The test results Seqwater tried to keep secret, and how they came out

The documents show multiple residents had also contacted Seqwater – after the tests were conducted – asking for any available data and whether they should consider investing in a home water filter to protect their family.

“Are you able to share any recent test results?” one homeowner from Ashgrove asked Seqwater.

“The [Australian guidelines] are significantly higher than the safety limits imposed in the USA for PFAS, and I’m trying to decide what sort of water filtration system I need to install in my home to protect my family.”

The residents were given almost the same answer as this masthead received before it lodged an RTI request for more.

“Providing clean, safe drinking water is Seqwater’s number one priority and our water continues to meet the standards set by the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines,” the response said in part.

Western Sydney University water scientist Dr Ian Wright said it appeared Seqwater took steps to avoid transparency.

“Any water group that holds back data I think has questionable ethics,” Wright said.

“I’m disappointed by Seqwater that it’s taken an [RTI] to release this sort of pretty basic, fundamental information … you can’t hold back the tide. This is going to come out.”

Wright said he was particularly concerned for people with serious health conditions who may have wanted to take additional precautions.

“If it complies with the guidelines, why wouldn’t you publish it and provide reassurance?”

It appears the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) may have also been unaware of the Seqwater test results.

In a fact sheet on the body’s website, the NHMRC says the highest PFOA reading it knows of across the country is 9.7 parts per trillion.

But Seqwater has recorded higher rates on at least 10 occasions since 2023, some more than four times that level, according to the documents.

Given national standards were not breached, Seqwater took the decision not to even brief the responsible minister. Government talking points were prepped to ensure “consistent messaging.”

In a statement requested by Brisbane Times, to clarify its position, Seqwater reiterated it was not obliged to release any test results that did not breach local standards.

It has since published more recent test results showing no type of PFAS had been detected.

“Seqwater recognises the public health interest in PFAS,” the statement said.

“Seqwater reports to the Queensland water supply regulator on water quality and complies with all reporting obligations under relevant legislation. We also proactively publish PFAS data on our website.

“Seqwater strongly refutes any suggestion that it deliberately withholds information about its water quality testing, which includes testing for PFAS.”

While concerned by the lack of transparency, Wright defended Seqwater’s performance overall, saying “in many ways, the water industry is a victim of this”.

“Just be open and honest,” he suggested.

“You’re suffering, your industry and your reputation is suffering because of it and you’re not providing useful advice that people can act on.

“It’s almost like a shattering of democracy when there’s hazardous chemicals coming out of your tap water and you’re not being given the full story.”

The documents show that, in mid-2023, insurers began asking Seqwater about its risk of exposure to PFAS.

“Anecdotally, the insurance industry sees the PFAS [firefighting foam issue] as the ‘new asbestos’.” one staff member said at the time.

The documents suggest testing has increased, and Seqwater has taken the risks seriously, however in some instances staff questioned the need to go further.

“I’m not sure we want to go looking into fauna concentrations as it will likely be present, and then what?” one employee asked on August 22, 2024.

“All the docos have already shown it has been found in people/animals on every continent.”

Dr Nick Chartres is a senior research fellow at The University of Sydney, with an expertise in the health effects of chemicals. He said consumers needed to be empowered with information.

“The Australian public should be provided with accurate and timely information from utilities that are funded by the taxpayer,” Chartres said.

“The public should then be able to make informed decisions on what is best for their health and their families, and if necessary, ask the government to intervene and protect them.

“Suppressing information like this when it has been explicitly requested sets a concerning precedent and will erode the public’s trust, unnecessarily.”

High-profile environmental campaigner and former NSW Australian of the Year Jon Dee said the apparent cover-up warranted an inquiry – and “heads should roll”.

“This will rock the public’s trust in its drinking water,” Dee said, urging Premier David Crisafulli to take steps to assure the public it was being taken seriously.

Ahead of the Brisbane 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games, Dee also questioned whether American athletes would be comfortable consuming and competing in water that contained chemicals at higher levels than allowed back home.

“If drinking water was an Olympic sport, Seqwater would get a gold medal for this incompetence,” he said.