Press Conference, Parliament House Canberra

SUBJECTS: Legal action against 3M Australia and 3M Company; ISIS Foreign Fighters’ Wives; AI regulation; Antisemitism Royal Commission.

MICHELLE ROWLAND, ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Good morning, all. The Commonwealth has today commenced legal action in the Federal Court of Australia against 3M Australia, and 3M Company for allegedly withholding information and making false statements about the long-term environmental impacts of the use of 3M firefighting foam containing PFAS. The Commonwealth is seeking more than $2 billion in damages to recover significant past and future expenses incurred in investigating and managing contamination resulting from the historical storage and use of this foam. Let me be clear - this is the largest legal claim ever brought by the Commonwealth. Our position is that 3M withheld a range of information and misrepresented the effects of this substance. This included withholding 3M's own environmental laboratory testing which showed there was significant adverse environmental effects associated with the use of 3M firefighting foam, representing that 3M firefighting foam could be safely disposed of, was biodegradable and not toxic, and there were no significant adverse environmental effects even when disposed of in the way recommended by 3M, and limiting or insufficiently disclosing the effects of 3M firefighting foam in a manner that was inconsistent with their own knowledge of the potential impacts. This misconduct has contributed to substantial costs for Defence and the Australian taxpayer, including over $1 billion to date to investigate, remediate and mitigate PFAS contamination at Defence estate sites. Make no mistake, this legal action against 3M is significant. It is commensurate with a Government that is committed to fighting for Australians and their long-term interests. Australians rightly expect their government to stand up for them and to hold companies accountable when communities and the environment are impacted. I know, as does the Assistant Minister, that Australians have dealt with the consequences of PFAS contamination for many years, our Government is taking action to make this right. I'll now hand over to my colleague, the Assistant Minister for Defence.

PETER KHALIL, ASSISTANT MINISTER FOR DEFENCE: Thank you, Attorney-General and good morning everyone, thanks for coming. As the Attorney-General said, this is the most significant legal action undertaken by the Commonwealth and Defence in living memory. Over the last year, as Assistant Defence Minister, I have visited communities right across Australia impacted by PFAS contamination. Those communities expect governments to act responsibly and send a clear message to polluters and stand up for the communities. That is exactly why we are taking this action now. PFAS are a group of manufactured chemicals that have been widely used globally since the 1950s in the manufacture of household and industrial products that resist heat, stains, grease and water, and in other specialised applications, including firefighting foams. Legacy firefighting foams containing PFAS were used worldwide and in Australia, including at Defence sites, due to their effectiveness in fighting liquid fuel fires. They're often called a forever chemical because they don't break down naturally in the environment. Now, there are 28 defence sites across Australia that are impacted by PFAS contamination. In response to this PFAS contamination, Defence has spent $1.3 billion in taxpayer money supporting affected communities. That includes around $408 million in legal settlements, including five litigated cases, litigated class actions, four litigated claims and 342 non-litigated claims. Defence has treated or removed more than 200,000 tonnes of contaminated soil across Defence sites to mitigate the spread. Defence has treated and provided at least eight years of water assistance to eligible properties, and we've operated and maintained seven water treatment plants across Australia treating more than 13 billion litres of water since PFAS contamination was identified in those communities. Overall, 785 properties have received other forms of water assistance as well. So, a significant amount of work has already been undertaken by Defence to respond responsibly and appropriately to the impacts of PFAS contamination. Defence has spent that $1.3 billion in taxpayer money to manage and mitigate the impacts arising from contaminating products supplied by 3M. Now, governments have provided this support to protect communities and Defence will continue to work closely with state and local authorities through through the National Coordinating Body and local community working groups that I have commenced setting up late last year to support Australians and local communities living near affected bases. As the Attorney-General said, this action against 3M is significant. Defence is seeking $2 billion in damages to recover both the substantial costs already incurred and the future costs expected to arise from the environmental, economic and cultural impacts caused by PFAS contamination. As the Attorney-General said, let's be clear, this case is about recovering costs due to the use of firefighting foam supplied by 3M that contain PFAS. To put it plainly, we are taking on 3M on behalf of the Australian people and the Australians that are affected. This Government is prepared to make those hard decisions. We are prepared to take on powerful corporations when Australians and Australian communities have been impacted. Today's announcement demonstrates that this Government will stand up for Australians and hold big companies to account. Happy to take some questions.

JOURNALIST: Attorney-General, there are reports this morning that another woman who returned from Syria has been arrested. Are you able to confirm those reports and say on what she's been charged?

ROWLAND: I've heard those reports. I have absolute confidence in our security and law enforcement agencies and I'm sure that they will provide updates in due course.

JOURNALIST: Just on the PFAS issue. Would you be willing to enter in negotiations for a settlement if 3M were willing to have those discussions?

ROWLAND: Well, the Commonwealth of course is a model litigant. We will of course take steps to genuinely engage with 3M at appropriate times. But as the Assistant Minister and I have said, this is a Government that is prepared to take on one of the biggest multinational corporations in the world for the betterment of Australian citizens.

JOURNALIST: Attorney-General, why has the Commonwealth claimed public interest immunity over Cabinet documents to block the public from knowing whether it was responsible for what the antisemitism Royal Commission has called has described as a significant funding reduction for counter terrorism?

ROWLAND: Well, let's be clear, the interim report by the Royal Commission did go to some of those matters, and this second hearing block that's being undertaken now contains a number of matters for which our national security agencies require that information to be kept sensitive and we are complying accordingly with the nature of that information.

JOURNALIST: Attorney-General, yesterday Tony Burke said that the investigations of the AFP into the so called ISIS Brides group was not over. Do you expect that these will be the last charges that are laid against the cohort or should we expect further charges?

ROWLAND: That will be a matter for our security agencies and law enforcement and I have complete confidence in them.

JOURNALIST: Just on the $2 billion that the Government is seeking in damages, how much of that, or how big is the task in your assessment of the future cleanup and future response, and how much of that is more about the damages in the past?

KHALIL: We are seeking $2 billion in damages that cover the cost that we've incurred in the past, which is $1.3 billion and the costs into the future that we expect will arise from the ongoing management and mitigation of PFAS contamination. So that will play out in the legal proceedings, but just to be clear, Defence and the Australian Government has spent $1.3 billion working on techniques to remove and treat PFAS and remove it from soil and from water to contain the spread from the Defence bases and to support affected communities. That has been a significant cost and we've done it for the right reasons. We've done it to support those communities. Those communities expect us to stand up for them and we have delivered on that as a government and Defence. We are taking on 3M, as the Attorney-General said, one of the largest multinational companies in the world, because it's the right thing to do to support the communities that have been affected by PFAS contamination.

JOURNALIST: It just seems like the amount you are seeking for maybe future responses isn't as much as you’ve spent so far. Is that an acknowledgement that maybe we're getting on top of this issue?

KHALIL: Well, Defence has done significant work in remediating PFAS, and I've mentioned at the start of my comments, we've removed or treated 200,000 tonnes of soil that has been contaminated by PFAS. We have removed PFAS from water sources, we’ve provided alternate water sources for communities that have been affected. So, there's been a significant investment and a lot of work done. We're seeking recovery of those costs and for future costs that we expect will arise from the ongoing work that needs to be done to deal with PFAS contamination.

JOURNALIST: Can you give any more detail about the task that still remains in terms of what needs to be done on Defence Estate as opposed to communities that are neighboring or nearby for their challenges? Is there any part of the claim that will go to the health consequences that many of these community members believe is directly linked to PFAS?

KHALIL: On the first part of your question, there are 28 defence sites that are part of this claim. Each site is different, obviously, some of those sites we've done a fair bit of work on remediating or containing the spread of PFAS or the plume from spreading beyond the borders of the base. There are other sites where there's been communities that have been affected nearby the base, which we're doing work around removing the PFAS from the soil and the water and so on. So, it depends on the site. There's a number of those. With respect to your second question, this case is focused on the environmental, economic and cultural impacts and the cost of that that has been incurred by the Commonwealth and Defence in the past and into the future. This is not a case about personal injury or health or health claims. It is solely focused on the environmental, economic and cultural impacts and the costs that we've incurred in dealing with those impacts.

JOURNALIST: I realise there are a range of views around the connection to some of the health consequences, in particular some of the cancer clusters and Labor's position has been different to some of the other findings from parliamentary processes about whether or not there's a link there, but do you accept that there might be some communities who are frustrated that this legal pursuit doesn't include recognition of those kind of health concerns?

KHALIL: Well, I think, first and foremost, the health and safety of Australians is our number one priority, and that is exactly why Defence has provided support to communities across Australia, a significant amount of support, as I mentioned, providing water, water assistance, removing PFAS contamination where we can and where it's possible. So, that's been quite significant. The health advice that we receive, we take the public health advice from the Environmental Health Standing Committee and the Australian Centre for Disease Control, the CDC, the current advice is that there is limited evidence of the health impacts of PFAS exposure or contamination. But we have, as I've said, continued to do the work and will continue to do the work, to support communities affected by PFAS right across the country because it's the right thing to do, because we deliver for communities and the communities expect us to do that. I've travelled across the country, I've met many communities that have been affected and that is the expectation from those communities and we're providing that support for them.

JOURNALIST: Attorney-General, on another issue, there was a Government briefing document that was reported on about a week ago, talking about Australian agencies seeking access to AI company Anthropic’s Mythos algorithm, and there was a mention that it could be accessed via some kind of negotiation to shift Australia's position on copyright and AI. What's your view in terms of where that negotiation could be, is it possible that Australia would relent on copyright in order to access Mythos?

ROWLAND: Well, I think we should be very clear. This notion that access to Mythos depends on Australia weakening its current copyright regime is a false one and will not be entertained by the Government.

JOURNALIST: Attorney-General, what message do you have for Australians who are concerned about this ISIS bride cohort, given charges continue to be laid?

ROWLAND: I would firstly reiterate what the Prime Minister has said - there are consequences for people's actions and that is the case, as we have seen, where there are a number of Australian citizens who have been charged with very serious offences. It is also the case that the Australian Government is not providing assistance in any form of repatriation of these people. But my key message to Australians is that our law enforcement agencies, our security agencies, are the best in the world. They continue to monitor these individuals and where it is necessary to bring proceedings against them, that will happen.

JOURNALIST: If I can just return to the Antisemitism Royal Commission who initiated the public immunity claim. Mike Burgess’ statement did not say that it was ASIO so was it the Commonwealth?

ROWLAND: I would have to check that, but I don't have knowledge of who that would have been. What I will say is that again, some of this information is highly sensitive and decisions are made at various levels of government and government agencies about when to claim that.

JOURNALIST: Just staying on the Royal Commission. We've seen a number of Jewish Australians who have given evidence have subsequently faced yet more antisemitic comments coming their way, particularly online. Is there anything that the Royal Commission can do or Government can do to try and address this, to make sure that the Royal Commission process doesn't exacerbate exactly the thing it's trying to ameliorate?

ROWLAND: The treatment of some of the witnesses that we've seen appearing very bravely before the Royal Commission has been absolutely appalling. It has been un-Australian, and it has been contrary to the whole purpose for establishing this Royal Commission. It's so that voices can be heard, particularly Jewish voices, and I think the Commissioner has been very clear that she is keeping a close eye on these matters. But it is not only a matter for Government, it is not only a matter for the Jewish community, it is not only a matter for the Royal Commission, it is a matter for Australians. The use of online environments to vilify and to reinforce this hate is absolutely shocking, and again, I want to thank all those who have appeared as witnesses, those who've made submissions, over 12,500 so far, and I encourage them to keep doing so because every decent minded Australian and every member of this Parliament is supporting them.

JOURNALIST: Attorney-General, do you agree with the decision by police to not arrest any of the women who arrived back in Australia from Syria in recent days given that we now are seeing more charges?

ROWLAND: Well, again, this is a matter for law enforcement. They make decisions based on the advice that they have and we have confidence in them.

JOURNALIST: Can you say which woman has been charged with what?

ROWLAND: I cannot at this stage.

JOURNALIST: Attorney-General, if you can't say who initiated the public interest immunity claim, can you rule out that it was initiated by Cabinet to save itself from embarrassment instead of the national security organisations?

ROWLAND: I don't comment on Cabinet deliberations, but I can say that public interest immunity claims are often made as a matter of course and are not necessarily those which are taken to Cabinet.

JOURNALIST: Mr Khalil, with the 28 sites that have been identified as part of this claim, are there any key sites that are at the centre of this?

KHALIL: That'll be a matter for the legal proceedings. Obviously, each site is different, the work that's been done on each site is varied and individualised, if you like, for the work that needed to be done on that site and that will play out in the legal proceedings. That's up to the lawyers about how they go and proceed site by site and how they go about doing that.

JOURNALIST: Has the government reviewed how it deals with companies like 3M to ensure greater transparency and prevent something like this from happening?

KHALIL: Well, as you've heard from the Attorney-General, the basis of this claim is the misrepresentations and the false statements that have been made. So, yes, I think the Government is very cognisant of the fact in engaging with any of these multinational corporations or companies that there needs to be some pretty clear transparency going forward. Part of that is we're taking on one of the biggest companies because of what they've done and the wrongs that have been committed and we're making sure that we're standing up for Australians. I think this is, as the Attorney-General said, the most significant legal action undertaken by the Commonwealth, I think, in history.

ENDS