and provide a national point of contact. The committee has recommended that the Australian government assist property owners and businesses in affected areas through compensation, including buybacks, as well as free individualised case management and financial counselling services. We've also recommended legislation and policies to nationally ban the use of long-chain PFAS based firefighting foams, and contain and ultimately destroy these safely where they still exist.

The Australian government should urgently ratify the listing of PFAS under the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. If the government care about the community, if they care about our environment, they should urgently accept and implement the recommendations of this report. They don't have to wait for months to provide a response. The community has waited long enough; communities have suffered for long enough. It's time to take concrete action to help them, and it's time to take that concrete action now.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to make a few comments on this report this evening. I know people will want to talk on this into the future because of the importance of this particular issue, but I want to pick up from where Senator Faruqi has left off. It's absolutely time. Since I have been in this place, there have been a number of inquiries into the issues around PFAS, and we have become very familiar with the people who've come forward to give evidence on the issue. In fact, in the recent series of inquiries we talked to people who had given evidence about the impact of this particular issue on themselves, their businesses and their community three or four times. In terms of action, I think that there is almost a fatigue in the community—they expect responses from their government and have been given indications that responses will be coming, but consistently the action has been incomplete and inconsistent. And sometimes they feel as though their voices have not been heard.

I'm hopeful that this particular series of reports will generate action. It will not solve the problem. One of the horrors of this PFAS contamination is that there does not seem to be the knowledge in our country or internationally on how you solve the problem. For me, one of the most confronting elements of evidence was in Oakey, which is very close to my home town on the Darling Downs. They put maps in front of the people whose properties were being discussed as well as representatives from the Darling Downs and Defence, and the maps clearly showed that the spread of contamination in the water around that area was continuing to happen. There was indication that there has been considerable expenditure of funds and that there have been activities involving three levels of government, because so often in this situation action requires coordination, cooperation and transparency between three levels of government. In the case of Oakey, the local regional council—the Toowoomba Regional Council—the state government and different elements of the federal government have been aware of the issue. There have been various public meetings across the region. There has been discussion, but the process continues. For me, the confronting element is that no-one has come up with concrete proven evidence about what the impact is and how we stop it. Certainly, that was what people were saying to us. They expressed to us their pain. They expressed to us their frustration and their anger.

They also don't have clear life plans. There were people in each of the locations—and I will concentrate on Oakey because we have representatives from New South Wales and the Northern Territory who'll talk about the other sites covered by the inquiry—but what we found was that every single case was different. There is not a one-size-fits-all in this argument, except for the fact that they are all in pain. In terms of the response, there are some people who desperately need to flee because of the fear that has been created around what the possible impacts might be and because, as I said, of the evidence of continued water contamination. People wish to flee, and they wish to flee now. That's why previous senators raised issues around land values and the opportunities to get an effective sale for the properties where people had hoped to spend their retirement years, where they had hoped to build their families in a new area. That security and that hope has been thwarted by the information they received about these chemicals. But other people in exactly the same area with exactly the same information in front of them do not want to leave their homes. You cannot just say that everybody should be given a package that allows them to leave the areas of contamination or possible future contamination. That was not how everybody felt. There were some people who actually expressed to us at the committee hearings that they have been living in the region for four generations. Even knowing that their health could be impacted, even knowing that there is a lack of certainty about what the impact could be on themselves and their family, some people felt that this was their home, and they wanted to stay. So we don't have a single voice speaking from the communities, but what permeates the argument is fear of the unknown and fear of the impact on themselves, their families and their communities. And there has not been a clear answer from their governments—and I say 'governments' because it goes back a number of years.

I know that there are differing views in the scientific community, but I didn't hear one comment at any time in the evidence saying that this was a good thing. Not one person said that they wanted to be surrounded by these chemicals. Not one person said that they felt this was going to be a good thing. This evidence came from the department as well as from people in the various community groups.

I understand the complexity. I understand that there have been efforts made in the past to have community discussion. But what I felt very clearly was that there was limited trust in the communication. For the people in the affected communities that we met with, face to face, around Australia who had identified that these chemicals were in their homes or home region, there was a lack of trust. For us on the committee that was the No. 1 issue. There needs to be some process put in place to rebuild that trust to ensure that there is an understanding that the full truth, as people know it, will be shared, that the various impacts will be identified and that their government will be able to develop some response to the concerns.

As Senator Faruqi mentioned, there are a number of strong recommendations coming out of this committee inquiry. We often do have strong recommendations come out of committee inquiries in this place. But now I think there has to be a genuine cross-party parliamentary commitment that there will be action taken, that this will not just be passed on to another series of committees down the track and that this time people's voices will be heard. That is still possible. I really believe it is still possible, but there has got to be clearer focus and a better communications strategy developed and put in place immediately.

Certainly we as a committee believe that the idea of having a coordinator-general who would be a single point of response, who would coordinate across departments, who would coordinate across different levels of government and who would be a point on which communities could rely is a good one. Not everybody will hear the answers that they want to hear, because, as I said, there are different concerns and different responses required, but there would be a single point that would be able to have authority to listen and to respond. From our observations through the public hearings and also the written evidence, that is not in place now. There have certainly been attempts, and I do acknowledge that people, particularly in the Department of Defence and also within the environment department, have made efforts, but we need more.

Certainly the evidence from a number of sources is that the international responses need to be coordinated as well. Seemingly, Australia is as well placed as anywhere in the world in this area of identifying the issues and seeking some response. I have expectation that there is scientific knowledge that can be gathered together to look at what we do next, but this is not getting better. As I said, those maps continue to haunt me. It is not getting better. We need to find a way that we can identify what we can put in place to allay the concerns and the fears and to ensure that the communities are not feeling abandoned. I'm not sure how many inquiries there have been on this issue, but there is still a sense of abandonment in the community about the response that they believe that they should have from their government.

I want to acknowledge the commitment, courage and resilience of the people who came to us and gave their evidence. We as a committee feel that their voices were listened to, but we need to ensure now that there is genuine response, there is coordination of response and there is that so-valuable element of ensuring that there is a sense of trust between those who have been impacted on and those who, for whatever reason—and no-one claims that there's been criminal intent—have put chemicals in place which are impacting on Australians' lives. Along with Senator Faruqi, I say it's time to actually put an action plan in place. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.