Television Interview, Sky Politics Now

SUBJECTS: Legal action against 3M Australia and 3M Company; Fuel; Defence spending.

TOM CONNELL, HOST: You saw him there. He's here now, live. The Assistant Defence Minister, Peter Khalil. Thank you for your time as ever.

PETER KHALIL, ASSISTANT MINISTER FOR DEFENCE: G'day, Tom.

CONNELL: So, I know the compensation bills, I think it's been $1.3 billion already. There's some other costs, there's possible future ones. Is this basically the Government saying 3M should pay all the compensation the Commonwealth has had to shell out?

KHALIL: Well, we're seeking recovery of costs, $2 billion in damages to cover past costs that have been incurred. And we've spent about $1.3 billion in providing support to affected communities, and also future costs that we expect to arise out of the ongoing management and mitigation of PFAS contamination. You know, as you saw in that clip there, this is the most significant legal action undertaken by the Commonwealth and Defence, probably in living memory. It is a really big case, and we're taking that hard decision because we're standing up for those communities that have been affected. We're standing up for them against a powerful multinational corporation. We have already done a lot of work in supporting those communities at 1.3 billion. By the way, we've remediated, we've tried to contain the spread of the PFAS. We've, for example, treated and removed PFAS from over 200,000 tonnes of soil from water. So, there's been a lot of support for affected communities that's ongoing and will continue. But we need to hold the company to account.

CONNELL: If you're successful, will you be able to be more generous with the individuals affected?

KHALIL: Well, as I said, we've already spent $1.3 billion, and there is an expectation that there'll be further costs incurred into the future due to the PFAS contamination across these 28 defence sites and the affected communities near the bases. So, that will allow us to continue to provide the support necessary. Look, already we've done things like set up new water treatment plants. We've treated 13 billion litres of water across over, I think it's seven water treatment plants, and there's been water tanks provided to properties and so on. So, there's been a lot of support for affected communities, and I'm working with those local communities as well through a national coordinating body.

CONNELL: But would it mean if you were successful - I understand you say basically you're getting the money back, but would you be able to look at being more generous if previous compensation that's been handed out and agreed on, you visit back and you go "gee, there's further effect" individuals or whatever it might be, maybe that we need to provide more?

KHALIL: Well, there's two parts of this, I mean, to your question, I guess to answer as best I can, there's the legal proceedings, which we don't want to prejudice, that those proceedings will take their course and that all of the costs and everything else and damages and whatever else might be determined through those and will be determined through those legal proceedings. Insofar as what I know and what we're doing, we expect that there are further costs, future costs, in dealing with that PFAS contamination across the sites that have been part of this claim. So, we want to make sure that we recover costs for those future costs as well.

CONNELL: Are you going to be undermined by the fact defence kept using firefighting foam many years after 3M actually phased it out and said…

KHALIL: I'm not going to comment on the time frames or any of that kind of thing. That's all going to be aired, and work through the legal proceedings, and that's important that that is done in the Federal Court. What I can say to you Tom, is that we've discontinued the use of firefighting foam. We have also investigated, managed and mitigated the PFAS contamination across these sites. The impacts, the environmental, the economic and cultural impacts, we've addressed those by providing support to affected communities. As I said earlier in remediation efforts, in providing supports to remove and treat PFAS out of the environment.

CONNELL: Okay, I want to switch to fuel and fertiliser stocks.

KHALIL: Yep.

CONNELL. So, if we see the war in Iran drag on for months, will we need to secure more? Are we in a situation now where the new regime or the new sort of world order, we have enough deals in place that we're fine, or will we need to secure more if it goes on for months?

KHALIL: Look, there's two parts to this. Again, everything is in twos now today, isn't it? The two parts of this. The first is that, of course, we have been arguing for a de-escalation in the conflict, in the war in Iran. We want to see the Straits of Hormuz opened and the traffic, the international traffic occurring there, so that fuel supplies can resume to normal. So, there's been a lot of effort by Australia and the international community to try and, you know, support that de-escalation, obviously, and the parties are engaged in negotiations through this ceasefire as well. The second part, of course, is securing supplies. And now the Australian Government, through its facility, the fuel reserve and fertiliser facility, has secured hundreds of thousands of tonnes - additional tonnes of fuel and fertiliser. We've just secured another 80,000 tonnes. This has been because of the great work and effort by the Prime Minister and the government going out, meeting with counterparts in the region. So, we're getting cargo ships with fertiliser from Indonesia.

CONNELL: Yeah, I understand that in all the press releases. But are we at a position where there's enough? There’s sort of regular deals or arrangements that will have enough, or is this going to be a constant process until the war ends?

KHALIL: Well, it's interesting you say enough. That facility, that $7.5 billion facility, has helped secure hundreds of thousands of tonnes of fertiliser for agricultural purposes, and we know how important that is with all of these things. We've actually got more fuel today than we did on the 28th of February. We've got more diesel, we've got more aviation…

CONNELL: You get what I'm asking….

KHALIL: Yeah. But what I'm saying is the effort of the government should not be overlooked. There's been an enormous.

CONNELL: I don't believe I was overlooking.

KHALIL: I'm speaking in general.

CONNELL: Keep the wolves from the door…

KHALIL: Heaven forbid that it would be you overlooking the Federal Government's efforts. But the government has made a really sterling effort here. I've got to give credit to the Prime Minister.

CONNELL: There's more needs - is this the sort of thing that you just have to keep doing this?

KHALIL: Well, that's our responsibility in the government.

CONNELL. So, there aren't regular - there's not regular additional supplies. That's going to be a bit peaceful.

KHALIL: There are additional supplies. I mean, we just secured an additional 80,000 tonnes of fertiliser recently as an addition.

CONNELL: I think it sounds like we're going to need to keep doing deals, basically.

KHALIL: Well, that's what the facility is set up for. To look after Australians and make sure we're getting what we need.

CONNELL: As for the review of defence spending. $53 billion extra has been touted over a decade. The report found nominal terms fall next financial year. All the big years of the back end years.

KHALIL: Well, I have to admit and confess it's been a pretty busy day. I haven't had a chance to read that report that you quote. What I can say though, is there has been a significant increase in defence spending under the Albanese Government. We've just announced in the Budget an additional $14 billion over the next four years and $53 billion that you mentioned over the decade.

CONNELL: But this is next financial year, the next financial year falls.

KHALIL: Any way you cut it, Tom. This government…

CONNELL: Well, I'm cutting next financial year…

KHALIL: This government has increased defence spending. The mob, the opposition, for what it's worth. They. When they were in government, they did nothing like this. They went backwards, and now they're going on about our defence spending. We have no clarity on their policy…

CONNELL: …It's not their policy any way you cut it. I am saying next year it doesn't go up when you cut it back.

KHALIL: We have $14 billion extra additional dollars added in the Budget over the forward estimates. Over four years, we have $53 billion additional over 10 years. That is an increase in defence spending, and we're getting up to 3 per cent of...

CONNELL: Not for the next financial year. Anyway, I'll let you read it. Maybe we'll talk about it next time.

KHALIL: Thanks, Tom.

ENDS