Radio Interview – ABC AM with Melissa Clarke

E&OE

Subjects: Legal action against 3M Australia and 3M Company; Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion; NACC.

MELISSA CLARKE, HOST: Multinational manufacturing company 3M is vowing to fight against the Australian Government's $2 billion lawsuit over PFAS chemicals. The Government has accused 3M of withholding information about the dangers of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances in firefighting foam that has contaminated Defence bases and surrounding environments. The Government is seeking $2 billion to cover the cost from the past of what's already been done to remediate and future costs. I spoke to the Attorney-General Michelle Rowland a short time ago. Michelle Rowland, thanks very much for speaking to AM this morning.

MICHELLE ROWLAND, ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Good morning.

CLARKE: If the Commonwealth is successful in this lawsuit with 3M, what would the $2 billion be spent on?

ROWLAND: Well, firstly, I think it's important to acknowledge this is the single biggest action that the Commonwealth is undertaking. I think it's premature at this stage to be talking about how that will be expended. We are focused on putting our best foot forward, obviously in this case for very good reasons, but it is for the purposes of recovering significant past and future expenses that the Commonwealth has incurred in investigating and managing contamination that has resulted from the historical storage and use of this foam.

CLARKE: That would cover some of the environmental issues that have been caused. But a lot of the communities that have been affected by PFAS contamination, they're looking for financial help with the health costs, more screening, more blood tests and cancer screening. Is that something that could be funded if you were successful in securing this funding through the lawsuit?

ROWLAND: Look, firstly, I acknowledge that this has been a cause of significant distress in many communities around Australia. We have been focused as a Government, and we will continue to be focused on taking really practical steps to assist Australians and communities that have been impacted by PFAS. I want to be clear that this action is about the Government recovering its costs, it doesn’t relate to personal injury or any human health effects that have alleged to be impacted by PFAS exposure. But again, I want to be very clear to the Australian people, and particularly those listening who may be impacted, that we acknowledge that this has caused significant distress and ongoing concerns and the safety of Australian Defence personnel, our veterans and communities, is our number one priority.

CLARKE: Attorney-General, if I can ask you about the Royal Commission into Anti Semitism and Social Cohesion. The Government has made a public interest immunity claim covering Government deliberations on funding of counter terrorism. Why don't you want the Royal Commission to consider that?

ROWLAND: Well, firstly, the Commonwealth supports the Royal Commission to do its work. We as a Government across Government, all our agencies have fully cooperated with the Royal Commission. We've amended laws to enable the Royal Commission to do its important work. I think we should also be very clear that we've assisted the Royal Commission to provide redacted versions of witness statements, which is suitable for publication, some of those redactions are applied in some circumstances, for example, when information is relevant to ongoing criminal proceedings, and these also include security classified information or information that goes to Cabinet confidentiality. So, whilst it's not appropriate to comment on evidence that has been provided to the Royal Commission, there is nothing that the Commonwealth's doing that is novel in terms of there being Cabinet confidentiality.

CLARKE: No, but you have the ability to waive, you have the ability to waive the confidentiality provisions if you choose. Given the extraordinary circumstances that this Royal Commission is inquiring into, aren't these the kind of circumstances that would warrant waiving those Cabinet-in-confidence conventions so that the Royal Commission can look at the full extent of all elements that may have contributed, including things like Government deliberations on counter terrorism funding?

ROWLAND: Well, firstly, it's a well-established legal principle that Cabinet documents and information of that nature attract public interest immunity in legal proceedings and Royal Commissions. But it's important also to note the decisions about whether to disclose Cabinet information are ultimately a matter for the Commissioner. Commissioner Bell can see this information and can release it, she has the authority to do so, and if it's determined to be in the public interest, then that is the case.

CLARKE: Turning to the National Anti-Corruption Commission, with hindsight, was it a mistake by your predecessor to appoint Paul Brereton as Commissioner?

ROWLAND: Well, I think firstly we need to appreciate that the circumstances of that appointment were undertaken completely in line with a merit-based process, including going through the appropriate oversight body. There is no question that all of that was done in accordance with the merit-based process at the time, and it was also a unanimous decision of that committee as well. I acknowledge, and I know that Helen Haines, for example, has been making public comments on this and she and I work very constructively together. I want your listeners to understand that this is an opportunity, I think, with the Commissioner's resignation, and also we have a vacancy as a Deputy Commissioner, for a reset on this. I appreciate that this is not only an important integrity body, but it also needs to have public support in terms of perception as well as in practise. So, I think there's going to be an important opportunity to have that balance between the independence of the NACC and I know your listeners will appreciate it is highly inappropriate for me as Attorney-General to be dictating anything to the NACC. I have maintained its independence, I've never stated anything but support for the Commissioner and confidence in Commissioner Brereton, but this does give us an opportunity with these new appointments to have a reset and I will be engaging across the Parliament to make sure that that happens.

CLARKE: Would that reset include changes to its structure or the way it conducts its activities publicly, such as hearings? Those are the sorts of things that Helen Haines has been calling for, are you open to considering those?

ROWLAND: Well, matters that go to how the Commission conducts its work are a matter for the Commission, that is their independence.

CLARKE: So, you wouldn't look at changing things like the threshold for public hearings for example, that kind of change?

ROWLAND: In terms of the legislative basis of how the Commission operates, there is a statutory review mechanism that will come into effect next year. But in the meantime, I am working as Attorney-General with the Oversight Committee of the Parliament to look at ways in which the operation of the NACC can be more efficient and effective, so that work is underway. In terms of the appointment process, I'm engaging across the Parliament to look at ensuring that we have this merit-based process in place, that there is transparency of the merit-based process, that we have an excellent balance between the independence of the Commission, but also realising there is an opportunity here to reset the Commission and to ensure there is public confidence in this very important institution.

CLARKE: Attorney-General, thank you very much for speaking with AM this morning.

ROWLAND: Thank you.