Posts

Delay of PFAS Report Leaves Affected Residents in Limbo

,

The Government made an election promise to address PFAS contamination around Defence bases. Instead  of taking direct action, they opted to call for yet another inquiry, consuming their entire term without providing any assistance to those affected.

Mr. Jim Varghese AM conducted an independent review of land use near key Defence bases impacted by per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contamination. Throughout the process, the team consulted with me on several occasions and I’m hopeful that their recommendations will reflect the outline I was provided.

I am concerned that the issue has been referred to Cabinet, where Cabinet confidentiality rules prevent any further discussion. There was no reason for this to be treated as a Cabinet document, and I suspect it was done to bury the findings.

I remain committed to getting the report released and seeking justice for residents affected by PFAS contamination.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My initial questions are about PFAS. Do we have those people here?  

Ms Perkins: Yes, Senator.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here. The PFAS Investigation and Management Program’s 2024 Snapshot document shows that Defence invested $706 million to remediate PFAS contamination on Defence sites. Defence has also been responsible for two class action settlements at $212.5 million and $132.7 million. Are those included in the $706 million, or are they additional costs?  

Ms Perkins: That’s a terrific question, Senator. Defence—in fact, the Commonwealth—has settled five class actions, including the ones you referred to there. It’s my understanding, but I’ll confirm this over dinner, that the first figure you referred to, which is our expenditure on—  

Senator ROBERTS: The $706 million.  

Ms Perkins: the remediation program is separate to the legal settlements that the Commonwealth has made. But I’ll confirm that.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. What about Defence’s total legal cost to fight the class actions? Are those included in the $706 million? Probably not.  

Ms Perkins: I would have to get my colleagues from Defence Legal Division to confirm that for you. I manage the investigation and remediation program, not the legal settlements. 

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. So we have expenditure of over a billion dollars so far? That’s $706 million plus the class action settlements—  

Ms Perkins: But, as I said, I’ll take that on notice and confirm the elements of the spend over dinner.  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. I acknowledge the extensive work and resources that Defence is putting into treating the 27 PFAS contaminated sites within the Defence bases, but the remediation will not solve existing contamination in farmland. These are the residents who have been affected the most: what was previously prime productive land—and I’m thinking, for example, about people who I’ve met at Oakey in Queensland—is now unusable for agriculture. Their properties have been depreciated to the point of being impossible to sell. They can’t get out of there and so that’s where their super is tied up and everything—they’ve lost it. This is why the Independent review of land uses around key Defence bases impacted by PFAS contamination was commissioned. I thank the department for including my office in the consultation process—from memory, with Mr Varghese. I understand that the report is complete; when will that report be made available?  

Ms Perkins: The report was completed and delivered to the government in early April. We’re working now across the parts of government that contribute to the work on PFAS, and the government will consider that review and its recommendations in the coming months.  

Senator ROBERTS: Does that include whether or not it will release the document?  

Ms Perkins: Correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: The report suggests grading land—not grading as in bulldozer grading—and categorising land based on contamination and rezoning so that residents can sell agricultural land as, say, industrial land, which is how many residents along Cabbage Tree Road in Williamtown have been able to get out and start over again. Newcastle Airport is now extending over contaminated land—another sensible use. This isn’t a big-ticket item, and it doesn’t need a large pot of money. There’s no reason to send it to cabinet unless the intention is to let it die under cabinet confidentiality. Is there any reason to send it to cabinet?  

Ms Perkins: As I mentioned, the report has been delivered and makes a series of recommendations. I think some of the points you’ve just referred to were the issues that Mr Varghese canvassed in consultation in affected communities and with other stakeholders like you. One of the challenges we’ve always had with the management of PFAS remediation is that accountabilities exist at all three tiers of government and across the community, and we’re very mindful, as we move forward, in both the Defence remediation program and the broader Commonwealth approach, that we consider how we activate across state and local governments and industry integrated responses. That will be the work we take to the Commonwealth government to consider.  

Senator ROBERTS: So that’s what you’re considering now before you take it to government?  

Ms Perkins: As is normal in an independent review, Mr Varghese has done a really valuable body of work— great consultation—and made recommendations. We’re working with colleagues in other parts of government, as you can appreciate from your question—the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, the department of agriculture, the department of health and so on—so that we can continue to advise government on an integrated Commonwealth response in affected communities.  

Senator McAllister: I think, Senator Roberts, in fairness to the officials, because the report is before the government there are some limits on what they can tell you about the advice that’s been provided. I think Ms Perkins has indicated that there is a process underway but she won’t be able to give you any further information about the particulars of the advice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for clarifying. I’ve worked that out from what Ms Perkins has said quite clearly. I want to commend the way Mr Varghese approached us. We have checked with residents, and he approached them with a very open mind and took good notes, apparently. These are not characteristics of the past ways that Defence has tried to address this, so we can see a change going on. It seems genuine, so we’re looking forward to the report. Minister, was there any additional funding in the budget for measures recommended in this report as opposed to the ongoing remediation report?  

Senator McAllister: The answer I’ll provide is probably similar to the one I’ve just given, which is that the report is before the government, and that response is being developed.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Minister, has any consideration been given to suing the manufacturers of PFAS for the damages they’ve done to the community and the environment and added costs to the Australian defence forces? We’re talking billions of dollars here, and these people—DuPont, 3M and others—seem to be just getting off the hook. 

Senator McAllister: I’m not trying to be difficult, but I am very reluctant to speculate about how the government might respond to the report that’s before us. So I really can’t provide answers to questions that go to the specifics.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I have two final questions on a different matter. There has been reporting that the partner of Lieutenant Nugent, who died in the Whitsunday helicopter crash, was told in the weeks after the crash, by a senior officer from Defence, that she would be able to find someone new. Have you made any efforts in the Army to locate which officer made these absolutely horrific comments to the partner of a soldier who had just died, telling her she would find a new partner? And have you done anything to reprimand or punish them for such heartless comments?  

Lt Gen. Stuart: The short answer to your question is yes. We have followed up on that matter, and we remain closely involved with all of the families who lost their loved ones on 28 July last year.  

Senator ROBERTS: So that has been rectified with the widow?  

Lt Gen. Stuart: Yes, we remain in close contact. It is a very, very difficult time for everybody involved, and we want to make sure that they’re properly supported throughout this process.  

Senator ROBERTS: And the officer has been either reprimanded or punished; what he said has been addressed?  

Lt Gen. Stuart: As you know, I can’t go into individual matters, but—  

Senator ROBERTS: No, I don’t want the names. 

Lt Gen. Stuart: we’re taking it seriously, and we’re making sure that we are addressing all of those kinds of issues. I can certainly assure the committee that all of our efforts since the evening of 28 July last year have been focused on making sure that the families, loved ones and teammates of those that were impacted by the loss of those four soldiers have been and continue to be supported for the long term.  

Senator ROBERTS: Did I hear you say the officer ‘will be’ addressed or ‘has’ been addressed?  

Lt Gen. Stuart: Has.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. This is my last question. General Campbell, you posted on social media congratulating the 2024 Napier Waller Art prize winner, Kat Rae, for her piece Deathmin. It is a 157-centimetrehigh stack of post-death paperwork that Kat Rae revealed after her husband committed suicide after dealing with the PTSD he had from his time in the Defence Force. General Campbell, you have been the commander of the entire Defence Force for six years. You’ve been in the highest positions of the organisation for at least 15 years. You’ve congratulated a widow who is talking about the complexity of the defence and veterans’ bureaucracy. You’ve been in charge of that bureaucracy. What have you done, specifically, to fix her problems?  

Gen. Campbell: There has, I think, been a great deal of work done, both within Defence and the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, and I acknowledge the work of the interim national commissioner for defence and veteran suicide and the work of the royal commission, which is ongoing but which has provided both some harrowing testimonies and also extremely useful insights into how to continue that work to improve our organisation. I am, as are the senior leaders of the ADF and more broadly Defence, committed to ensuring that continues to be the case.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could you please give me some specifics of what you’ve implemented to fix these problems?  

Gen. Campbell: We are seeking to see a much more trauma informed approach to the way in which we deal with people. We are now much more conscious of and are seeking to embed an awareness of psychosocial risk in the way we work with our people and our people experience service in the military. We’ve greatly strengthened the experience of transition for everybody in the force, and we’ve very substantially enhanced the integration between Defence and DVA. We’ve introduced personnel policies that seek to wrap those policies around the lived experience of an individual from before joining all the way through to beyond transition. They are some examples of our efforts. They are very wide-ranging, and I think that they are fundamental to developing our people, supporting our people and seeing the capability that they create emerge.  

Senator ROBERTS: What about transitioning people who are leaving the defence forces out of the workforce? I have enormous respect, as a result of conversations I had with veterans 40 years ago, for the way the Australian recruits, the intake, are actually introduced to the Army and they’re—I mean this in a very positive way—stripped of their past associations and they join into the culture of the defence forces. It’s extremely important, because that is the key to the success of the Australian defence forces. But, as someone said to me, we send them, we bend them but we don’t mend them. We just turn them loose when they’re finished, and apparently that’s causing a lot of strife. 

Gen. Campbell: That was my point with regard to the work of the Joint Transition Authority and the fundamental reconceptualisation of how we see transition from military service to beyond military service, and see it as a period rather than a moment. Could I note that, at a graduation for soldiers into the Australian Army a few weeks ago, I was really pleased to see how enthusiastically they spoke of their training and were looking forward to their service, not just saying that to me but saying that to the junior officers and the NCOs who were with me and variously moving around the audience. It was a very positive expression of an introduction to service and it’s exactly the same outcome that we want for transition from service. We are seeing work done that sees that period being about a two-year transition, with the idea that, while you serve today and you serve for a period of time, the transition is seeded at your induction into service in your recruit training. I think it’s a very healthy way to look at service and to then encourage people to start having conversations about transition before they move into that period of transition, with Defence reaching out in support of those who would wish it following two years from transition, typically seeing a glide down of Defence’s engagement and a glide up of DVA’s engagement where the individual would seek it.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, RAAF. 

/1 Comment/by

PFAS is a toxic problem for Australia and the Beef Industry

Available on these platforms:

PFAS is part of a group of man-made chemicals sometimes called “forever chemicals”, because they break down so slowly.

These chemicals, used in firefighting foams from 1965 until 2005, have left a legacy of contaminated sites all over Australia.  There are 900 contaminated sites including defence force bases and major airports.  And because they break down so slowly it will take generations to remove the contamination.

PFAS has found its way to our homes into everyday products such as teflon coatings in our cookware and Scotchgard waterproofing.

There is a global treaty to eliminate PFAS and 5 other chemicals from the environment due to their harm to humans and wildlife.  It is called the Stockholm convention on persistent organic pollutants and Australia is a signatory.

The European Commission has set a safe intake level for PFAS of 4.9 nanograms per kg of body weight because of the ill-effects on health. (A nanogram is one part per billion.)

The Morrison Government refuses to accept that the PFAS chemical has caused any harm.  The government is refusing to offer compensation and to relocate residents in these contaminated red zones around Defence bases, where a PFAS plume is spreading under their homes right now.

A recent Federal Court case awarded some residents compensation that averaged $150,000 after legal fees.  It was $212m in total. This is a tiny part of what these people have lost, and of course, they are still trapped in the red zone in homes they can’t sell. They are still being infected today. This is negligent and dishonest.

Currently Australia does not have a designated safe level for PFAS. Contaminated cattle in the PFAS red zones are routinely returning contamination levels of 400 parts per billion, which is 80 times the European safe level of 4.6 parts per billion.

Food Standards Australia and New Zealand are currently conducting a review and we do expect FSANZ to set a level, which we hope matches the European standard.

The graziers still need to be relocated to a like for like property so they can get on with raising clean, heathy cattle to feed Australia and the world.

The health impacts of PFAS are not going away.  These are forever chemicals. Contamination is getting worse because remediation has been limited and based on a refusal to accept the pervasive nature of the problem and the serious health impacts it causes.

We cannot have residents living in the middle of these highly contaminated red zones, abandoned and unable to move out. The Government must offer them like for like relocation.

FSANZ must introduce a national standard for PFAS in food.

Meat and Livestock Australia must get involved and lead a whole of industry response to removing PFAS from the meat food chain.

The government should now honestly settle with these people and then go and get compensation from Dupont, as they have already done in US.  Dupont put aside billions of dollars for settlement.

/by

Meat and Livestock – PFAS

, ,

Growers on PFAS affected land are concerned that our huge beef export market could be under threat if PFAS is detected in Australian beef. Their concerns are completely valid even though officials from Meat and Livestock Australia. who are meant to work for the long-term prosperity of the meat industry, didn’t seem that concerned.

Transcript

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you chair, thank you for being here today. My questions are to do with the PFAS contamination of our food chain. Your Meat and Livestock Australia function is to foster the long-term prosperity of the Australian red meat industry. Is that correct?

Correct.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. One of the significant challenges to this industry is the increasing presence of PFAS in the red meat supply chain. Does Meat and Livestock Australia have an advisory on PFAS contamination of cattle?

Senator, with respect, I think it’s a very limited threat. And I think the publicity and push of that issue from a very small number of producers doesn’t accurately represent the threat. I think our industry is incredibly, incredibly conscious of not just our bio security reputation, but our responsibility to ensure that we provide a safe and wholesome product to all of our customers globally, which go to a hundred markets globally. This issue is something which has been extensively, extensively evaluated by the authorities responsible. And while we are aware of it, it’s certainly an issue that is being monitored on an ongoing basis.

[Malcolm Roberts] Who are those authorities who are responsible?

So, as far as the level or potential contamination, the responsibility for making decisions about potential contamination would sit with groups like SAFEMEAT. And the FSANZ would actually set the requirements or the levels that would have to be triggered for it to be a challenge.

[Malcolm Roberts] That’s the Food Standards Australia New Zealand

Food Standards, Australia New Zealand Food Standards, that’s correct.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, we’ll come back to them. I would disagree with you because from, I’m not talking about FSANZ, but other authorities supposed to be overseeing this PFAS issue and not doing their job. That’s quite clear from the questions we’ve asked. So, next question: Are you aware the Food Standards Australia has PFAS regulations under review and, later this year, there may be maximum PFAS levels specified that your breeders will need to act on? I think it’s timetabled, at the moment, to come out early September, 2021. But given that, I think, the early ones are behind, it probably be late later this year.

No, Senator, that’s something that’s their responsibility. And if there’s need to support them in providing information or technical support for that, I’m sure they’ll contact us.

[Malcolm Roberts] I’m very aware, I’m very concerned, about the threats to our export industry. The Australian beef industry is worth 28 billion a year. And the export portion of that is 17.2 billion, which makes it one hell of a big industry. So are you aware that the European Union have now enacted a recommendation of six micrograms of PFAS per kilogramme of body weight as a recommended maximum daily intake? A figure that mandates the effective elimination of PFAS from meat.

No, Senator. The setting of MRLs is not something that comes under our responsibility.

[Malcolm Roberts] You’re not aware of it?

No.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. Does Meat and Livestock Australia consider that our $28 billion a year meat industry might be headed for a substantial disruption caused by these new PFAS limits in Australia and in our major export markets?

No, Senator, I don’t. I think it’s important for context, so this can sound quite significant but I think it’s important that these are very, very isolated potential incidents. So no is the answer to your question.

[Malcolm Roberts] Have you considered what a PFAS scare may do to our livestock industry? Have you done any modelling or risk assessment at all?

So, we’re certainly aware of the potential of what those scares could do. And of course, as a result of that, we’re conscious of, we’re aware of, I’m assuming you’re talking about this specific issue, which keeps coming up regardless of the support that gets provided to that producer. So yes, we are aware of what the potential of those scares can do. And it is disappointing that an individual, regardless of the disproportionate support they get from any sectors of the industry, continue down this path.

[Malcolm Roberts] Well, I’ve got letters in front of me from the Charolais Society of Australia, the Australian Brahman Breeders’ Association, and the Australian Registered Cattle Breeders Association. They’ve all called on the government to relocate the graziers from affected properties to remove PFAS from the food chain. They’re worried about what’ll happen if that is detected in the food chain. The Australian Registered Cattle Breeders Association agree and added that failure to fix this problem can only lead to a disaster for the Australian meat industry. Why has Meat and Livestock Australia ignored your own breeders recommendations?

All due respect, Senator, those letters haven’t, I don’t think those letters have come to us. But also, Breed Societies, whose primary responsibility is the recordkeeping of pure-bed livestock, are not the people we should be relying on for information around chemical…

[Malcolm Roberts] What about the other two?

They all are, all three of them are. Breed Societies, the Registered Cattle Breeders are the peak organisation for the Breed Societies.

I accept that. Aren’t they, though, concerned about the future of their industry?

Your industry?

I’m sure they could be made concerned, Minister. If they were, if they received the representations that we have received from the producer, that I assume we’re still talking about the same one, I can imagine they would be concerned.

[Malcolm Roberts] I’m aware of several producers.

There’s a main producer that’s raised this a number of times and have said they would take this further.

[Malcolm Roberts] I wouldn’t dismiss it because you’re counting one, there are several. And they’re deeply concerned not only about their own livelihoods, they’re concerned about the whole industry. It’s palpable, you can see it in them.

Sorry, sorry, Senator, I didn’t mean to sound dismissive. We’re not being dismissive at all. I think what the point I’m obviously not making well is it’s very important that we appreciate from a bio-security and food safety point of view. In our industry, we have incredibly good systems in place, and we have the authorities like FSANZ and SAFEMEAT who have responsibility for this. And we lean very heavily on their authority and expertise to manage this issue. And if it becomes more of a policy issue, then that’s a representative organisation responsibility. We absolutely will support any of those, if there’s more technical information required. And we do take on board these issues every time they are raised. But we all have a responsibility to rely on the authorities who have the expertise and responsibility for this, which is what we’re trying to do.

[Malcolm Roberts] I’ve been through various types of diet in my years on the planet. in the last few years, I’ve become completely meat-eater, that’s all I eat. So it’s very important to me personally, to my family, but especially more so in my responsibilities as a Senator representing constituents. And I’m not just talking about people who have got PFAS problems themselves, but people in the beef industry because it’s a very important industry to our whole state and our country. And I’m deeply concerned what would happen if this gets out of hand, if we don’t hit it off. So has Meat and Livestock Australia considered that, of all the stakeholders in this industry, you are the best situated to lead a whole of industry response to the PFAS issue? That solution being to relocate farmers from land destroyed by PFAS pollution from defence bases, and in so doing removing the source of PFAS contamination from our food chain, and removing the risk to this core meat and food industry?

Sorry, Senator, none of those things are actually our responsibility. None of those things actually fit.

[Malcolm Roberts] What is your role?

Marketing and research and development, Senator. Those are our responsibilities. And if there’s technical issues that we can support any of the participants in this, as far as understanding what contributes to it or what can be done, that’s absolutely the sort of thing we should be considering. But the relocation and compensation is absolutely not something.

[Malcolm Roberts] No, no, I’m not arguing that you should take responsibility for that. But I’m arguing that your function, as we agreed in the first question, is to foster the longterm prosperity of the Australian meat industry, Australian red meat industry. You agreed with that. I’m saying that this is a serious threat.

And that our contribution, given that function, would be to ensure that, if there’s a technical information that’s required that can be developed through research and development to support these activities, then absolutely. We would be prepared to support that. But as far as the examples you were using before around relocation and rectification.

[Malcolm Roberts] No I’m saying bring your pressure to bear, because…

No. Sorry, Senator. We absolutely could not do that, ’cause that’s not, that’s absolutely not in our responsibility. We can’t be putting pressure.

[Malcolm Roberts] You’re just watching this?

No, no, Senator. That’s not at all, that’s not at all right. You asked me, can we put pressure to bear on the people who are responsible to do this. And no, we are not, we can’t be taking action like that. The representative organisations…

[Malcolm Roberts] I’m terrified that Europe could get one contaminated sample. And given the way that the UN and the EU are now focusing on decreasing meat consumption, that one contaminated sample could destroy the imports of beef, huge industry in our state and our country, into Europe. And then we’ve also got the Greens with the potential to use this issue to stop the meat industry altogether. So, surely there must be something to head this off. I love my lamb and beef.

Which is an excellent, Senator. And I’d love to give you as much confidence as possible. And all I can say, I think, is where the issue sits is a very long, long, long away from what you just described. And if we can help in providing technical information to support that, then we’re certainly happy to do that.

Senator, Senator Roberts, probably one of the places that you might be able to prosecute this with more success might be next week in health, because FSANZ are very much at the forefront of making sure that this issue is dealt with. So that, that might be a good place to go.

[Malcolm Roberts] Okay, thank you. Thank you both. Thank you chair.

Thank you very much, Senator Roberts.

/by

PFAS Contamination Update

,

Transcript

Thank you madam acting deputy president. I was told in meetings with defence last year that the PFAS task force was working on the problem with PFAS contamination by applying a whole of government response. So I asked for the minutes of their meetings to see what a whole whole of government response looked like. I was refused. I did a document discovery. Still no minutes arrived.

This third attempt has succeeded. It should not have been this hard to get hold of a simple set of minutes. Having read them, I do understand why they had to be prized away from the task force. The Morrison government’s PFAS response is all talk. It is a process that has no destination and as a result is achieving nothing. It seems to be aiming to stall and to avert. The last concrete action by this government was in 2018 to award $55 million for a drinking water programme for affected areas and $73 million for research into PFAS.

There are now over 900 PFAS sites around Australia. The government is remediating four defence sites. Bases at Williamtown, Oakey, Edinburgh and Katherine. Four down, 896 to go. While the PFAS task force is sitting around holding meetings and reissuing old guidances, the residents of the red zones continue to live with the nightmare every day.

Residents are trapped in homes that are unsaleable. One resident that I’ve spoke with many times and visited his house on a number of occasions, David Jefferis and his wife Diane Priddle from Oakey in Queensland purchased their property in 2004 for a combined $2.4 million investment. At that time, the defence department knew his land was affected by PFAS and yet they kept quiet.

Once the contamination was made public the property became unsaleable. Dave and Diane’s successful cattle breeding and grazing business had to close because nobody wants to buy contaminated cattle or genetics. They have a stud property. A very clean, tidy operation. David and Diane’s property and business was recently valued by a registered valuer at just $400,000.

A $2 million loss through no fault of their own. It’s an outrage that the Morrison government is allowing these residents to remain trapped in red zones while the PFAS taskforce drifts around from meeting room to meeting room in search of direction. While a recent class action lawsuit was settled, Dave and Diane received just $120,000 compensation and he hasn’t got the money yet.

The government’s own PFAS subcommittee has made the same recommendation in the last two update reports which called for remediation, compensation and like for like relocation. That’s fair. I hope the third head of that subcommittee in just two years, Senator McCarthy, has more success in getting their recommendations implemented.

The way forward now must be to remove residents out of the contaminated red zones, install remediation units and treat the groundwater before these toxic plumes spread further and ruin yet more lives.

Now last year, I asked the then Minister for Agriculture Senator McKenzie if it was safe for producers like David and Diane to send their cattle to auction and Senator McKenzie replied, quote,

“There is no reason why farmers cannot send their produce to market.”

End of quote. Well, let’s examine that statement. Food standards Australia specify a safe level for PFAS exposure of 20 nanograms for PFAS and 160 nanograms for PFOA. These can be present together for a total PFAS level of 190 nanograms per kilo of body weight. On the 19th of September 2020, The European Food Safety Authority set a new safety threshold for PFAS contamination.

The limit which now applies across the EU, is just 4.4 nanograms per kilogram of body weight per week. A fraction of what Australia allows. The European body considered the decreased response of the immune system to vaccination to be the most critical human health effect of PFAS exposure.

So I ask. Has the PFAS task force considered that the Morrison government is about to introduce a vaccine for COVID that might be put at risk through our tolerating PFAS levels that are 40 times higher than the new European Safety Standard. Cattle in the red zone from RAAF Base Richmond have been tested at over 1000 nanograms per kilo.

Newborn calves are testing at over 300 nanograms. This is the product that former Minister McKenzie says is safe to sell and consume. It is not safe to sell. By sending contaminated products to the EU, we’re risking food and livestock exports of $2 billion a year. This is not just affecting Oakey, this is affecting the whole beef industry.

The Morrison government can find billions to give to its big business mates for corporate welfare in the name of COVID but can’t find a lesser amount a much much lesser amount to find a like for like relocation and compensation scheme for everyday Australians caught up in the nightmare of the government’s making despite the committee recommending it do so. It’s time for the prime minister to fix this problem. And I seek leave to continue my remarks.

/by

PFAS meetings kept secret

,

One Nation Senator Roberts’ requests for documents relating to the Government’s PFAS Taskforce have been denied.

Minister Ley’s department, through the PFAS Taskforce, is responsible for solving the PFAS contamination disaster zones across Australia.

“PFAS contamination on air force bases in Australia has destroyed the lives of those bordering the bases, yet the supposed plan to help these residents is being kept secret,” Senator Roberts stated.

Senator Roberts added, “On behalf of the residents, I want to know what meetings are happening, who is attending and what actions are being agreed upon to help these people.”

One Nation is committed to achieving like-for-like relocation of residents in the red zones across Australia, and fair compensation for affected businesses.

“Instead of fair compensation for residents the Government is forcing red zone residents into court where their settlements are feeding lawyers instead of families.”

“PFAS has been a known problem for over 15 years and the ongoing refusal to release documents that give residents confidence of a resolution, suggests the Minister is hiding something,” Senator Roberts said.

The Hunter Valley wetlands, which the government is responsible for maintaining, has PFAS contamination that requires remediation.

The plume from RAAF Base Williamtown is heading south-east and only 50m from the Hunter River at Fern Bay and heading to Worimi surf beach.

“An effective strategy would be to pipe the groundwater back to the RAAF base and use the PFAS treatment plant they have built there to clean that water,” suggested Senator Roberts. The Government must stop the delays, take responsibility and provide like-for-like remediation and fair compensation for affected residents immediately.

200611-PFAS-meetings-kept-secret_

/by