John McVeigh (Groom, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I also rise to contribute to the debate on the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade report on the inquiry into the management of PFAS contaminations in and around Defence bases across the country, which was released, as we know, on 3 December, a few days ago. First of all, I acknowledge the comments of the former speaker, who is dealing with PFAS contamination in her electorate, as am I in the electorate of Groom, around the Oakey Army Aviation Centre, and other colleagues are elsewhere across the country. It's a very challenging and complex problem that affects Defence bases, which was the focus of this report, but also, as we know, other installations across the broader community where these PFAS contaminants have been used, particularly in firefighting foams at Defence and non-Defence airports and similar facilities.

First and foremost, the primary concern for me—and, I have no doubt, for all members of the House—is the health impacts on residents, constituents, in our various electorates. I focus upon the fact, because it's my primary concern, that the advice from relevant authorities, the advice referred to in this report, is that there continues to be, at this stage, no consistent evidence that PFAS chemicals are harmful to human health. But the report, along with other recommendations in previous inquiry reports, reminds us that there are recommendations that that advice continue to be monitored.

Beyond that, there is certainly the impact on the livelihoods of people affected and on property values, as we've heard. It extends through to mental health challenges—stress, if you like; pressures for people who are simply concerned about their properties and the property value. For some that is a property that they may have purchased prior to knowing of this PFAS contamination, and they are now unable to continue with the building of a house or other facilities because the banks are unable or unwilling to provide them with finance. At the other end of the spectrum are those who are simply wanting to move on with their lives—perhaps, as is the case with a number of constituents in Oakey, moving into an aged-care facility. They want to sell their home and use that value to fund their way into an aged-care facility but are equally stuck, for want of a better term, waiting for an outcome before they can move on with their lives. This is a tremendously challenging issue right across the country.

I want to talk briefly about the background of government action to date and then specifically come back to the recommendations in this report. I'm hoping the report will prompt quicker action than we have seen—particularly in the compensation discussion, which may or may not involve, for example, land buybacks or other forms of compensation—and also address some of the other recommendations. I want to acknowledge that the government previously established the PFAS Taskforce. That is nowadays located within the Department of the Environment and Energy. Previously it was in the Prime Minister's office. There's been the investment of $55.2 million for a drinking-water program. That has certainly provided support in the town in my electorate that's affected, Oakey, which a beautiful town that was the centre of my life in my younger years, given I was raised on a farm at Jondaryan, not far from Oakey. There's $17.9 million from the Department of the Environment and Energy to continue the commitment to respond to contamination issues from an environmental perspective. There is money that has been allocated and invested in affected communities, including Oakey, to reduce exposure, manage those environmental impacts and provide additional mental health and counselling services, which I see as critical. There's access to voluntary blood testing, which has not necessarily been taken up by all, and an epidemiological study to assist in further research on PFAS contamination issues. There's $12.5 million for a national research program looking into the human health effects of prolonged exposure to PFAS and of course $13 million for a PFAS remediation research program to look at the clean-up technologies—water and soil treatment—and how we might investigate and continue that clean-up, right through to some sort of resolution that suits each affected community.

I could speak at length about how that has played out in the Oakey community itself and on the Army aviation base—Swartz Barracks—particularly with the drains, which have been in place for many decades and run through and off the base into local drainage systems. That work continues, taking off the top layer through these drains on the base itself, whilst other research is conducted in terms of the impacts of PFAS. A lot of this, while not necessarily any consolation for those with properties on the front line of the impact, does emphasise the fact that at least Australia is leading the charge in terms of international research on PFAS chemical contamination issues. But we certainly have a long way to go.

With that quick background about government response over the last couple of years that I've been involved directly in debate while I've been the member for Groom, to come back to the recommendations of the report, I can perhaps just draw together some threads about where we're at at this stage and more particularly about where we need to go to resolve some outstanding issues. There are nine recommendations. The first is essentially, by way of summary, about focusing on coordination. I endorse this very strongly. In my case, it involves Toowoomba Regional Council, relevant Queensland state government departments, particularly health, and of course the relevant Commonwealth departments, keeping in mind that Defence itself is not a health department, so it does need to seek that advice and has continued to do so. Can coordination between the three levels of government and between departments be continually improved? Absolutely. I am encouraging that as best I can. That recommendation also talks about ongoing monitoring. As I mentioned, the government response has been about monitoring. This recommendation says we must continue that, and I acknowledge that recommendation. Of course the government is considering its response to all of these recommendations, but I am very keen to provide a local perspective.

The second one talks about continuing and upscaling containment and remediation activities, such as those on the base that I've talked about. The third talks about reviewing medical advice. Again, the advice at this stage is that there is no proven link between PFAS and human health impacts, but it is appropriate that we continue to review that advice. Recommendation 4 is to improve access to voluntary blood testing. It's in place already, but we need to promote that and provide that to those who are interested.

I will jump down to recommendation 7, talking about banning PFAS. It is obviously not used on bases nowadays in general terms, but we need to ensure that it's not only been banned there but right across the community. Recommendation 8 is about Stockholm listings. Recommendation 9, reviewing the environmental regulation of Commonwealth lands, is obviously another outcome which I think makes logical sense. Again, it's up to the ministers to respond on behalf of the government. As a local member and member of the government, I am keen to pursue those sorts of issues.

I deliberately left recommendations 5 and 6 to come back to. Recommendation 6 talks about financial counselling. I've mentioned that mental health counselling services are being provided. We can ramp up financial counselling where needed. I can see the sense in that. Lastly, recommendation 5 talks about compensation in a tailored way to individual circumstances. I think this is an important point. No two properties are the same. No two affected landholders are in the same situation. Some are close, some are further away, some are residential, some agricultural. Therefore I recognise that while class actions are under way—and people are entitled to participate in those—there are others who are dealing directly with Defence to look at a tailored solution for them. I endorse those activities. I'm glad people are taking up those opportunities. I very much look forward to the government's response to this report's recommendations.

See this speech in context