SENATE

90 SENATE Thursday, 13 October 2016
I want to speak briefly about the conclusions drawn from a human health risk assessment associated with
Williamtown and Oakey that was commissioned by the government. It was undertaken by an independent
international environmental consulting group called AECOM, and their objective was to assess potential human
health risks, including exposure through soil, groundwater, surface water, sediments, plants and animals within
the investigation areas. It is my understanding that the work they did was as a result of the review and the
endorsement of the toxicologist Professor Bartholomaeus. The words 'low' and 'acceptable' appear throughout
their report regarding both Williamtown and Oakey in terms of human health risk assessment. This was completed
in accordance with the National Environment Protection Measures.
I am not suggesting for one minute that we know the full answer to this question. But I think an incredibly illdisciplined,
ill-founded and regrettable comment was made by a person who was then in the defence service. As I
understand it, that person addressed the first public meeting in Oakey and stood up and said, 'This is the new
asbestos.' That person had absolutely and utterly no clinical history to use to make that statement. The person
might be right. The weight of opinion—from my reading of the scientific literature over the last 12 months—is
that they are not right. But it quite rightly has raised in the mind of the community very, very real concerns. Can
they sell their land? Should they run livestock on their land? Should they live there? Should they move away?
As we have said, and as Senator Burston has drawn to our attention, there is the whole question about land
valuation. If they want to move away, to whom can they sell their properties? Regarding the adjacent fishing fleets
and the flow-down from RAAF Base Williamtown, to what extent can those people re-establish their lives? They
have received some compensation—I would have thought it is not sufficient. We had one witness who had only
just invested heavily in a new fishing enterprise, and he saw his life being ruined. But this is not just a short-term
issue. For every airport—Mascot, Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth, the RAAF bases and the Army bases—this is a very,
very important, key, long-term study, and it must be looked upon with a high degree of maturity. Government
must continue to support those involved. We must continue to try and get epidemiological understanding and
clinical knowledge so that we can inform the wider community as PFOA and PFOS impacts emerge. Senator
Burston, thank you for raising this issue.
Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (17:03): I rise to support the notice of motion from Senator Burston
in relation to this issue of firefighting chemicals—PFOS and PFOA—and the situation that people find
themselves in in Williamtown. Firstly, I acknowledge the member for Paterson, Meryl Swanson, who is here in
the chamber. Williamtown is part of her electorate, and I am very pleased that Meryl is here to listen to this
debate, because this is an issue that affects her community and an issue that she, along with the Labor Party, is
extremely concerned about.
I have to say: I am absolutely gobsmacked by that last contribution from Senator Back. Senator Back, a man
who tells you that wind farms can kill you from 10 kilometres away, is now saying that you need scientific
knowledge on every issue about these chemicals before you can say there is a problem. I have never heard such a
turnaround by any senator in this place in my career in the Senate. Apparently wind farms are a problem, but these
chemicals are not. The chemical pollution in Williamtown? Not a problem! If you listen to Senator Back, you
would think you could spread it on your toast in the morning and you would be okay. I do not think it is as clear as
that. I do not think it is as simple as that. I have had a look at some of the reports that have been done and the
reports are not clear.
As a union official, for years and years I had to deal with members of the old metal workers union and the
AMWU who were dying with mesothelioma after exposure to asbestos, after they were told that it was okay:
'White asbestos is okay; it won't hurt you. Don't worry about it.' I used to go up to Barraba mine and see people
there—boilermakers, fitters, machinists, labourers—covered in asbestos, their skin as pale as anything, dying
young because of mesothelioma, and the company was telling people that there was not a problem.
I do not want to say there is a problem up in Williamtown, but I think we should take every precaution and we
should do everything we possibly can for the people of Williamtown to give them some idea of what the situation
is. But for Senator Back to come here and run the nonsense that he did just beggars belief. If you are part of some
right-wing conspiracy theory on wind turbines, you can come and say whatever you like. But if you are a resident
in Williamtown who has a genuine concern about chemicals affecting you, about chemicals affecting your kids
and about chemicals affecting your livelihood, then you are, basically, dismissed. Bring in all the expert opinion
you like and dismiss the concerns of the good folk of Williamtown!
Well I don't dismiss those concerns so quickly, and neither does the Labor Party. We do not dismiss those
concerns, on the basis that our leadership has gone up on a regular basis to Williamtown to talk to the community
about the implications for them and the concerns they have. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten,
went up there on 28 September 2016 to talk to the community about the issues affecting them. Richard Marles,
then the shadow minister for defence personnel, went up on 15 August 2016 and spoke to the people in
CHAMBER