1. In relation to the former Kimberley APB workers affected by chemical spraying; Why did the government select Bruce Armstrong to head the review panel of Professor Andrew Harper’s Report on chemical exposure of former Kimberley APB workers, when Bruce Armstrong was a former WA Commissioner or Public Health during the same period that the former workers have been unsuccessful in gaining a full investigation of the circumstances and effects of their chemical exposure?
1a. And how is this not a conflict of interest?
2. Is the government aware that Bruce Armstrong has previously co-published a leading article in The Medical Journal of Australia supposing birth defects of Vietnam Veterans’ pregnancies and children were more likely due to former servicemen’s STD’s such as herpes and syphilis; Emotionally disturbed men prone to excess alcohol causing spousal abuse; And the wife’s use of grog, tobacco, and mood-altering drugs? And of another later article entitled, Storm in a Cup of 2,4,5,-T?
2a. And why does the government believe this reviewer is capable of subjective analysis when his previous publications on the same subject are already contrary to the workers’ claims?
3. In March/April of 1996 Legal Aid and the Aboriginal Legal Service arranged for medical examination of several exposed workers in Derby by an interstate physician, Dr. Scott. The workers were examined and a report was prepared. It is rumored among the former APB workers that the State Government ordered that this report was never to see the light of day, otherwise future funding would be limited to the ALS. This report was paid for by the WA taxpayer, please tell us where is it, and why were the workers not provided with copies of the findings?
4. Aboriginal Legal Service wrote to several affected workers in January 2000, advising these workers that their legal files ought to be closed, as there is no cause for action due to the limitations period. This legal advice provided by the ALS to the former APB workers is completely contrary to the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 84I (1) (d). Given the pressure rumored to be applied to the ALS in the previous question, and the absence of the said medical report, could the government please explain why competent ALS solicitors have been issuing incorrect legal advice that denies the aboriginal workers their basic rights to claim legitimate medical costs and other compensation entitlements?
5. the Minister, Kim Chance said the Armstrong Review indicates there is no evidence that the APB workers were exposed to unregulated dioxins, citing Mr. Doug Ingraham’s report of near perfect documentation of supplied chemical sampling analysis.
There is no indication of how the sampling process was regulated and monitored ensuring the sample analysed was in fact from the product supplied to the APB. Mr. Chance is simply grasping at straws, as in the same report, it is demonstrated the inconsistencies and contradiction of information provided by this Kwinana chemical manufacturer to previous government investigations into its operational practices.
Also in Robin Chapple's (MLC) motion to the Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs Inquiry – September 10 2003, he amply illustrated the dubious practices of the manufacturer.
Yet the Minister says, "Look their documentation shows how wonderfully perfect the product samples were. Therefore there is no evidence of unregulated dioxins".
Why has the Minister chosen to ignore the other evidence contained in the Ingraham report that clearly demonstrates that the only 245T product from the manufacturer that shares the same unique physical characteristics as described by the affected workers is the very same product sample that analysed at 26 ppm of the extremely deadly dioxin TCDD.
All of Parliament should note that there is no record of any production 245T sampled "as supplied" that did not comply to the standard physical motor oil-like consistency of normal 245T.
The Minister has simply dismissed as lies or mistakes the hundreds of reliable eye-witness accounts of supplied material being a black, sludgy, or molasses-like substance that the workers were supplied in illegal unmarked drums.
From the manufacturer’s own correspondence to the government, also reported in the Ingraham document, describing the company’s unsuccessful attempts to manufacture saleable product from the imported fire-damaged stock, the physical description is the same.
It is completely different to production 245T. The sample tested by the government laboratories to contain 26 ppm TCDD also describes the material in the same fashion.
The manufacturer provides a description of this truly unique brew. The government laboratory describes the deadly sample tested the same way. The affected workers in the field use the same description of the offending substance.
There have been several national media presentations and interviews confirming this.
Why did the Minister insist there is no evidence?
5a. Does the Minister not understand the evidence at hand , or is it simply an attempt to ignore and conceal true evidence as presented? This is a legitimate question in the public’s interest in light of the above.
5b. And could the Minister please provide an explanation why Armstrong can conclude there is no evidence of unregulated dioxins when the Armstrong Review Panel refused or was not provided with terms of reference to include gathering of information from personnel involved in the Kimberley spraying program, and therefore by deliberate omission, not present a full account of relevant information?
5c. Also in relation to the previous question, to provide an answer such as Professor Armstrong says it was not necessary; In my considered opinion not an adequate or an acceptable explanation.
6. Why was 245-T supplied to Kimberley workers when the safety advice for the product specifically instructs not to use above 24 degrees C?
7. Why does the Minister insist there is no evidence of illegal activity by the APB when scores of eyewitnesses insist that the chemical was supplied in second hand unlabelled drums to the workers by the government employer, contrary to the Poisons Act?
7a. What does the Minister have to say to the many workers who have provided statements to investigators confirming this criminal activity of the APB and who have very effectively been publicly labelled as unreliable witnesses or outright liars whose statements are of no consequence by the government?
8. Why does the government dismiss the workers claims of inadequate provision of personal protection equipment by the employer, when scores of statements to investigators confirm this illegal and criminally negligent failure, as do photographic evidence and APB training films of the time?
8a. Why has the government response so far to the previous question been an attempt to convince the WA public that the safety mentality of the day was not a priority, when at least by the mid-seventies in WA industry, personal safety has been paramount to staff management, whether they be white or aboriginal?
8b. And regardless of the whitewash attempt by the WA Government on this issue, the practice of negligent employment conditions is and was illegal at the time. Why have there been no criminal prosecutions on the basis of the information provided by the former APB employees and other witnesses?
