SENATE

More documents

Recommendations

Info

90 <strong>SENATE</strong> 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
Thursday, 13 October 2016 <strong>SENATE</strong> 91 Williamtown. Former senator Stephen Conroy, the defence minister at the time, went up in June 2016 to talk to the community. Shadow minister Gai Brodtmann and local member Meryl Swanson have been there many times and have continued to talk to the people about their issues. Sharon Claydon, the former member whose area covered Williamtown prior to the redistribution, always had a concern for the citizens of Williamtown. I welcome Senator Burston's concern for the communities in that area. When we had the banking inquiry, Pat Conroy, the member for Charlton, forced the Commonwealth Bank to stop foreclosing on a family in Williamtown. Just think what we could do if we got a royal commission into the banks if we could do that sitting at that stupid forum that the Prime Minister established. These are big problems and to simply dismiss the issue by trying to pretend that you are some expert because you are a vet beggars belief. I cannot understand that a doctor who runs a cattle ranch up in Queensland is suddenly an expert. He cannot see any clinical signs! I can tell you, you would not have seen any clinical signs in some of my mates, the boilermakers and fitters, that worked with me. There were no clinical signs for them for about 30 years before they started dying with asbestos disease and mesothelioma. We should not dismiss this matter just because so-called experts are saying these chemicals are okay. We should take every precaution we possibly can. That is why we made a range of recommendations to deal with this issue. I know there is a view that some companies do not see this as a serious problem. I am told that Canada and countries in Europe have major corporations operating within them that are very good lobbyists, and they certainly do not want any claims being made on them. In this place you almost have to talk about the Defence Force in hushed tones, as if the Defence Force can do no wrong. Every time a coalition member stands up they wrap the Australian flag around themselves and they talk about the Defence Force in hushed tones. Well the Defence Force can get it wrong too. The Defence Force is pretty well known for its capacity to avoid any legal implications for the actions that they take. Thankfully the Defence Force has some pretty smart people, but they also have some pretty smart operators trying to make sure that no litigation comes their way. So you have to take it with a grain of salt when the Defence Force says there is not a problem. I have had a brief look at what has been said about this issue. There has been a five-year analysis of these chemicals in the United States, from 2010 to 2015, called the PFOA Stewardship Program. Nobody can tell me that the US are backwards in their scientific capacity. Nobody would be arguing that. Their conclusion was that these substances should be banned. They said that they would work towards the elimination of these chemicals, and went on: EPA launched the PFOA Stewardship Program in January 2006 because of concerns about the impact of PFOA and longchain PFASs on human health and the environment, including concerns about their persistence, presence in the environment and in the blood of the general U.S. population, long half-life in people, and developmental and other adverse effects in laboratory animals. So in the US they have concluded that it has affected laboratory animals. I do not know where Senator Back's mate, the part-time farmer/part-time doctor, gets his ideas from but certainly I would be more inclined to look at the EPA in the US as a guide rather than that farmer. The companies that participated in this program included Asahi from Japan, BASF Corporation, Daikin, 3M/Dyneon and DuPont. These major corporations were involved in this program for five years, and they determined that they had to get rid of these chemicals. For the coalition to come in here and just dismiss this view is absolutely obnoxious. If it is a wind turbine it is a major health problem; if it is a chemical produced by a major multinational corporation, suck it up. That is the tenor of Senator Back's proposition. The report from coalition senators questions the value of conducting blood testing. They question every little thing. They say there have been no confirmed links, but after a five-year study the US decided to ban these chemicals. So you cannot tell me there is not a problem, and I would rather have the precautionary principle any day—the precautionary principle is absolutely essential in this. We have gone up there. Labor has been onto this from day one. I myself met with some of the fishermen in a meeting in Parliament House last year, when they were concerned about the effects on their livelihood. So I am glad that Senator Burston has joined the Labor Party in dealing with this issue. Honourable senators interjecting— Senator CAMERON: I said 'in dealing with this issue'. Senator Burston, I am very happy to support this motion. I am sure there will be other motions that you put up that I will be appalled with and will not support, but I think this one is a good start. If your career in the Senate is about doing things like this, you will have a good career. If your career in the Senate is to run some of the rhetoric and nonsense I have heard over the last few maiden speeches, I do not think your career is going to be that— CHAMBER
Page 1 and 2:
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA SENATE Ha
Page 3 and 4:
FORTY-FIFTH PARLIAMENT FIRST SESSIO
Page 5 and 6:
Senator State or Territory Term exp
Page 7 and 8:
Title Minister Minister for Health
Page 9 and 10:
Title Shadow Minister Deputy Manage
Page 11 and 12:
CONTENTS—continued International
Page 13 and 14:
Thursday, 13 October 2016 SENATE 1
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52: Thursday, 13 October 2016 SENATE 39
Page 101: Thursday, 13 October 2016 SENATE 89
Page 125: Thursday, 13 October 2016 SENATE 11
show all

SENATE

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?