Interview - ABC Radio Newcastle - PFAS

PAUL BEVAN:

The federal government has responded to the recommendations of this joint standing committee report. They had an enquiry into the management of PFAS contamination in and around Defence bases. You might have heard about the report yesterday. I spoke to ABC Newcastle's Ben Millington. He was following the story and one of the key recommendations was for financial compensation and property buybacks from residents caught up in the PFAS contamination crisis. It's in a number of sites around Australia, but the one we are most concerned about here is around Williamtown and Salt Ash - our local red zone.

Senator David Fawcett is the Assistant Defence Minister. The Government has released their response to the recommendations today and Senator, thanks for joining us this afternoon.

DAVID FAWCETT:

G'day Paul.

PAUL BEVAN:

Can we start with your response to the recommendations? How do you respond to what came down yesterday?

DAVID FAWCETT:

Well firstly, I'd like to say thank you to the people from many places from around Australia who contributed to Andrew Laming's inquiry. I was actually the chair of the committee at the time when that inquiry was stood up and I asked Andrew to run the inquiry, given his background in health. He certainly has an analytical mind, but also an empathetic approach to people, and I think he has done a good job and there have been many people who have gone out of their way for yet another inquiry into this. So, my first comment would be: I thank them for providing that information to him. In terms of the recommendations, one of the things that strikes me is that many of the recommendations talk about the things that we are already doing, and part of my task now is to say: what's the gap between what we're doing and what the community and the committee thinks is the stretch goal that we should be achieving in each of those goals.

Probably, the only one that wasn't in action at the time that the actual hearings were held was the issue of compensation. We are now engaging, both through class actions but also with 41 non-litigated claims - some of those are now underway - dealing with individual cases. So that's been a development since those hearings were conducted.

PAUL BEVAN:

I want to come back to recommendation 5, which is to do with compensation and buybacks, but in the media release you've put out today, which is predominantly concentrating on health effects. Can we just have a look at one or two of the aspects there? You've said you would be- the government's first priority is to support the affected communities and reduce their exposure to PFAS by working towards - and one of them is removing the sources of contamination by stopping the use of products containing PFAS. So, what does that precisely mean? Are we talking Defence not using the product? Is it a national ban on the product? Can you elaborate on that?

DAVID FAWCETT:

Sure. So look - multifaceted - and in fact, if you've read through the report, the different chapters go into some of the complexities around that, but certainly in terms of the original source, we stopped buying 3M Light Water back in 2004.

PAUL BEVAN:

This is Defence?

DAVID FAWCETT:

This is Defence.

PAUL BEVAN:

Yep.

DAVID FAWCETT:

But that was based on advice that came from the US Government, which actually went out to a range of nations. So, for example, I've looked at what the UK did in response to try and measure: was our response proportionate, informed and in concert with like-minded nations? And so we've had a whole of government response to that, as well as individual departments, and so Defence has moved from using that 3M Light Water to now using Ansulite, and there's work underway to look if can we go to other firefighting foams that don't even have trace elements of PFAS; PFOS, PFOA are the two critical ones, but they don't even have trace elements in there. So that work is underway as we speak - to see if we can eliminate the source. Things that have gone into place in the interim; we only use Ansulite, which doesn't have PFOS or PFOA as active ingredients, but it does have some trace elements. We've put in place procedures so that's only used in a real emergency; it's no longer used for training. And there's fairly strict procedures around the handling of that material. And the third area, in terms of the impact on communities, is looking at how do we actually remediate soil and water? And this is an area - and the report acknowledges this - it's an area where Australia is now leading the world in that we are investing in technologies in terms of both water and soil remediation, and we're running a trial at a RAAF base looking at soil remediation, where we've been scouting worldwide to find technology to make sure that we can actually start the process of remediating the soil so we don't get further leaching after rain event.

PAUL BEVAN:

Okay. So, coming back to the original question, though: it's still not a national ban on PFAS?

DAVID FAWCETT:

The Stockholm Convention - which the report refers to - Australia has engaged in that process and we had a regulatory impact statement out. I think the submissions to that closed earlier this year, so I'm speaking a little bit off my patch  - this is an Environment Department issue - but that process, looking at what are the implications if we ban, completely, PFAS. Because you need to remember, this is not just firefighting foam; products that have been used for years like Scotchgard, non-stick surfaces in a lot of cooking utensils, et cetera, have PFAS in them. There's about 4700 different kinds of PFAS.

PAUL BEVAN:

Yeah.

DAVID FAWCETT:

So it's not just about Defence or airfields, there's a whole raft of uses of PFAS across the community.

PAUL BEVAN:

Okay. So, let's go on to the recommendations and, you, in your media release on the response, you do talk about addressing the health effects, which we've discussed quite a lot. And obviously, that is your first level - you want to look at the health effects - but you've also looked at recommendation 5, but not in your response, not in the media release, but I'd like to hear. So, recommendation 5 is to do with compensation and buybacks. So, in looking at the stresses involved with these people - financial stresses - as well as the threat of health effects to themselves and their children, shouldn't it be the highest priority to get those people out of, particularly, the red zone and follow that recommendation in the report to the letter, of recommendation 5?

DAVID FAWCETT:

The care for people is the top priority. But you also need to be aware that there are people who are living in zones right next to airfields who don't want to move. There are some who do and Mr Laming in his report talks about the equity trap and the concern and angst that has caused for people. But there are other people who do not actually want to move but they want compensation for nuisance and he highlights again in his report that fact. So our preference is to work with people on a case by case basis and the 41 claims that have come in, whilst I can't talk about the details of them, they span a range of concerns raised by people in terms of how PFAS has impacted them and the Commonwealth is looking to work constructively with them.

PAUL BEVAN:

So will that involve buybacks?

DAVID FAWCETT:

At this stage, the statement made in May this year, the Commonwealth wouldn't look at buybacks.

PAUL BEVAN:

Why not?

DAVID FAWCETT:

Well that was a determination made on the evidence at the time, but what we have indicated is that we will look at individual circumstances and the best way to meet the needs of the individual. And so again, that's consistent with the recommendation in Mr Laming's report where he says we should be flexible to adapt to a range of circumstances. Some people - they would want remediation, other people would want compensation for the loss of equity. So there's a range of ways that we can look at engaging with people.

PAUL BEVAN:

But if they want compensation for the loss of equity because their property is worthless, are you saying you would not go that far?

DAVID FAWCETT:

Well all I can say is at the moment the stated position back in May is that we wouldn't engage in a program of buybacks. But what has occurred recently is we have started to engage with people on the non-litigated claims to assess what is the best individual response we can have for that person and their circumstances.

PAUL BEVAN:

So this is this is the issue, isn't it? This is the big one because it's not just these people who are affected by that response from the government, the whole the whole country to some extent is watching what the government does, when through no fault of your own, a large number of Australians' property is rendered worthless and our health and our children's health is jeopardised. So it's entirely the government's liability, it's entirely the government's fault that these people's lives have been turned upside down and it could be any of us, no matter where we live in Australia. The government really needs to buy these properties back. Let these people- they're trapped. I know of people in Oakey in Queensland who need to move elsewhere because of their family obligations and they can't because their property is worthless - they can't get out.

DAVID FAWCETT:

And the process we've engaged in at the moment is seeking, where people want to come to us with a non-litigated claim, to work on a case by case basis.

PAUL BEVAN:

But you won't buy their property.

DAVID FAWCETT:

There's many ways to work with people to address the claim and even Mr Laming in his report talks about the range of ways that the government can work with people.

PAUL BEVAN:

He does, but particularly says - one of the many- he particularly points at a number of different categories, but one of those categories is people who invested in the land between the time that the government knew that it was contaminated and the time that it was made public - those people should take a priority. But still, surely those people would go - hang on, I bought this in good faith. You knew and you didn't tell me. And if those people want their land to be bought back, surely it's an obligation on the government to do that.

DAVID FAWCETT:

Well we will look to work with people and as we consider these recommendations, we will look to see how this process of dealing with non-litigated claims is going and whether we can meet people's needs through that. But the consideration of recommendations, we'll reach a government response. But what I'm saying in response to your first question is that many of his recommendations, in fact all of them, now that we've started engaging constructively with people around the non-litigated claims, means that we are already well down the path in the majority of areas of his recommendations and our process of consideration will be - where is the gap and are there reasonable steps that we can and should be taking to close the gap? And as I've said, even his report acknowledged that not every person who is near a base wants to sell...

PAUL BEVAN:

[Interrupts] That's true. No, I don't think anyone's suggesting you should be- they should be forced buybacks. But if someone is feeling trapped and they want to get their family out for whatever reason and they can't sell their house because it's worthless, surely the government needs to step in or at least have a timeline or a process by which that can happen. But you're saying it will not happen.

DAVID FAWCETT:

Well no, what I'm saying to you is that the current policy position was announced back in May. The current action is that we are engaging with people with non-litigated claims and we will be looking at the recommendations in the report to establish what the gap is and what additional measures the government perhaps could be taking or should be taking.

PAUL BEVAN:

Is there a timeline on this? Do we know by what time the current processes should be concluded?

DAVID FAWCETT:

I can't talk to the detail of the processes because they are obviously individual cases. My understanding is that some will be in a fairly short timeframe, some particularly through the process of having to gather more evidence because they need to be substantiated claims, then they may take a little longer.

PAUL BEVAN:

When you say substantiated claims, is it considered to be substantiation that they can go - my property was worth this when I bought it and now it's worth this? Is that a substantiated- is that considered to be substantiation?

DAVID FAWCETT:

I'm not going to get into that detail because I'm not a lawyer and I take advice from the legal department on that. But what I do know is that some claims at the moment, logged as essentially a – “I believe I have suffered loss here are my contact details” - and they clearly need to be developed far more than that. And even Mr Laming's report indicates that there needs to be an established claim or an established detriment to some [indistinct].

But the point I'd make again, is that we're engaging in good faith and since those inquiries were held we have started this process of now engaging around the non-litigated claims. And that's a significant move forward.

PAUL BEVAN:

Although it does sound like recommendation 5 - the one we're talking about, is going to be a bit of a sticking point as far as the government's concerned. You're unlikely from what you're saying to me, to come out and go - yes, we accept the recommendations including recommendation 5.

DAVID FAWCETT:

Well my background Paul, I'm an experimental test pilot by background; I work on fact. I like to get things done in a timely manner, but I'm not about to shoot from the hip and say we support A,B,C or D; we will consider them. What I've said to you is that the last position that was announced by the government was in May this year, saying we wouldn't have a program of buybacks. But we will consider the recommendations and importantly, the process of looking at how we engage with individuals to compensate them has begun.

PAUL BEVAN:

Okay. Interesting to talk to you. Thank you very much for your time this afternoon.

DAVID FAWCETT:

No problem at all.

PAUL BEVAN:

That's the Assistant Defence Minister, Senator David Fawcett. As an Australian citizen, I'm slightly worried from the perspective- no matter where you live, the perspective of any of us who are potentially in a position where our life is turned upside down and our principal asset is rendered worthless. And the report, most people seem to abide by, but the government is still balking at agreeing to the recommendations.

**ENDS**