Dissenting report of Coalition senators
1.1
Throughout the inquiry, the committee received evidence detailing the Williamtown
and Oakey residents' uncertainty and fears regarding the spread and effects of
PFOS/PFOA contamination. The effects of these chemicals on human health may remain
to be seen, but the effect of prolonged uncertainty and fear is clear. It is
therefore essential that authorities take a measured and evidence-based
approach in their response to PFOS/PFOA contamination rather than focusing on
alarmist possibilities and feeding residents' fears.
1.2
The evidence regarding the risks that PFOS and PFOA pose to the
environment is undisputed; however, the effects of PFOS/PFOA contamination on
human health are subject to ongoing scientific debate. This is reflected in the
official enHealth Guidance Statements, which assert that 'there is currently no
consistent evidence that exposure to PFOS and PFOA causes adverse human health
effects'[1]
and the advice from the National Industrial Chemicals Notification and
Assessment Scheme (NICNAS), which noted that the scientific literature on the
effects of PFOA and PFOS in humans 'does not give clear, unambiguous results'.[2]
1.3
Hastening to action before the risks to human health are properly understood
will cause more harm than good. Professor Jochen Mueller, a Professor of
Environmental Toxicology at the University of Queensland, advised that individuals
with an elevated reading of PFOS/PFOA are at much greater risk of ill-health
from stress and fears regarding PFOS/PFOA than risk of experiencing adverse
health outcomes as a result of exposure: 'I think the evidence that is out
there...from all I know from the literature, I would not expect that this effects
my health in any way. I think people being worried about it affects their
health more'.[3]
1.4
Coalition senators remain unconvinced of the value of conducting blood
testing for PFOS/PFOA. The NSW Chief Scientist and Engineer, Queensland
Government, and the enHealth Guidance Statements recommend against blood
testing. EnHealth stated that 'blood testing has no current value in informing
clinical management':
There is currently no accepted clinical treatment to reduce
levels of PFCs in the human body. Given the uncertainty that PFCs are directly
linked to adverse health outcomes, blood tests cannot determine if the PFC
levels in a person's blood will make them sick now or later in life.
Therefore, blood tests are not recommended to determine
whether any medical condition is attributable to exposure to PFOS or PFOA and
have no current value in informing clinical management, including diagnosis,
treatment or prognosis in terms of increased risk of particular conditions over
time.[4]
Recommendation 1
1.5
Coalition senators recommend that the Commonwealth Government continue
to follow the advice of enHealth in relation to blood testing for PFOS and
PFOA.
1.6
Coalition senators are of the view that the majority report is unfairly
critical of Defence's response to PFOS/PFOA contamination and does not properly
acknowledge the considerable effort and resources being devoted by Defence to
address this issue. The majority report also understates the complexity of the
contamination at RAAF Williamtown and Army Aviation Centre Oakey and the difficulty
of remediating these sites.
1.7
Defence is currently conducting large scale human health risk assessments
which will provide a better understanding of the contamination from RAAF Base
Williamtown and Army Aviation Centre Oakey. Defence has also undertaken a
desktop review of its entire estate to determine where and how aqueous film
forming foam (AFFF) was used and whether it is possible that the historical use
may have affected soil, groundwater and surface water. Defence has identified a
further 16 properties as category one sites which are known to likely to have
used substantial quantities of PFOS/PFOA on site and will commence detailed
environmental investigations at three 'category one' bases in early 2016: RAAF
Base Pearce in WA, RAAF Base East Sale in Victoria and HMAS Albatross in NSW.[5]
1.8
Defence advised the committee that it is developing a national plan to
manage known and potential PFOS/PFOA contamination across the Defence estate.
The plan aims to 'investigate the extent of the contamination and the potential
for human and environmental exposure' and to 'then identify appropriate interim
and long term management strategies'. However, Defence noted that unacceptable
levels of exposure to PFOS and PFOA in soil, groundwater and surface water have
yet to be determined in Australia and that it would not be feasible to
determine appropriate long term management strategies until relevant health and
environmental assessment criteria have been developed.[6]
1.9
The Commonwealth Government has delivered a financial assistance package
to support the commercial fishers and businesses affected by the decision of
the NSW EPA, which will continue to be available until 30 June 2016, when the decision
regarding the closure of the fisheries is due to be made. A further Business
Hardship Payment of up to $20,000 will be made available on 1 July 2016, and,
if the NSW Government does not reopen the fisheries, businesses will be able to
apply for a Business Transition Payment of up to $25,000 to 'assist businesses
to pursue alternative sources of income if they wish to do so'. The
Commonwealth Government will also continue to provide an Income Recovery
Subsidy to 'individuals who have experienced a loss of income' as a result of
the closure of the fisheries, for a period of eight weeks after 30 June 2016.[7]
1.10
Coalition senators note the Government's undertaking in its response to
Report Part A that consideration will be given to the issue of property
acquisition once interim health reference values have been established and
detailed environment investigations concluded. This is a sensible and prudent
approach. Coalition senators also agree that it is appropriate for any compensation
claims which are received by Defence to be considered on a case by case basis.
1.11
Coalition senators do not support recommendations 1, 3, and 5 of the
majority report, pending the outcome of further scientific evidence.
Senator Chris Back Senator
David Fawcett
Deputy Chair
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page