2.1
While the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade (JSCFADT)’s focus in the 46th Parliament was on monitoring the actions undertaken by Government on the management of PFAS contamination, the Committee sought to hear from members of community.
2.2
On 26 November 2021, the Committee heard from three members of the community that had provided evidence to the JSCFADT’s 2018 PFAS inquiry, seeking the reflections of these community members on the PFAS remediation and management response over the past few years.
2.3
The Committee also heard from the United Firefighters Union of Australia on 24 August 2020.
2.4
The Committee undertook the opportunity to raise the concerns expressed at its 26 November 2021 public hearing directly with the Department of Defence. This evidence is discussed in Chapter 3.
2.5
The Committee heard that there are concerns about the PFAS safety standards. This issue was further discussed with the Department of Health and Food Standards Australia New Zealand in Chapter 5.
2.6
The Committee heard that individuals continue call for the ban of PFAS in Australia. The PFAS Taskforce provided evidence on progress on chemical regulation of PFAS in Australia, which is discussed in Chapter 4.
2.7
The Committee spoke to:
Mr Lindsay Clout, a resident of Fullerton Cove whose small farm holding is within the Williamtown PFAS contamination zone, who detailed his involvement ‘in a six-year campaign to have this PFAS chemical contamination cleaned up.’ Mr Clout has been ‘a community representative at the Williamtown Community Reference Group’ (CRG) and ‘a member of the Williamtown class action steering committee’. Mr Clout previously provided evidence to the JSCFADT in 2018 for its Inquiry into the management of PFAS contamination in and around Defence bases;
Ms Dianne Priddle, a cattle producer from Oakey, Queensland, who previously provided evidence to the JSCFADT’s 2018 inquiry;
Mrs Janice Robinson, a Williamtown resident who also provided evidence to the JSCFADT’s 2018 inquiry; and
Mr Michael Tisbury, the junior vice-president of the United Firefighters Union, the acting assistant chief fire officer for Fire Rescue Victoria, with 31 years of service as a professional firefighter.
Reflections on the progress in remediation efforts
2.8
Inquiry participants expressed that there had been no progress in remediation of PFAS contamination on their properties.
2.9
Mr Lindsay Clout stated that there is an ‘exhaustion in the community because it’s gone on for so long’ and that ‘not one gram of contaminated soil nor one litre of contaminated water has been removed from my property.’ Mr Clout further stated that ‘people whom I’ve spoken with in the community … are the same—zero.’
2.10
Ms Dianne Priddle stated that ‘you can clean a site up to a point but you can’t clean what’s had a decade’s head start’:
[PFAS contamination] cannot be fixed by taking soil from one contamination site to another spot 100 kilometres up the road and putting it there. You cannot pull enough soil out of the environment to make this right.
2.11
Mr Clout stated that ‘for the last two years, we have been moving backwards’ on PFAS management and remediation:
We’ve lost our PFAS blood-testing program, we’ve lost our community reference group forum, taking away direct access to the Defence PFAS task force and state government agencies, we’ve lost our mental health clinic from Fern Bay, and our properties remain not fit for purpose, with restrictions preventing us from consuming any produce grown on our land.
2.12
Mr Clout acknowledged that the Department of Defence are ‘having a red-hot crack at cleaning up this mess’, but felt that other government agencies were ‘sitting on the sidelines’. Mr Clout further stated:
Where are the remaining participants in the game that we are relying on to clean up our backyards—New South Wales government environment agencies, EPA, OEH, DPI; the federal government environment minister; the PFAS Taskforce? Where are they?
They’re sitting on the sidelines … trying to look like they’re doing something but actually doing very little for us. It is six years on. How much longer do we have to wait?
Remediation efforts by Fire Rescue Victoria
2.13
Mr Michael Tisbury detailed efforts made by Fire Rescue Victoria to discontinue the use of PFAS products, and decontaminate its working environment.
2.14
Mr Tisbury stated that firefighters could not wait any longer, and commenced mitigation strategies on their own accord:
… for 20 years governments of all persuasions have kicked this PFAS can down the road. We couldn’t wait any longer for governments to act, so we’ve implemented a number of mitigation strategies. The reason we’ve done this is that, quite frankly, we’ve buried too many of our workmates.
2.15
Mr Tisbury stated results of PFAS blood testing of firefighters in 2016 ‘showed that we had extraordinarily high PFAS levels in our blood’. Mr Tisbury was emphatic that ‘as firefighters, we know that we have these PFAS levels in our blood’ and it was imperative ‘to get it out of our bodies.’
2.16
Mr Tisbury explained that in 2018 ‘blood and plasma donation’ was proposed as an idea ‘for getting PFAS out of our bodies’, and Macquarie University was commissioned to undertake a clinical trial. This clinical trial is discussed further in Chapter 9.
2.17
Mr Tisbury detailed Fire Rescue Victoria’s attempts to reduce PFAS contamination in its working environment. This involved removing PFAS from ‘heavily contaminated’ Fire Rescue Victoria fire trucks, which resulted in:
every single one of them [being] below 1,000 parts per trillion in total sum of PFAS, and
a third of them are below 70 parts per trillion.
As part of this PFAS removal process, Mr Tisbury stated the Fire Rescue Victoria had ‘found significant PFAS levels in the soil and in the fruit and [vegetable] patches that we had at some of our fire stations’. Mr Tisbury detailed that Fire Rescue Victoria was ‘working with the local council and the EPA to address those and remediate the soil around the property neighbouring the fire station.’
Relocation and financial difficulties arising from PFAS contaminated land
2.18
Some inquiry participants expressed the need to provide relocation options for community members who wished to relocate. The Committee acknowledges that not all residents in PFAS-affected communities would wish to relocate from their homes and communities.
2.19
The desire to relocate stemmed from inquiry participants expressing the sentiment that PFAS contamination would not be resolved. Ms Priddle felt that ‘for a producer like’ her family ‘there is only one answer: move us out of PFAS’. Mrs Janice Robinson also stated that ‘since you can’t clean [the PFAS contamination] up ... we need to get off our contaminated land’.
2.20
Ms Priddle and Mrs Robinson both emphasised any relocation needed to be ‘like for like’, with Ms Priddle stating ‘we just want what we once thought we had bought into in 2005, a clean environment—like for like; no more, no less’.
2.21
Mr Clout and Mrs Robinson spoke about the financial difficulties experienced in the community. Mr Clout stated that ‘we are now seen as economic lepers, and no financial institution is even prepared to touch us.’ Mrs Robinson described the challenge of selling and moving due to ‘the current market value’ of her property ‘being reduced because of the contamination’:
We need to get off our contaminated land so that we can go back to having our chickens, growing our vegetables and being able to use the groundwater. ... I have looked around and there just doesn’t seem to be anywhere I can go at the moment. They say to me ‘current market value’. Unfortunately, with the current market value being reduced because of the contamination I will never find anywhere to live.
Reflections on community engagement by government agencies
2.22
Mr Clout, Ms Priddle and Mrs Robinson described that limited communication from the Department of Defence and other government agencies had led to a lack of trust in their communities.
2.23
Ms Priddle stated that ‘communication from 2019 to now has been non-existent’, stating that the only communication ‘that has occurred since December 2019 is a few months ago’, when she ‘received a letter about [her] water’, which resulted in an inspection.
2.24
Ms Priddle further stated that she had not heard about results of PFAS testing and had to make inferences herself, detailing that her property was only tested for PFAS levels ‘in the very beginning.’ Ms Priddle stated in November 2021 that she was aware that ‘last year—[possibly] in a rain event; [possibly] the year before—water was taken off [her] place by the task force’, however, she did not receive the results of these readings.
Ms Priddle stated as her ‘neighbours [property] are now contaminated’ she ‘can only assume the overland flow comes from the base to [her] property and into the creek’, which is ‘downstream from the base.’
2.25
Mr Clout stated that Defence had switched to holding drop-in sessions instead of group forums, stating that ‘Defence skipped away from a group forum some years ago because they had great difficulty dealing with the anger in the community, and that hasn’t changed.’
2.26
Ms Priddle suspected that governments were afraid to deliver bad news, stating that:
I believe that if it were all good information we would hear it from the bells from the towers. But it’s not good information, so we don’t hear it. Keeping us in the dark doesn’t make this better; it makes it damn worse.
2.27
Mr Clout stated that he has ‘written to Defence’, but ‘the process of writing to Defence and waiting for a reply can take anywhere from three to six weeks.’
2.28
As a result, Mr Clout stated this has created an ‘ambivalence in people’s reaction when they’re given new information.’
2.29
Mrs Robinson stated her community won’t ‘trust what we’re being told, because [the Department of Defence] seem to downplay everything and not answer our questions and there’s no transparency.’ Mrs Robinson expressed a sentiment that Defence was working against the community, stating:
[Defence] were happy to take you to court for something that you know that they’ve done. They’ve admitted that it comes from the base and knew that there was a class action, and they fought it.
2.30
Mr Clout stated that ‘with the lack of trust, there is ambivalence in people’s reaction when they’re given new information’, and further stated:
We have a communication session with Defence that’s been advertised and is coming up in a couple of weeks time, and a lot of the people I’ve been talking to about it are saying: ‘Well, why should I attend? I’m not going to learn anything new, and if I do I don’t trust what they say.
2.31
Mr Clout emphasised that this deterioration in communication from governments, this has resulted in the community being unable to provide guidance, as communities ‘were able to tell them the things that were wrong.’ Mr Clout suggested that:
Decisions get made about how this process moved forward from people who are remote from here and people who are not communicating with us. It sets itself up for bad decision-making, and that’s what’s occurring.
2.32
Mr Clout and Mrs Robinson stated they were in favour of the Williamtown Community Reference Group (CRG) being re-established. Mr Clout recommended that ‘the community reference group process’ in NSW should be re-established. The Williamtown CRG was established by the NSW Government, and provided a platform for the Department of Defence and state government agencies to share information with community members. However, Mrs Robinson stated that any new community reference group should not have confidentiality restrictions, as community members attending the CRG were previously ‘were told [information] in confidence and … couldn’t repeat what was said at meetings with Defence.’
Reflections on PFAS safety standards
2.33
Inquiry participants expressed concern about the tolerable daily intake levels of PFAS considered to be protective of human health by Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ).
2.34
Mr Clout stated that contamination surrounding consumable produce in his community has meant that they ‘are unable to eat vegetables, fruit, eggs, beef and poultry produced on our land’.
2.35
Ms Priddle and Mrs Robinson identified that there were international discrepancies in what were considered safe consumption levels of PFAS. Ms Priddle identified that there was a ‘huge difference’ in the daily total of PFAS set by FSANZ in Australia and the European Food Safety Authority in Europe. Mrs Robinson similarly raised concerns that ‘the Danish drinking standard maximum is two nanograms per litre. In Australia, 630 nanograms per litre is supposed to be safe.’
2.36
Ms Priddle questioned whether these federal regulations were ‘keeping consumers safe in Australia’, and whether they would keep the trade of producers safe.
Calls to discontinue the use of PFAS
2.37
In calling for ‘a ban of PFAS’, Mr Tisbury highlighted that PFAS foams need not be used ‘when there are safe, viable alternatives’. Ms Priddle also called on the federal government ‘to ban, nationally, this product now’.
2.38
Mr Tisbury explained that:
Fire Rescue Victoria has ‘been using fluorine-free foam since 2010’,
‘every international airport currently uses fluorine-free foam in Australia’, and
‘the majority of the professional fire services in Australia now use only fluorine-free foam’.
2.39
Mr Tisbury addressed the ‘misinformation about the efficacy of the fluorine-free foam’ and conveyed that ‘every single B-class fire that has been extinguished by us down here [in Victoria] has been extinguished using fluorine-free foam, so it works.’
2.40
The Australian Defence Force’s use of PFAS foams was queried by Mr Tisbury, who stated ‘they keep hanging their hat on this milspec—military specification. The ironic thing is the current batches of [aqueous film-forming foam] don’t meet milspec anyway.’
Concluding comment
2.41
The ongoing response to investigate and remediate PFAS contamination is an issue that continues to affect the livelihoods of communities. The Committee acknowledges that the impacts of PFAS contamination on individual community members is wide and varied, and that there are a range of views in the community as to how remediation should proceed.
2.42
The Committee acknowledges that PFAS contamination has occupied the minds of residents and former residents of affected communities for over 6 years. The Committee heard evidence on the toll that this has taken on residents.
2.43
The Committee also understands that residents are exhausted by the range of inquiries, consultation and engagement activities from all levels of government that they have been asked to participate in. The Committee thanks those who were able to make the time to write and speak to the Committee throughout its inquiry in the 46th Parliament.
2.44
While the primary purpose of the inquiry was to make available to the public information from the Federal Government on its response to PFAS contamination emanating from Defence bases, the Committee considered it important for this report to place on record the experiences of community members.
2.45
The experiences of these community members provide the primary metric of success for the Australian Government’s PFAS management program. While the following chapters of this report detail a range of government programs, the effectiveness of these programs can be clearly measured by what assistance has been provided those affected by PFAS contamination, and what progress has been achieved in the clearing of PFAS contamination in these communities.
2.46
The Committee heard from inquiry participants that progress on the remediation of PFAS levels on their properties was considered to be minimal. The Committee was concerned to hear that there is a perception that progress may have ‘gone backwards’, with the reduction or disestablishment of certain support services.
2.47
The Committee heard that a lack of trust has developed due to communities not feeling adequately informed by government agencies over the last three years. The Committee considers it essential that the Australian Government ensure that it is open, direct, and timely when information and updates are provided to the community.
2.48
The Committee in its second progress report recommended that the Government prioritise assisting property owners and businesses in affected areas through compensation for financial losses associated with contamination emanating from Defence bases, including the possibility of buy-backs. The Australian Government in its response to the Committee’s second progress report in January 2022 noted the recommendation.
2.49
The Committee recommends the Australian Government continue to review and adapt its engagement, communication and support to meet the evolving needs of communities affected by PFAS contamination.
2.50
The Committee recommends that as part of implementing Recommendation 2, the Australian Government engage the NSW Government to assess the case for re-establishing the community reference group process.