Chapter 6Social and cultural impacts: Wreck Bay case study
6.1Per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contamination affects every Australian to some degree, however, a small number of people and communities are heavily impacted. Communities located on or near Defence bases, airports, industrial complexes, landfill sites or firefighting training grounds may be exposed to significantly higher levels of PFAS from contamination in soil, flora and fauna, groundwater, and in some cases, drinking water.
6.2First Nations communities are disproportionately affected by PFAS contamination as many are located on or near heavily contaminated land. In addition, traditional and cultural practices, such as hunting, gathering bushfoods, and fishing have historically led to higher exposure among First Nations people. For many communities, the impacts are compounded by socio-economic factors, including lower incomes, geographical isolation, poorer access to healthcare services, lower levels of education, and the impacts of racial discrimination.
6.3A striking example is provided by the Aboriginal community of Wreck Bay, in Jervis Bay Territory, on the New South Wales (NSW) south coast. Jervis Bay is a significant site of historical use of PFAS-containing firefighting foams. The Department of Defence (Defence) commenced a detailed site investigation at HMAS Creswell and the Jervis Bay Range Facility (JBRF) in March 2017. Investigations found high levels of PFAS in surface and groundwater and PFAS contamination in soil, plants and animals. Because PFAS moves in surface water flowing through drains and creeks, or groundwater that flows underground through soil and rock, it has been found in high concentrations outside of the source areas, including at a number of sites in Wreck Bay.
6.4According to Defence, there are three source areas within the JBRF and HMAS Creswell. PFAS has moved from these source areas and accumulated in the:
wetland at the head waters of Mary Creek;
former golf course at HMAS Creswell; and
HMAS Creswell Sewage Treatment Plant.
6.5A list of impacted waterways, including precautionary advice issued by the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts (Infrastructure Department), is set out in the table below:
Figure 6.1Wreck Bay— impacted waterways and precautionary advice
Source: Department of Defence, response to written questions on notice from Senator Thorpe (received 17 February 2025), [p. 2].
6.6The committee visited Wreck Bay on 20 January 2025 and held a public hearing in nearby Nowra the following day. A summary of the committee's visit is provided in Appendix 2 of this report. The summary provides information on the location and administrative arrangements for Wreck Bay, the historical use of PFAS firefighting foams, and a summary of Defence's investigation and remediation efforts.
6.7Defence has recognised that the PFAS contamination from the JBRF and HMAS Creswell is a significant issue for the Jervis Bay and Wreck Bay communities, and states that:
In addition to health impacts, First Nations people have concerns about the impact of PFAS contamination on areas of cultural significance and cultural practices, for example use of ochre or plants for smoking ceremonies.
6.8This chapter outlines some of the social and cultural impacts of living in a community affected by PFAS contamination—in particular for First Nations communities—exploring these issues through an analysis of evidence from the community at Wreck Bay, and other interested parties.
6.9The committee acknowledges that impacts on First Nations communities will vary, depending on each community's unique circumstances. As such, the committee intends to visit other First Nations communities as the inquiry progresses and will have more to say about these matters in a future report.
6.10This chapter outlines evidence from and regarding Wreck Bay, including:
evidence of cultural loss and disconnection;
views on the Wreck Bay class action for cultural loss;
views on communication and consultation with the community; and
the community's desire for self-determination in relation to the future of their lands and waters.
6.11The health impacts of PFAS in Wreck Bay are discussed in Chapter 3, and evidence on Defence's investigation and remediation program for Wreck Bay is discussed in Chapter 5 of this report.
Cultural loss and disconnection
It's important to state that any of the chemicals added into country change the biodiversity of the place. We're so in tune with biodiversity as a part of it, not as a separate human sitting outside of nature but as blackfellas being a part of that whole ecosystem. When one of the things changes, we change. If it changes too quickly and we can't keep up, that's what constitutes the loss, because we can't keep up with the change—Mr Clive Freeman |
6.12Community members from Wreck Bay described the impact of PFAS contamination on their cultural practices, the environment and sacred sites, their connection to the land and waters, and their ability to pass cultural knowledge on to future generations.
6.13Mrs Coral Ardler Yuke described the strong sense of loss she feels that her grandchildren and great-grandchildren 'have to live on this land that's been poisoned'. Mrs Ardler Yuke grew up during the time of mission management at Wreck Bay, when mission managers tried to prevent the local people from practising their culture. Despite this, they grew up with 'pride' in the community, and continued to eat bushfoods and seafood from the area. She explained:
We grew up at a happy time. I see my little grannies and great-grannies growing up now and I'm thinking: what sort of future have they got with our land the way it is? How do we teach them that they can't go and do the things that we did? It's hard. It breaks your heart. We can't allow them to just go to the bush and grab the geebungs and the four corners and different things. All the bush medicine that we grew up with—the ferns, the ribgrass—you can't use a lot of that stuff now because it's contaminated.
6.14Shoalhaven region Elder, Mr Henry (Sonny) Simms outlined his extensive experience working for the Shoalhaven City Council's water department. Mr Simms explained that the water in Jervis Bay Territory had previously been 'crystal clear', but is now 'so contaminated' that you would not want to wash your dog in it. Mr Simms explained that oysters no longer grow in the river, and said, 'parts of the river are dead'.
6.15Chairperson of the Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community Council (WBACC), Ms Annette Brown described how the PFAS contamination has impacted the people's cultural practice and complicated their connection to the land:
I think it's affected us because our cultural practices relate directly to land—hunting, gathering, fishing, swimming, activities. The only way that I see it continuing, from my point of view—and others may feel differently—is if those stories are told or taught in school now. The ability for families to take kids on country is limited. Basically, we've stopped taking them up near the airfield, where the water runs, and people are referring to falls where we hunted and gathered crayfish and geebungs—that can't be done now. So, physically, we can't take our kids on country. We can drive them on country. We can show them plants, but to gather plants—medicines—from there is now impossible.
6.16Ms Maxine Brown highlighted the cultural importance of gathering seafood to Wreck Bay people, saying, 'It's limited now. It's in the abalone, it's in the blue gropers, it's in the pipis, and it's in the seagrass. We can't take what we were able to take at one time'. Ms Brown felt that 'closure' will not be possible, as long as Wreck Bay people keep dying young and 'the land and the water is sick'; the persistent nature of PFAS means the damage is 'forever'.
6.17Ms Annette Brown noted that the Shoalhaven River is contaminated and cannot be fished, and there are cultural impacts arising from the inability to collect foods from areas outside of the Wreck Bay land grant, such as Myola, Woollamia, and Currambene.
6.18Traditional owner, Mr Darren Brown described PFAS contamination as 'this little evil lurking there', saying years ago, when it rained, there would be 'big, high foam balls' on the side of the road—no one knew they were caused by PFAS. He was concerned that people continue to catch and eat the seafood and swim in the Bay, but that is their lifestyle.
6.19Mr Freeman pointed out that the cultural loss occurred as much because of the policies adopted by the government as the contamination itself:
… the chemical didn't need to be found for the damage to be done to the culture. Saying that the chemical was there was enough because, as soon as the Commonwealth said that there was the potential, the people panicked and it was within that panic that culture couldn't change or shift. It was from the very moment that they said it could have potentially been there—it didn't even need to have any of that qualitative data to be able to take away culture. All they needed to do was plant that seed of doubt that that could cause something, and, with all of the sickness in our community, one plus one was equalling two.
6.20This view was echoed by former general practitioner to Wreck Bay, Dr David Goldberg, who said the community 'is suffering because of the precautionary principle'. Dr Goldberg believes that PFAS 'very likely' causes cancer and believes there is a cancer cluster at Wreck Bay. He noted that governments currently have no choice but to apply the precautionary principle, 'which is: no swimming, no fishing, no bush tucker, no home veggies—a huge imposition on the community to try and reduce the chance of future harms'.
6.21There was a strong sense among community members that the government and the legal system had undervalued and misunderstood the significance of PFAS contamination on that land. Mr Darren Brown, said:
I think we talk a lot about the bush medicines, and we talk about the food supply and the water. In that falls area—and I think you saw yesterday—there are axe grinding grooves that are over a thousand years old. They're older than Jesus. When you go down to the bottom of that beach, into Marys, that's where a baby's skeleton was found; it exposed itself in the dunes. I don't know what the archaeological find was or how old that baby was. But we are talking about sacred sites here. We're not talking about the food, and we're not talking about what our land use is. We're talking about an area that is highly significant for this community as a sacred site.
6.22Many community members were focused on the future of their children and grandchildren living in Wreck Bay. Mrs Ardler Yuke said:
What's going to happen in the future? How are they going to sort out this problem that we have in our place for our kids? We want our kids to grow up and live the way we grew up: loving their place, enjoying our community, having pride in their place and being able to do the things that we did and that we can show them. But we're restricted in a lot of that stuff. We've got through a lot of sorry business in the last few years, more than any community should be carrying, but we carry that burden. Some people carry it in silence. We've got to get together and start pushing for things for our kids.
6.23Mr Gavin McLeod explained that his concern is also for future generations of Wreck Bay people, and said:
I think this story needs to be packaged up for the Commonwealth, and it's never to be forgotten—the damage. I understand the emotion. I feel the same way too, with the court case. Defence, or the government, should have gone straight down to the council, as a cultural authority representing the registered members, the voters, in there, and we could have nutted it out. To me, it wasn't about money, whether it was zero, minus, positive or whatever. You can't put a price on our culture. Like I say, we've been here for thousands and thousands of years. Land and water—it's all connected. It's who we are as a people; you know what I mean? That damage, all those stories—moving forward, it's on our kids.
6.24Mr Matt Simms highlighted the need for solutions, seeing the whole community is affected by the contamination:
We're the oldest continuous culture in the world. Our stories take us right back to the beginning when we were gifted all this water to take care of. Now it's poisoned. But we need to live in a solution. Things need to be put in place so we can move forward—for our generations, for our children, for our grandchildren, for everyone.
Commonwealth settlement for cultural loss
For me, and from everything that's been said here today, the two biggest points are the contamination and the psychological damage that that contamination has done to this community … The future, and the future of this place at Wreck Bay, is going to be a big thing for our community as a whole—to get together and work out how we're going to tackle the future. Don't ever sugarcoat the fact that the underlying issue here is that that land now is contaminated. That's it; it's done. We are told not to go up there. Don't worry about the signs; we're told not to go there. It's done; it's over. Don't even worry about the money now. That's done. But this contamination is the problem, and how we move forward—Mr Darren Brown. |
6.25The discovery of PFAS contamination at Wreck Bay restricted the community's use and enjoyment of the land and waters, impacted their cultural practices, and altered their connection to the land forever.
6.26A Class action was launched by WBACC against the Commonwealth for cultural loss in 2021. WBACC was represented by Shine Lawyers led by Joint Head of Class Actions, Mr Craig Allsopp.On 19 June 2023, the Federal Court of Australia approved a $22million dollar settlement of the Jervis Bay PFAS Contamination Class Action. On 8 September 2023, the Court approved the Settlement Distribution Scheme, which determined how compensation is distributed to members of the class action. The class action and the administration of the class action settlement concluded in 2023.
6.27Mr Allsopp travelled to Nowra to give evidence at the committee's public hearing. In his opening statement, he explained that the class action 'excluded personal injury and health issues' because, 'the science wasn't there, from a legal perspective'. He noted that the settlement related to 'land value and, in particular, cultural loss'. Mr Allsopp said this aspect of the claim is unique to the Wreck Bay contamination. While Shine lawyers has brought nine class actions on behalf of PFAS-affected communities, the Wreck Bay action is the only case 'with the unique issue of the connection to land and the loss of culture'.
6.28Mr Allsopp maintained that he believes Wreck Bay is 'one of the worst impacted' communities when it comes to PFAS contamination. He argued that the small size and relative containment of the community provides 'an opportunity for government action', which cannot be achieved through the courts.
6.29Discussing the distribution of the settlement, Mr Allsopp said a variety of different 'remedies' were considered, noting what he called the 'inadequacy of monetary compensation'. He noted that WBACC received 'a significant proportion of the settlement sum to direct how it saw fit towards community measures'. However, a direct distribution in the form of a 'pro rata allocation' of the remaining funds was considered appropriate. This was overseen by an independent referee.
6.30Originally seeking $180 million in compensation for the community at Wreck Bay, Mr Allsopp was asked if the Commonwealth and Defence provided any explanation as to how they arrived at the settlement offer of $22 million—Mr Allsopp replied, 'they did not'. Noting that Shine Lawyers did not expect to achieve the maximum set out in the claim, Mr Allsopp reported that, among the 'very limited precedents in Australia' where cases involved cultural loss, amounts have been significantly lower. As such, he considered that $22 million represented 'advancing the state of recognition of cultural loss'.
6.31Representatives from the Department of Defence were also unable to provide any information about how the sum offered was determined.
6.32Mr Allsopp noted that Defence 'basically disputed every aspect of our claim' and that the settlement was made without an admission of liability. There was no scope within the settlement for the judge to make any directions around future funding for mitigation or adaptation measures.
6.33Mr Allsopp also emphasised that the class action settlement did not cover personal injury claims:
I think the most important point is that the class action only related to economic and cultural loss. It excluded personal injury and health issues, because of the reasons already given to this committee. Basically, the science wasn't there, from a legal perspective, and it still may not be there, despite what seems like overwhelming anecdotal evidence. If the science gets there, or if there's some further development, it's completely open to the community to seek further redress for the terrible, terrible stories about personal injuries, health issues, cancers and everything else the community has had to suffer.
6.34Acknowledging the community's disappointment at the settlement figure, Mr Allsopp quoted Justice Lee's statement that 'there's a difference between what he can award under law and what is fair'. He said he tried to manage people's expectations as the case progressed, but was still not surprised that there was 'quite intense disappointment from some community members with the settlement that was achieved'.
6.35Committee members noted that Shine Lawyers received $5 million in legal fees which was taken out of the $22 million. Asked about this figure, Mr Allsopp explained that Shine Lawyers is 'self-funded' and that the costs incurred by the firm 'were significantly higher' than the payment the firm received. Shine Lawyers had a team in Wreck Bay for about four years.
6.36Since 2020, Defence has settled five class actions across 11 communities impacted by Defence's activities, totalling $367.2 million (not including the Commonwealth's legal costs). In its submission, Defence noted that individuals and businesses who consider they have 'suffered loss or damage as a consequence of Defence's activities involving PFAS can make a legal claim directly to Defence'. The majority of these claims—which are assessed according to the Attorney-General's Legal Services Directions 2017 (Cth)—have been in for 'property value diminution and inconvenience, distress and vexation'. It is unclear if any of these claims have been made by Wreck Bay community members.
6.37There were a variety of views among community members about the settlement. While there was disagreement as to how the class action was conducted, and the decision to settle, there was broad agreement that the $22 million settlement did not adequately account for the devastating loss the community has endured, and continues to endure.
6.38Ms Donya Whaddy, who lives on the beach at Summercloud Bay, described the long connection of her family with the area and the intrinsic role that the water plays in their lives. Ms Whaddy outlined her feelings about the $22 million settlement for cultural loss, saying:
… this is a really big cultural loss to our community, and I'm not really happy about how things went with the case. I was having chemo at that time, was in bed and couldn't talk to anyone. I lost my mum just a couple of years ago to breast cancer. I think we got overlooked.
6.39Mr Kieran Assheton explained that he received $13,000 as part of the settlement. Mr Assheton exclaimed, '$13, 000 is how much this government and this court place as a price on genocide. Because that's what this is—cultural genocide'.
6.40Ms Annette Brown explained that WBACC settled the case because, 'at the end of the day, the laws in Australia's judicial system are based on English law and there's no recognition in the legal system about Aboriginal culture'. Because of this, WBACC was encouraged to progress the case through mediation and settlement. It was Ms Brown's view that the settlement amount achieved was the best they could hope for under the circumstances. Previous offers had been significantly lower, and proceeding to court could have resulted in losing the case and burdening future generations with debt. Ms Brown said that she feels that what is difficult for community members is that the community's 'ability to hold other parties accountable is restricted because the law doesn't recognise cultural loss'.
6.41Mr Allsopp noted that, from a legal perspective 'valuing cultural loss in a Western legal system' is highly challenging; Shine Lawyers 'had to assess what could be achieved'. He added:
I share as much frustration as everybody else, because in some ways you can't put a dollar value on it but in other ways it's such a profound impact. It is true that group members are getting $13,000 or $15,000. How is that compensation for this permanent impact on themselves, their children and their grandchildren?
6.42Asked to comment on the prospects of future action in the form of health-related claims, Mr Allsopp said 'personal injury claims in relation to PFAS are still in their infancy and are still being developed'. He noted that the scientific understanding around PFAS and human health is continuing to increase; as such, there may be opportunities for future litigation. However, it was Mr Allsopp's view that government action to reduce health impacts is a better path than litigation.
6.43During the committee's public hearing in Nowra, Ms Celia Perkins, Acting Associate Secretary, Department of Defence, was asked if Defence takes responsibility for the PFAS contamination in Wreck Bay. Ms Perkins replied, 'Yes. We have been and will continue to be transparent'. Ms Perkins noted that the Assistant Minister for Defence, Mr Matt Thistlethwaite MP, had apologised to the community in 2023. However, when asked if Defence takes responsibility for the health impacts on the Wreck Bay community caused by PFAS, Ms Perkins' response was noncommittal:
Ms Perkins:As I mentioned earlier, we rely on those parts of government who can provide both health advice and responses, and part of the government's response to the PFAS review released in December is an integrated Commonwealth engagement on these matters. The Department of Defence will stay focused and committed on remediating the sources of contamination.
CHAIR: It's really a 'yes or no' answer. Does Defence take responsibility for the health impacts on the Wreck Bay community caused by PFAS? PFAS came from your Defence land—well, it's stolen land that you're on—where that Defence base is. The PFAS came from there and made the community sick. So does the defence department take on that responsibility also?
Ms Perkins: We'll continue to work across government—
CHAIR:Sorry, Ms Perkins—yes or no?
Ms Perkins:As I described earlier, the consistent evidence about health effects is evolving.
6.44Asked to comment on the potential liability for the Commonwealth in relation to health claims, Ms Perkins said:
I think the best I can do there is to say that for many years the view has been that there is inconsistent evidence of human health effects, and that we need to apply the precautionary principle as understanding grows. We need to continue to rely on the work of the department of health and the work they do in other medical research, national and international, bodies, which is where the best advice comes to us from. So the Department of Defence has formed no views on health effects; rather, we rely on the expert positions and opinions of medical professionals.
Communication and consultation
6.45A significant concern among community members and WBACC was the perceived inadequacy and inappropriateness of communication and consultation from Defence and other agencies.
6.46During the committee's community visit, community members expressed their frustration at feeling as though no one is telling them anything, no one is taking responsibility for the health and environmental impacts, and that Wreck Bay is politically unrepresented. Committee members also noted that the signage at Mary Creek and Mary Bay still indicates that areas are being tested for PFAS, rather than clearly stating that these sites are contaminated.
6.47Ms Annette Brown explained that scientists and government officers come and speak with the community, however, they do so in a way that community members cannot understand, and their statements are unclear. She said the multiple agencies that operate within Jervis Bay Territory have different operating procedures, different remits, policies, and approaches to consultation. Ms Brown said that the Commonwealth 'needs all the agencies within the territory to speak the one language—a Commonwealth language and not their own language which is based around what their requirements are as an agency'.
6.48Since 2016, Defence has conducted six community engagement sessions with the community of Wreck Bay. The most recent engagement session was held in February 2023. 'Precautionary advice' has been provided to protect residents' health and Mary Creek 'remains closed for all use'. Defence also recommends against 'consumption of wild caught fish in other waterways'.
6.49Ms Perkins highlighted Defence's commitment to publishing the results of its investigations, along with management plans, and other material. She said Defence has committed to 'continued community engagement' to provide 'visibility and transparency over the ways in which [Defence is] dealing with PFAS removal':
… at HMAS Creswell and the Jervis Bay Range Facility—the two sites closest to Wreck Bay—our focus has been on groundwater treatment. We've had a temporary groundwater treatment plant that has treated over 21 million litres of water, and we expect to start construction early this year on a permanent water treatment plant. The remediation approach there is that we remove PFAS from the water, which is the way in which we will limit its capacity to continue moving off base and through both groundwater and surface water into communities.
6.50However, evidence from community members at the public hearing suggested that information from Defence is not being relayed regularly or in accessible ways. When Senator Davey asked community members whether the Government communicates testing results to the community, Wreck Bay community member, Ms Donya Whaddy said, 'We don't get told anything. We don't get any letters about who's coming in the community or who's doing the testing'.
6.51Defence submitted that it is now seeking to form 'a genuine partnership' with the Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community 'to manage PFAS exposure risks'. This process began in June 2024, when Defence met with community representatives. The Department is working on providing 'better access to plain English educational material and signage that can support community members to mitigate their PFAS exposure risks', and plans to provide 'regular, tailored updates', and conduct 'additional biota sampling of species that have cultural importance to the community'. Defence plans to train local First Nations rangers to conduct ongoing sampling within Wreck Bay, and has supported the community in 'finding alternatives sources of sediment to be used in cultural ceremonies'.
6.52Community members spoke of their distrust in government broadly, and in Defence specifically. Community members' desire to play a greater role in managing their land and waters was informed, in part, by a pervasive sense of distrust in the government. Mr Freeman said that he believed Defence and the Commonwealth Government knew about the dangers of PFAS in the 1980s, but failed to act, exposing community members to the contamination for 30 years, unnecessarily.
6.53Asked to comment on the suggestion that Defence knew the firefighting foam was hazardous in the 1990s, but did not inform the Wreck Bay community of the risks before 2016, Ms Perkins said that she could not 'speak to the decisions made in the 80s and 90s' and could not 'bring any knowledge' to respond to the question.
6.54Then, on notice, Defence explained that the 1980s and 1990s had seen 'a growing focus of containment of discharges of any nature into waterways' and the implementation of 'stricter environmental laws, usually requiring a licensing system for discharges'. However, the department claimed that:
The potential risks of PFAS in firefighting foam to human health of PFAS in legacy firefighting foams were not understood in the 1980s and 1990s. On this basis, Defence would not have been in a position to provide warnings of the health impacts from exposure to firefighting foams.
6.55Defence confirmed that the first Australian Government public alert about the potential health concerns for PFOS occurred in 2002 and PFOA in 2007 with Defence beginning to phase out PFAS-containing foams from 2004. PFAS-containing foams are still stored in a number of sites and still used in circumstances where 'lives and/or Defence assets are at risk. Defence anticipated that completely transitioning its fixed infrastructure to PFAS-free foams will take 'up to 10 years', and noted:
Contact with fire-fighting agents is an inherent risk in firefighting. During the period when legacy firefighting foams containing PFAS were commonly used across the Defence Estate, the environmental and human health effects of these chemicals were not fully understood. The science and knowledge around the potential human health and environmental effects of PFAS continues to grow today.
6.56When asked why the signage at Wreck Bay does not clearly state that the water is contaminated with PFAS, Ms Perkins took the question on notice, saying:
I know that we've worked very closely with technical experts and other parts of government to be clear with the messaging. I've got a copy of that messaging in front of me. I refer to my earlier comments about the precautionary principle. The signs are from the department of infrastructure. It has pictures that suggest not drinking, eating crabs or shellfish, swimming and so forth. It talks to the testing and, as a precaution, not using Mary Creek, for instance.
6.57Defence confirmed that the signage had been installed in 2018 by the Infrastructure Department while investigations were ongoing, and stated that the Infrastructure Department is responsible for signage. However, Defence also stated that it will:
… work with the Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community Council, Jervis Bay Territory Administration and other relevant stakeholders, to improve signage and make the design more accessible.
6.58Ms Perkins undertook to consult with the community about what kind of signage community members believed would be appropriate as part of its planned engagements in 2025. She said that Defence intended to meet with the community that week (in the week commencing 20 January 2025) for Defence personnel to undertake cultural awareness training and to 'start working together on a plan' for better engaging the community on the PFAS management area plan and seeking its feedback.
Self-determination and the future
Our legislation has actually got by-law-making powers, but it's a toothless tiger. Our generation, currently—the younger ones who are working on country, like Rachelle's crew, who were taking you around—haven't any powers until the legislation is changed, and that's where we're hamstrung. Putting legislation and changes to our rules takes years and years. It's only if it impacts on a government that they'll rush it through. So I'm suggesting that the Commonwealth actually look at the legislation changes that allow our young wardens to have powers to actually work on country—Ms Annette Brown, Chairperson, Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community Council |
6.59Wreck Bay Village and surrounds is Aboriginal land, returned to the community through the Aboriginal Land Grant (Jervis Bay Territory) Act 1986 (cth). The community, through WBACC, has decision-making powers in relation to the parts of the land that were included in the land grant. They have partial or shared decision-making around the National Park. They do not control Defence land, including the Jervis Bay Range Facility, which is the source of the PFAS contamination.
6.60Wreck Bay traditional owner, Mr Clive Freeman spoke about water rights:
… our water supply in Wreck from Lake Windermere is something that has sustained Aboriginal people on the South Coast for tens of thousands of years. The contamination has not only taken that away from this generation but taken it away from future generations. Now that an arrangement has been negotiated between the Commonwealth and the states for us to purchase that water, I have a concern about how we care for something that we've cared for forever and who's stolen that away. How do we take that responsibility back? I think that there's been a theft of the water as well as a poisoning of the land. I think that—while we talk about water sovereignty in this country and we speak about people who are taking our water rights away from us—contamination is also stealing the water. So we need that to be addressed when we look at water reform at that Commonwealth level.
6.61Mr Darren Brown described the situation as 'David vs Goliath', saying the community is 'up against the beast: the Department of Defence', and feels powerless. He described the community as damaged or diseased, asking, 'How do we cure this? I don't know how. How does the Commonwealth help this community cure this disease that we have to live with moving forward?'
6.62Many Community members felt that, despite the contamination directly affecting land belonging to the community, they have little control or input into how that contamination is managed. Ms Annette Brown said that the community does not 'want to be fed second-hand information' and wants to be 'at the table monitoring the level of contamination, monitoring the health of [its] kids and ensuring that [they] are a part of that'.
6.63Ms Whaddy was asked if Defence is testing the local flora as part of its PFAS monitoring; she replied:
They're medicinal plants and we're all affected. How am I supposed to teach my grandchildren, when they grow up, about the things we used to do when we were little at the beach and used to go collecting. It's poison. What's going to happen? A lot of things could be happening at the moment, but I don't see anything happening.
6.64Mr Clive Freeman provided evidence detailing the importance of regular testing during different seasons and after major disturbances, as fire or drought can change the amount of PFAS available in the soil:
I think it's important to understand that, as it's a bioaccumulative substance, the testing is very much dependent on the natural environment. If you get tests done during the drought, you're going to find a discrepancy as opposed to if you tested, say, after a cultural burn or a natural fire. What fire does is release the chemistry from the actual living organisms, and it'll burn it back to its original form, which makes it waterborne again to recontaminate another species.
6.65Mr Matt Simms argued that Defence should provide funding for local people to be 'trained up and upskilled' to conduct monitoring and remediation activities. Mr Simms insisted that the only people he trusts to address the contamination are Wreck Bay people.
6.66Ms Annette Brown outlined the community's frustration that they do not have a genuine say in how the contamination is managed, saying:
Human rights is an issue for the community that is affected as well as social justice issues. They call it Aboriginal land, we have ownership, but there are no laws that recognise that. We have legislation that has no strength when it comes to protecting land. So how we work with government, and the Commonwealth at a higher level, is going to be a very important step.
6.67Ms Annette Brown recommended that the Commonwealth establishes a monitoring committee that includes 'grassroots' Aboriginal people and answers directly to Parliament. This committee should monitor the remediation as well as the health of the people. Ms Brown pointed to the unique governance and administrative arrangements of the Jervis Bay Territory, and Wreck Bay, and suggested that a regional authority should be set up for Jervis Bay Territory, with proper representation of the Wreck Bay Aboriginal community. She also expressed that the Government should review the legislation governing the Wreck Bay land grant in order to give more formal power to Wreck Bay people to manage their land, including the Booderee National Park.
6.68Ms Annette Brown said WBACC understands that the contamination is here to stay, and the community must 'live with it and manage it, or our younger generation needs to make choices about whether they continue to reside in Wreck Bay'. Ms Brown explained that WBACC is working to address the contamination by looking at how the council can build houses to reduce residents' exposure, such as through the use of 'water tanks, solar systems or transgenerational-style houses'. She encouraged the Commonwealth to bring all the agencies with a 'commitment' to Jervis Bay Territory together at the table with Wreck Bay people to find solutions that genuinely work for the community.
6.69Ms Brown also raised the possibility of reviewing the land claim arrangements at Wreck Bay, explaining that WBACC has previously made a land claim on Defence land in Jervis Bay Territory that was underutilised, on the grounds that it was 'vacant Crown land'. WBACC wanted to build houses for community members on that land. However, Defence resisted the claim and the Commonwealth let Defence retain the land. Ms Brown suggested that Defence and the Commonwealth should:
… change their minds, because, if they have a partnership with the community in Wreck Bay and their occupation of that land still continues, all that would be put in place is an agreement under a lease and what responsibilities we as two parties have. And it forms the basis of building a better relationship with Defence, and we need that, because the only other land that's available also has facilities there.
6.70As discussed in other chapters of this report, the Government is now establishing a national coordination body to oversee PFAS investigation and remediation efforts. Ms Perkins indicated that Defence is commissioning an interdepartmental committee to 'start the process of establishing a membership', in terms of reference, and that she expects she will be included.
6.71With no plans currently in place for a community engagement mechanism to be implemented for Wreck Bay, Ms Perkins was asked how the Department will ensure that the community is part of the decision-making process. She replied that Defence has appointed an Indigenous engagement officer and will continue to engage with the Wreck Bay community.
6.72The committee Chair noted that having conducted six engagement sessions since 2016, and latest in February 2023, Defence has engaged directly with the community on a less than annual basis. The Chair suggested Defence considers increasing representation from the Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community in decision-making forums.
6.73On notice, Defence revealed that the department and WBACC 'have agreed on a training program for Wreck Bay Rangers enabling them to undertake independent environmental sampling in the Wreck Bay area'. This training commences in February 2025 and will involve training 10–15 rangers.
6.74Noting that Defence will be the lead agency for the PFAS National Coordinating Body, Ms Perkins was asked if Defence will show leadership in seeking to close the 'knowledge gaps' around PFAS—particularly, health impacts. Ms Perkins replied, 'Yes, Senator, and we will provide the secretariat support to keep that group operating'.
Committee view
6.75The complex administrative and governance arrangements of Jervis Bay Territory have increased the community's frustration and confusion. It is critical that the Commonwealth response to PFAS contamination in Jervis Bay Territory is well coordinated and that the Commonwealth speaks with one voice.
6.76There may be scope for this issue to be further explored by the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories.
6.77The committee recommends that Parliament considers referring an inquiry to the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories which examines governance, representation, and service provision in the Jervis Bay Territory (including the Wreck Bay Aboriginal community settlement).
6.78The committee intends to visit other First Nations communities affected by PFAS contamination, and collect further evidence, before making more recommendations.
Senator Lidia Thorpe Chair |