federal government - The irony, arrogance & utter abuse of power
This blog site exists exposing the Australian Federal Government using government pages like above as evidence:
- enabling distribution of PFAS contaminated food to domestic and international markets for human consumption
- providing outdated and misleading PFAS information to undermine PFAS health implications to the Australian people.
- denying our basic human rights to be protected from chemical exposures and informed of potential health risks especially to children, pregnant women, workers and vulnerable communities.
How federal government failed the people
|
Australia has just come out of 13 years of Coalition mismanagement of PFAS pollution to land and water by both government and industry impacting 100's of communities around Australia.
After two failed Senate Inquiries in 2015/16 and 2018 and no recommendations implemented, the Australian people should rightly request a public inquiry into misconduct of public office from relevant department heads all the way to the Prime Minister[s]. All responsibility of maladministration stops with the Prime Minister who swear in parliament to serve the people of Australia and office of Prime Minister. |
To condone, mislead or disrupt due processes to the detriment of the public is an overreach and abuse of power.
Who, in power, stood up to genuinely fix the problems and support the people? |
Will the new labor government be better or the same?
How will the new Australian Prime Minister lead and what will he stand for?
“I, Anthony Norman Albanese do solemnly and sincerely affirm and declare that I will well and truly serve the Commonwealth of Australia, her land and her people in the office of Prime Minister,”
Leadership is about honesty, integrity, credibility and social justice so we expect our new Prime Minister to lead by example ensuring ministers and department heads know they are there to do right by the people on health and safety?
I have noted on various other site-pages of Europe and America's rapidly changing position on PFAS which puts the Australian Government in a precarious position - radically move with the rest of the world on PFAS standards or find international trade does not want our produce.
Priority for the new government is to reduce PFAS exposures to the most impacted communities and then that of the general population,
“I, Anthony Norman Albanese do solemnly and sincerely affirm and declare that I will well and truly serve the Commonwealth of Australia, her land and her people in the office of Prime Minister,”
Leadership is about honesty, integrity, credibility and social justice so we expect our new Prime Minister to lead by example ensuring ministers and department heads know they are there to do right by the people on health and safety?
I have noted on various other site-pages of Europe and America's rapidly changing position on PFAS which puts the Australian Government in a precarious position - radically move with the rest of the world on PFAS standards or find international trade does not want our produce.
Priority for the new government is to reduce PFAS exposures to the most impacted communities and then that of the general population,
- separate the PFAS risk from food producing areas.
- right the wrongs of the past on misleading PFAS messaging.
- put health of the people as a priority reducing risks of PFAS exposures.
- advocate for product labelling for PFAS chemicals.
- quicken action on ratifying the Stockholm Convention list of chemicals.
- provide transparency on bore water testing, post codes and areas of blood testing to ensure health studies are reflective of true extent of contamination.
- accept updated American PFAS research is credible and reliable?
- adopt regulatory standards based on current international proposals?
Buyback of pfas contaminated land
The new government should also assess and consider,
These PFAS chemicals are a legacy for the government to bear. These chemicals are carcinogenic and hazardous and will impact us all for generations to come with the societal health burden a liability for all governments.
- the effectiveness and integrity of the PFAS taskforce - out with the old, in with new.
- Australia is not in line with world's best practice for PFAS management.
- buybacks of contaminated land as a way to change land use and earn government money.
- planting trees for farming credits but also potential timber industry in future.
- ongoing blood testing for people with high exposures not only as a research tool but more importantly to manage potential future health impacts.
These PFAS chemicals are a legacy for the government to bear. These chemicals are carcinogenic and hazardous and will impact us all for generations to come with the societal health burden a liability for all governments.
To the federal department of health & aged care
This link provides all the legislation this department administers from Aged Care, food safety, biosecurity, cancer, numerous health and welfare services including research, immunisation, serum laboratories, epidemiological studies, industrial chemicals, Medicare, my health records (access to what blood results reveal), blood authorities, to name a few.
This department has failed the people and department heads should all be sacked.
This department has failed the people and department heads should all be sacked.
- How is there such a consistence and obvious lack of rational decision-making and leadership to protect Australian communities from PFAS exposures?
- Which department heads have a conflict of interest?
- What transparency exists with this department's funding objectives and terms of reference on PFAS human health studies?
- How is this department and Minister accountable to the public?
- What criteria is this department relying on to ensure PFAS contaminated livestock and produce from highly contaminated PFAS communities is fit for human consumption without health impacts - what health research are they relying on?
- What influence has this department over state governments for the same inaction on reducing PFAS exposures?
- Why is the AMA so silent of PFAS?
- Why is AMA not backing up and calling out bullying by Australia's chief medical officer and others when GPs stand up for their patients?
- Why are our General Practitioners so poorly researched on PFAS to treat patients?
- Do regional GP clinics have conflicts of interest in certain communities being both retained by Defence, Industry (ESSO) and the like while also treating affected patients?
- Why is there no reference to PFAS risks of exposures and health impacts on Australia Cancer Council webpage like the American Cancer Society and National Cancer Institute – Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics
to the federal Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
The reluctance of Meat and Livestock Australia (M&LA) to take the lead to put Australia at the forefront of action is to our detriment. How will the Australia Government reverse this company's inaction to what can only be seen as a coverup.
The PFAS contamination will eventually impact the export market / biosecurity & movement of stock / agriculture as we know it.
The PFAS contamination will eventually impact the export market / biosecurity & movement of stock / agriculture as we know it.
|
Effluent wastewater as recycled water is full of emerging contaminants but not even deemed a threat to agriculture nor is the 'beneficial use' of biosolids.
|
The management of the National Vender Declaration is an absolute rort and prime to explode with third party civil suits.
No amount of assurances by any government or agricultural department that a livestock producer can on-sell to market can absolve a producer from legal liability as they signed a declaration that their livestock has not been exposed to chemicals.
To all of government, you are not above the law because that would make the government corrupt.
Government must work for and comply with the law of the land and our food safety must be bought to account.
To not do so increases government's potential liability in the future related to obligations under relevant Acts but also based on a state of knowledge - what you ought to have known to protect people from increased risk of exposures, not what your cronies thought they could get away with to reduce government's current liability.
No amount of assurances by any government or agricultural department that a livestock producer can on-sell to market can absolve a producer from legal liability as they signed a declaration that their livestock has not been exposed to chemicals.
To all of government, you are not above the law because that would make the government corrupt.
Government must work for and comply with the law of the land and our food safety must be bought to account.
To not do so increases government's potential liability in the future related to obligations under relevant Acts but also based on a state of knowledge - what you ought to have known to protect people from increased risk of exposures, not what your cronies thought they could get away with to reduce government's current liability.
PFAS Contamination - how much will it cost polluters?
The Australian Government has been poorly advised early on how to manage their PFAS contamination to private property - clearly not in the polluters best interest to have publicity but to deliberately mislead is the real issue. This now provides the best avenue for litigation because the federal government certainly stuffed up any chance of managing dispute resolution to save money in the long run.
What the Australian Government must now consider is calculating and proving future losses to the export livestock industry from reputational damage, future societal health cost burden and remediation of soil and essential groundwater as the top liners.
Past cleanup conferences have various examples of PFAS contamination and how legal liability will most likely play out in the future. I have taken some of the following points from presenters abstracts on the PFAS contamination issues from 2017.
On defence land the Australian Government is the polluter therefore liable for cost for the losses and damage arising.
The plaintiffs who have commenced proceedings in relation to the impacts of PFAS contamination include landowners, occupiers and business owners.
If the causes of action of nuisance and/or negligence are established, the kinds of losses and damages which the plaintiffs may seek to establish were, or will be, caused include:
The assessment of compensation requires calculation of the losses and damages which:
The amount of compensation to be awarded for future losses will be dependent on, amongst other things:
What the Australian Government must now consider is calculating and proving future losses to the export livestock industry from reputational damage, future societal health cost burden and remediation of soil and essential groundwater as the top liners.
Past cleanup conferences have various examples of PFAS contamination and how legal liability will most likely play out in the future. I have taken some of the following points from presenters abstracts on the PFAS contamination issues from 2017.
On defence land the Australian Government is the polluter therefore liable for cost for the losses and damage arising.
- The causes of action raised by plaintiffs, including in the Williamtown Class Action, include the torts of nuisance and negligence and breaches of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) and of the Defence Force Regulations 1952 (Cth).
- The more complicated questions are, if liability is established, for what losses is the plaintiff entitled to compensation, and how should that compensation be calculated?
- One failure of the Australian PFAS class actions was not establishing farmers as business entities which led to poor compensation outcomes.
- What type of losses and damages will plaintiffs be entitled to be compensated for as a consequence of PFAS contamination?
- How will the evolving level of knowledge and understanding of PFAS contamination impact the assessment of compensation?
- What role will environmental consultants play?
The plaintiffs who have commenced proceedings in relation to the impacts of PFAS contamination include landowners, occupiers and business owners.
If the causes of action of nuisance and/or negligence are established, the kinds of losses and damages which the plaintiffs may seek to establish were, or will be, caused include:
- diminution in the value of land,
- relocation costs,
- medical expenses, both past and future, including for distress, vexation and depression,
- loss of opportunity to make profits,
- diminution in the goodwill component of a business, and
- compensation for inconvenience, distress and vexation, and in some cases, depression.
The assessment of compensation requires calculation of the losses and damages which:
- have already arisen as a consequence of the contamination; and
- have a chance of occurring in the future.
The amount of compensation to be awarded for future losses will be dependent on, amongst other things:
- What is the current level of uncertainty surrounding the impacts of PFAS contamination?
- To what extent is this uncertainty the cause of loss and damage? This is particularly relevant to claims for mental distresses and depression.
- When will a "safe level" of PFAS contamination be established? What is that level likely to be?
- Will there ever be, and if so when will there be, effective remediation technologies or management strategies?
- In terms of a percentage, how certain are the answers to each of these questions?
IS THE GOVERNMENT SETTING UP CONSULTANTS TO BE SUED?
Again, the cleanup conferences have various examples of PFAS contamination and legal liability but this time against environmental consultants engaged by polluters to reduce their liability.
Claims against environmental consultants are typically based on all three of the following causes of actions:
While the public are not privy to terms of reference between the consultant and the polluter and there is no transparency means the only action available to many is litigation. This would be an absolute failure on behalf of the government to justly and fairly compensate those impacted without the expensive intervention of consultants and lawyers.
Environmental consultants can be sued on:
Claims against environmental consultants are typically based on all three of the following causes of actions:
- Breach of contract
- Negligence
- Misleading or deceptive conduct.
While the public are not privy to terms of reference between the consultant and the polluter and there is no transparency means the only action available to many is litigation. This would be an absolute failure on behalf of the government to justly and fairly compensate those impacted without the expensive intervention of consultants and lawyers.
Environmental consultants can be sued on:
- performance standards for the services - what makes a misleading and deceptive report?
- contractual terms and conditions to protect consultants from liability can be challenged on reliance of information provided by client as the basis for risk assessments?