Parliamentary Questions & Answers

Question On Notice No. 1448 asked in the Legislative Council on 14 August 2018 by Hon Robin Chapple

Question Directed to the: Parliamentary Secretary representing the Deputy Premier; Minister for Health; Mental Health
Parliament: 40 Session: 1

Question

I refer to the Minister’s statements in the Sunday Times article by Tony Barrass, Agent Orange claim denied, and I ask:

(a) will the Minister please confirm that the A/Executive Director Environmental Health Directorate, Mr Stan Goodchild responded on the Minister’s behalf to a letter from Ms Alexandra Jones regarding a letter from Dr Ernest Hunter;

(b) which documents were accessed by anyone involved in the preparation of Stan Goodchild’s response on behalf of the Minister;

(d) if yes to (c), how many times;

(e) did the words “alleged Agent Orange” appear in the documents;

(f) if yes to (e), how many times;

(g) is the Minister aware that the findings of the report by the Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs state that Chemical Industries Kwinana (CIK) sourced 2,4,-D and 2,4,5T from various countries and supplied them to the Agricultural Protection Board (APB);

(h) is the Minister aware that 2,4-D and 2,4,5T are the two ingredients in Agent Orange;

(i) is the Minister aware that witnesses have confirmed drums containing 2,4,5T and 2,4-D were available to APB weeders in the Kimberley and that the words “Agent Orange” have been commonly used to describe these herbicides that were used as defoliants in the Vietnam War;

(j) is Minister aware that the Committee’s findings do not support his claims, suggesting instead that 2,4-D and 2,4,5T, the two ingredients of Agent Orange, were readily available to APB weeders with tragic consequences to them and their families;

(k) if no to (g)-(j), why not;

(l) will the Minister retract his misleading statement in the Sunday Times that “there was no evidence Agent Orange was ever manufactured in, imported to, or used in Australia”; and

(m) if no to (l), why not?

Answered on 11 September 2018

I am advised that:

(a) Yes

(b) The letter from Ms Jones with enclosed correspondence from Dr Ernest Hunter, alleging links to incidents involving application of certain herbicides in the Kimberley between 1975 and 1985 and contemporary stewardship of chemicals and pesticides and the Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs 2004 report.

(d) Twice in Dr Hunter’s correspondence and 12 times in the 2004 report.

(e) Yes

(f) Twice.

(g) The Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs 2004 report found that CIK was a supplier of a range of agricultural chemicals, not just 2,4D and 2,4,5T, to the Agricultural Protection Board and that this included chemicals or material sourced overseas or manufactured locally.

(h) 2,4-D and 2,4,5T are the two principal ingredients of the chemical known as Agent Orange. However, historical health effects have been linked to trace levels of contaminant dioxins, such as TCDD (2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-para-dioxin), in Agent Orange.

(i) No, it is unclear which witnesses are being referred to and while the terms 2,4 D and 2,4, 5-T and Agent Orange were sometimes used interchangeably, this is incorrect, as noted in the Standing Committees report. Agent orange should not be used in reference to the chemical 2,4,5T or 2,4-D individually.

(j) No

(k) The reference to Agent Orange in Mr Goodchild’s letter was to the description by Dr Ernest Hunter of the issue that has been referred to colloquially as the Agent Orange incident. It should have been modified with the term ‘alleged’ for accuracy. Mr Goodchild’s letter to Ms Jones was to address her comments about contemporary chemical governance, not to debate findings of previous inquiries into the use of certain herbicides in the Kimberley in the 1970s and 1980s.

(l) No

(m) The comment attributed to me in the Sunday Times that a report by the Standing Committee on Environmental and Public Affairs found that there was no evidence Agent Orange was ever manufactured in, imported to, or used in Australia is correct. Please refer to Statement 7.7 on page 5 of the Standing Committee on Environment and Public Affairs 2004 report.