Tuesday, 3 March 2020

West Gate Tunnel

Mr M O’BRIEN (Malvern—Leader of the Opposition) (12:14): My question is to the Treasurer. In Parliament on 6 February 2020 the Premier said about per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances—PFAS—‘This is dangerous material’. However, I have here a document titled Soil Management Options Being Considered for West Gate Tunnel Project, a document distributed by the member for Werribee. The document tells the people of the western suburbs, and I quote:

Extensive research shows that there is no consistent evidence that PFAS is harmful to human health.

Why is the Treasurer saying one thing to community members directly impacted by the government’s plans to dump toxic waste in Wyndham Vale while the Premier says the complete opposite to Parliament?

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Minister for Police and Emergency Services!

Mr PALLAS (Werribee—Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development, Minister for Industrial Relations) (12:15): I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. I do make this point: there is nothing more rapturous than to see a convert to environmental protection, because those opposite did nothing around Fiskville and around high, concentrated levels of PFAS.

Mr R Smith: On a point of order, Speaker, the Treasurer should come back to answering the question that was put to him by the Leader of the Opposition instead of debating the question.

The SPEAKER: I uphold the point of order. The Treasurer to come to answering the question.

Mr PALLAS: As a government we remain committed to dealing with all contaminations in the environment as responsibly as possible. That is why of course we are dealing with hazardous waste more generally as part of our circular economy but also, and importantly, recognising that the best we can do for all communities is to remove contaminated material from the environment. So of course taking material out of contaminated soil within the western suburbs and putting it into secure locations is vitally important.

Might I say that the advice about the impact of PFAS upon human health in low levels of concentration not being injurious to human health is advice that we have received from the Environment Protection Authority Victoria. There is no—I repeat, there is no—medical evidence to suggest, nor is it recognised in concluded medical evidence, that PFAS in low levels of concentration have an adverse effect upon human health. But this government, unlike those opposite, is doing all it can to remove this material from the environment and put it in a place where the community can feel safe that it has been adequately contained. We have got 1.5 million tonnes of soil that needs to be moved. Testing indicates that this soil’s contamination for PFAS is at very low levels. But nonetheless, unlike those opposite, who are happy to see firefighters continue to ply their trade without any protection—

Mr M O’Brien: On a point of order, Speaker, the Treasurer is debating the question. The question goes to the contradiction between the Premier saying this is dangerous material and the Treasurer saying to the people of his electorate that it is okay. Can he please come back to addressing that inherent contradiction? Either it is dangerous or it is not.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Treasurer has been relevant to the question. He started to stray; I ask the Treasurer to come back to the question.

Mr PALLAS: Can I say, as always, there is not even a gossamer-thin differentiation between the position the Premier has put and I have put—as always. In case those opposite are ever wondering, the Premier is absolutely right on this proposition, and that is that PFAS in high levels of concentration with long-term levels of exposure has the potential to be adverse to human health. That is why this government has taken the action we have with regard to Fiskville. But it is an entirely different situation to assume that low-level contamination in millions of tonnes of soil being removed from the environment is anything other than what a responsible government would do. But I will tell you what looks irresponsible: those opposite plying mistruths and fear in a community that deserves better.

Mr M O’BRIEN (Malvern—Leader of the Opposition) (12:18): My supplementary is to the Treasurer. The Treasurer said on 3AW on 14 February that toxic waste would be stored at Wyndham Vale for a ‘matter of days at best’. Yet the Andrews government’s own documents say:

These bays would have the capacity to temporarily store a maximum of 21 days of dirt and soil.

Treasurer, just how many days or weeks or months do you expect the people of Wyndham Vale to share their suburb with toxic waste?

Mr PALLAS (Werribee—Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development, Minister for Industrial Relations) (12:19): Well, talk about toxic waste—it is more like toxic hypocrisy that we are hearing from those opposite. Can I be clear? These facilities are unlikely—unlikely—ever to be used, just like the flow-on arrangements that apply to other facilities where short-term emergency—

Members interjecting.

The SPEAKER: Order! I ask the Treasurer to resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question. I ask him to cease interjecting across the chamber when the Treasurer is attempting to answer the question.

Mr PALLAS: These facilities will only be used of course in the most unlikely of circumstances: an inability to access the facility where they are likely to be permanently stored. But let me be very clear: this government takes its environmental responsibilities seriously but also its obligations to make sure that those who have signed contracts with the state do deliver this vital project to ensure that 20-minute travel time is taken off the journey from the outer suburbs of the western suburbs but also to make sure that the community is adequately protected. And that is exactly what we are doing.