Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present the report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee on contamination caused by firefighting foams at RAAF Base Williamtown and Australian Defence Force facilities, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee.

Ordered that the report be printed.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

This report addresses the first part of the committee's terms of reference and focuses on the contamination caused by chemicals used in firefighting foams at RAAF Base Williamtown on the surrounding communities. However, other defence facilities where firefighting foam was extensively used have, or are likely to have, similar issues. In particular, the situation at Army Aviation Centre Oakey in Queensland has been raised with the committee. The committee did not receive sufficient evidence to address these other defence facilities in this report and intends to explore this aspect in the second part of its inquiry. The committee also has indicated in its report that there are also significant matters where questions remain at RAAF Base Williamtown and it may need to further examine the response here.

The immediate impact on the communities around RAAF Base Williamtown of the contamination has been profound. The shadow of uncertainty regarding the spread of the pollutants has created fear and concern, but it has also had real and concrete impacts for these residents and businesses. This is a crisis for those people who have been told they have been drinking potentially contaminated water, that they cannot work or that their property may be worthless. However, this situation has not received a crisis response from government agencies.

The community and the committee expects that Commonwealth government agencies such as Defence to be responsible custodians of the environment and exemplars in protecting public health. Unfortunately, there appears to be a lack of Commonwealth government leadership and a reluctance to take full responsibility for the contamination at RAAF Base Williamtown.

The committee has made a number of recommendations to defence and to the Commonwealth government more broadly. The first recommendations focus on access to water issues, the provision of mental health and counselling services, initial compensation of the fishing community and the coordination of the response of government agencies. Other recommendations focus on providing certainty for affected residents and commercial fishermen in the longer term. Finally, the committee makes recommendations on some related issues: blood testing and the application of environmental regulations to defence.

Defence is currently providing bottled water to some affected residents due to the contamination of the groundwater. In Newcastle, the committee received evidence that affected residents were having difficulties with this scheme. We have recommended that defence immediately review its provision of water and the replacement of water infrastructure to affected residents to ensure it is sufficient to meet their needs.

Many commercial fishermen have had their incomes ceased or substantially reduced because of the fishing closures at Fullerton Cove and Tilligerry Creek while the contamination is investigated. Accordingly, the committee has recommended that the Commonwealth government, with the advice of the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries, develop an initial compensation package for the commercial fishermen affected by the closures of Fullerton Cove and Tilligerry Creek.

The mental health impacts of the contamination on affected residents and the need for additional support services was clear in the evidence the committee received. The committee has recommended that defence examine providing additional mental health and counselling support services to those affected by contamination at RAAF Base Williamtown.

Importantly, tensions between New South Wales government agencies and defence were abundantly clear during the inquiry. Further, a lack of coordination between different parts of the response to the contamination also appeared to be causing problems. The committee has recommended that defence and the New South Wales government examine establishing a joint taskforce to coordinate the response of government agencies to the contamination from RAAF Base Williamtown.

A consistent theme in the evidence was that affected residents and commercial fishermen needed a level of certainty in relation to compensation from defence and the Commonwealth government regarding the damage caused by contamination. Accordingly, the committee has recommended that the Commonwealth government commit to voluntarily acquiring property and land which is no longer fit for purpose due to PFOS or PFOA contamination from RAAF Base Williamtown. Further, if PFOS or PFOA contamination from RAAF Base Williamtown causes permanent or long-term fishing closures, the Commonwealth government should    commit to compensate and should purchase the relevant rights of fisherman affected and establish an industry transition program for affected commercial fishermen to assist them to relocate or transfer to other industries.

Despite calls from the community for access to blood tests for levels of PFOS or PFOA, Defence relied on New South Wales Health advice that blood testing was not appropriate, given that no medical advice could be given based on the results. However, the committee was not convinced by this evidence and notes there are a number of other reasons to undertake blood tests. The committee recommended that Defence arrange and fund a program of blood tests for residents in the investigation area on an annual basis.

A lack of clarity in relation to the environmental regulation of Defence was repeatedly raised during the inquiry. To begin to resolve this, the committee has recommended that Defence release a policy statement to clarify its environmental obligations and responsibilities for contamination which spreads to non-Commonwealth land. In particular, it should clarify the capacity of state and territory environment regulation to apply to its activities. In relation to the remediation of RAAF Base Williamtown, the committee received conflicting evidence. However, Defence has committed to follow-up remediation strategies as a priority.

Following the committee's hearing in Newcastle on 22 December, the NSW government has announced a package of assistance measures to help the community at Williamtown deal with the consequences of the contamination. The announcement that affected residents will be connected to town water, that new testing equipment will be acquired and that additional mental health services will be provided indicates an understanding of the situation and of community concerns which, unfortunately, has been lacking at the federal level.

There are likely to be many other military and civilian airports and firefighting training sites, as well as other facilities, which will have legacy contamination through the use of firefighting foams. The committee is concerned that if the mistakes made regarding contamination at RAAF Base Williamtown are not addressed promptly they will almost certainly be repeated at other sites in the future. The committee will continue to examine these issues in the second part of its inquiry.

I commend the report and the excellent work of the participating senators and the secretariat in the preparation of it.

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

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

I rise to speak on the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee report on contamination caused by firefighting foams at RAAF Base Williamtown and Australian Defence Force facilities. On behalf of the Greens, I moved for this inquiry and was pleased to get the support of the Senate. We moved to do that because of the rising concerns of residents at Williamtown, and many other people as well, that the Department of Defence was not being responsible in how it was responding. When you look at the time line on the disclosure, and as knowledge has started to come in about these chemicals, it certainly reinforces and explains why that concern has been so considerable.

Residents' concerns about contamination on and around Williamtown base were one of the reasons why this inquiry was held—and also the department's lack of transparency about the issue. When we held the inquiry in Newcastle and heard from not just local residents but also the Department of Defence, and about the quite terse relationship with various New South Wales departments, it became apparent that the way this issue has been handled is not only very serious but also ongoing and problematic. The Department of Defence is not managing and not responding adequately in terms of the seriousness of this matter.

You have heard from other members about the chemicals that are involved here, which are known as PFOS and PFOA. Historically they have been associated with firefighting and used extensively in training, as we have heard. One of the most disturbing stories I heard was that years ago the children of some of the staff at the base enjoyed playing in the foam because it is slippery to slide on. We heard a number of personal stories, particularly from residents in the red zone, which is the area marked out for particularly high levels of contamination. I have only received limited information from the workers on the base, but I think that is an issue that also needs to be further explored.

I was concerned about some of the comments from Senator Back. He came across as trying to excuse the way the Department of Defence has handled this matter. Mistakes are made. Right now the department needs to be much more transparent in how it responds to the community because that is where there has been major failure to date. I was quite surprised to hear those attempts from the senator to make out that these chemicals are pretty run-of-the-mill.

I have a few more comments about the chemicals because I think it is important to spell out the health and environmental impacts. PFOS and PFOA are chemically biologically stable. The significance of that, when you look at food chains, is that they can biomagnify—that is, they can accumulate in organisms and move through food chains as one animal eats another. They can therefore well and truly accumulate in human beings. If they get to the top of the food chain then those chemicals become a part of the food chain and do not break down.

The history of these chemicals and our knowledge about their effects, I would argue, shows that the Department of Defence has not responded adequately to this contamination issue. Looking at the time line of the knowledge that has come out about these chemicals over the last decade also reflects poorly on how the department has handled it. Australian government departments, we understand, have known about the toxic effect of these chemicals since 2003 yet it was not until 2007 that Defence included monitoring of PFOS and PFOA in its own environmental testing. The Defence department had been aware of the dangers of the firefighting chemicals for many years but the residents of Williamtown were not informed until September 2015. I find that really unbelievable. Really these people should be given an apology.

I think there is a role here for Minister Payne. I appreciate that she negotiated with us about the terms of reference for this inquiry and for the follow-up inquiry which is looking at the issue across the country. But Minister Payne, as the responsible minister, surely should apologise to the people of Williamtown, who have gone through so much stress and so much hardship which continues to this day. We have finished this part of the inquiry and brought down the recommendations but the recommendations should not sit there month after month. The government needs to respond quickly. These recommendations are a good start to bringing some certainty, a way to assist the residents to manage their lives and to respond to what is very troubling.

It is troubling because health studies have shown impacts of the chemicals on blood cholesterol levels, thyroid function and liver size. Again, this is why we are so surprised and concerned at Senator Back's comments. In 2006, the Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee of the Stockholm Convention concluded:

PFOS is likely, as a result of its long-range environmental transport, to lead to significant adverse human health and environmental effects such that global action is warranted.

That very clear requirement came from the committee that sits under the Stockholm Convention back in 2006.

Then come forward to the crisis facing the Williamtown people today. That information broke in September and the Department of Defence informed the people but would not give them blood tests. The locals requested them time and time again. Our inquiry has made a recommendation for blood tests. Surely that should be put in place quickly. I would urge Senator Back to get behind this recommendation. If he so confident about these chemicals, why not have the blood tests? The mental health issues for these people are real. When I speak about this issue now, I think of the day we sat in Newcastle town hall listening to the evidence. The stress and the upset of so many people were very real. They live with that today. A member of the Williamtown and surrounds residents' action group said people are scared, and you could see that. I saw that on the day we took evidence and I have seen it when I visited Williamtown on a number of occasions.

The concern also comes from the property values of the residents' places. Some people have been told that there is now no value and they cannot sell their place because who wants to buy a house and land in a contaminated area? Even if the land may not be contaminated or the water may not be contaminated, if they are in the red zone or near the red zone then there is a perception of a serious problem. I met a cattle farmer when I was up there last. He had a beautiful farm. I did not get to visit his farm but I saw the photographs and spent the afternoon with him at the bowling club. He just wants to sell out. He was hoping his sons would take over the farm, that they would be proud beef cattle farmers but now he cannot run his cattle farm in a profitable way and nobody wants to buy it. The Department of Defence should be working out with him and others now what their future is. These people feel they have no future and the stress is unacceptable.

The water issue is obviously a huge one. The Department of Defence has been supplying free drinking water to about 38 households. There are concerns that the contamination could put at risk the Newcastle city water supply. This is a huge Australian city and here we have a risk to the water supply for the city. This is extraordinary. This is big news in the Hunter and in Newcastle. I congratulate the Newcastle Herald because it has really pushed this story out there, has worked with the residents and has reported on these difficulties.

Then there is the reputation of the area in terms of the fishing and the prawns. This was one of the most moving parts of the inquiry on the day we were there. The Port Stephens broader reputation as an area for clean seafood production is at risk. So what did the prawners and fishers do? They took a very responsible decision and said they would suspend their operations because they did not want their brand tarnished. Meanwhile so many of the locals in that area have been told not to eat their eggs, not to eat their vegetables if bore water has been put on them, not to eat their chicken and beef. Mr Back might question the New South Wales Environmental Protection Authority for doing that but there is a precautionary principle, which is a very important part of how governments should work. I find it very disturbing that that is questioned by a senator here in the government. The New South Wales Farmers' Federation has also noted the impact of the long-term brand damage on the region.

The Greens have also added a number of recommendations to this inquiry about issues to do with compensation and voluntary acquisition of the land. Defence needs to take immediate steps on the contamination in Lake Cochrane. Right now the contamination continues to pour out of the RAAF base. One of the things that has shocked me is how little has been done to stop that and to deal with that. There is a lot more that needs to be investigated there. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.