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

I rise to also speak to the report as presented by my colleague Senator Gallacher, the chair of the committee. I am somewhat at variance, and the coalition have indeed put in a dissenting report to some of the elements of the majority report, to which I will speak.

As mentioned, the inquiry investigated legacy contamination resulting from firefighting foams in firefighting and firefighting training at RAAF Base Williamtown. It is important to understand that these foams are used to create a thin film which starves fuel of oxygen, which is the reason why they are so effective. It remains very effective, but is no longer used for training purposes. I will use the terms 'PFOS' and 'PFOA' for these perfluorinated compounds, but I need to advise the chamber that these particular chemicals have been in use in the community for many years. They are, indeed, the basis of Scotchgard. They are the basis of non-stick frypans. They are the same product that is used in firefighting foams.

I concur with Senator Gallacher in his comments that the response by government to the wider community has been very poor. Most people do not discriminate between state or federal agencies. The disappointment for me in this exercise to date has been as a result of Defence sending their draft stage 2 environmental investigations report to the New South Wales Environment Protection Authority for the purpose of further consultation and discussion. The response by the New South Wales EPA was to immediately go into the public arena to put a ban on fishing as a precautionary measure, and it was that that has elevated so greatly the devastating community concern that we observed in Newcastle on 22 December and heard from those associated with a similar incident at Oakey in Queensland.

Before people rush into making recommendations as to what should happen by way of compensation or purchasing land or purchasing fishing boats or whatever, I ask the question, as a result of the RAAF Base Williamtown contamination in Newcastle: what are the internationally regarded epidemiological studies into PFOS and PFOA? As it was with Defence's submission, from advice to me it appears that long-term, large-scale health studies of workers in the USA exposed to high levels of these chemicals—and these are the people associated with the actual manufacture—have shown no chronic health effects. There are no globally accepted, peer reviewed studies showing that exposure to these two chemicals adversely affects human health. What was particularly interesting to me was the question: have any local doctors or local medical practices or has the New South Wales department of health flagged the fact that there are adverse health outcomes for people in the area affected by the PFOA and PFOS contamination? Nobody has been able to tell me that people have been affected.

It is absolutely the case that Defence has an obligation, and the New South Wales EPA has a role to play. But, in my view, to rush into the public arena, to put a ban on commercial fishing and to get to the stage of saying that milk could not be consumed from cows that were drinking the groundwater and eggs could not be consumed from chooks that were drinking the groundwater has raised the status of alarm. And that was so terribly outlined to us from the people who now find themselves in the position that they do.

My colleague Senator Gallacher referred to blood testing. The federal government—Defence in particular—has taken the advice of New South Wales health experts in relation to blood testing. It is a recommendation of the coalition senators that Defence continues to take that advice. In the absence of knowing whether or not high levels of these chemicals in the blood do have adverse health impacts, it is dangerous, in fact, to be undertaking blood tests or annual testing. It is apparent in the Western world, as a result of the presence of these chemicals in the wider community, that they are in the blood of nearly all people in Western communities at the very low level of 0.2 and 0.4 nanograms per millilitre. The big question is: what does an elevated level in the blood tell you? We do not know.

Coalition senators certainly recommend that the Commonwealth government cooperate with the New South Wales government and commercial fishing stakeholders to better target financial assistance packages, which have been outlined. We also recommend that Defence—the Commonwealth government—supports interim assistance measures provided by the New South Wales government to support the affected community. You need to understand that the community has been affected. Grandparents told us that they were not prepared to have their grandchildren visit them over Christmas-New Year for fear of some adverse health effects on the children. I mentioned that milk cannot be consumed and eggs cannot be consumed and yet, for whatever reason, beef from animals that were drinking the groundwater can be consumed. There has not been much scientific basis for the decisions.

There is no doubt that the community needs to be supported. There is no doubt at all that PFOA and PFOS have been used on military bases, commercial airports and fire stations around the world—anywhere you want to look. Have a look in Botany Bay at the end of the Kingsford Smith runways. Have a look at the water around Perth airport. If you look around any of our Air Force bases, our commercial airports and our fire stations anywhere in Australia, you are going to find evidence of PFOS and PFOA that was used for training purposes.

I urge caution. This is a very serious issue. It is premature to be suggesting that Defence rush in until such time as we can establish more clearly what we are facing. Defence is undertaking a more comprehensive study, which I understand should be available in the middle of this year. We do not yet know whether there are adverse health effects. As I mentioned in a contribution I made in Newcastle, when it came to asbestos and asbestosis in Western Australia, the place to look was Wittenoom because that was the start of the problem of asbestosis and mesothelioma. You would think you would go to the factory where the chemical is being produced and do studies—and they have done studies. Fortunately, over extended periods of time the studies of workers with exposure to those chemicals do not show chronic health effects.

I will conclude with this contribution: the community needs to be supported and there is a role for the federal government and the state governments in this. There needs to be far better communication between state and federal agencies because there is no question that the quality of communication with the affected community was less than we would expect. Defence have put into place processes for communication. They have appointed Air Vice Marshal Evans as the single point of contact, and he has now engaged with many.

The lessons to date are these: communities need to be supported; communities need to be informed; where communities are adversely affected they need assistance; and federal and state agencies, not just Defence, need to be informed and involved. Until we actually know the adverse health effects of these chemicals I urge that we do not rush in, because this is simply the first or second of many locations where we are going to face this particular situation.