Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Whilst I had not intended to speak this evening, some information came to my attention this evening which I think ought to be shared with this chamber and the public. There have been on two consecutive Monday nights Australian Story programs relating to alleged toxic run-off in North-Eastern Tasmania. According to the story as portrayed by the group of proponents of that view, it was attributable to certain eucalyptus species which we were told had been genetically modified and were contributing a toxic component to the foam in the run-off into the George River. That river runs into the bay at St Helens, which has an important aquaculture facility. As well as that, the suggestion was that this would have an impact on drinking water. It was a very alarming story to raise and I note that Senators Bob Brown and Milne have proposed that the matter be referred to a Senate committee for examination.

One would expect that that sort of information should be given the greatest examination and scrutiny because it would certainly be in the public interest to ascertain the veracity or otherwise of the claim. Indeed, I understand that the chief public health officer in Tasmania has made contact with Dr Alison Bleaney, the GP who has been one of the spokespeople for the group, with a view to obtaining the research into the claims that cancer and other human illnesses and also oyster deaths were linked to the toxic run-off from plantations. He has made that request and, as reported on the AAP wire this evening, he has been referred to the group’s lawyers. I really struggle with that approach to a matter of public health. If indeed there is reliable research being conducted on an issue which impacts on public health and on an aquaculture industry in North-Eastern Tasmania, it is incumbent upon the claimants, who after all have taken this matter to the nation in Australian Story, to enable public health authorities to examine that claim so that if it is valid they can take the necessary steps, whatever they may be, to address the matter. For the public authorities to be told, ‘We aren’t going to comply with your request. Talk to our lawyers,’ indicates to me that we should be suspicious about the motives of those who make this proposition. It may be that there is some validity to the claim. I cannot say.

What I can say is that, firstly, the claim that the toxic run-off is due to a genetic modification of the tree species Eucalyptus nitens is heavily contested by the Forest Industries Association of Tasmania spokesman, Mr Terry Edwards, who has told the public, subsequent to the programs, that in fact the species has not been genetically modified and that any modifications that have taken place have been in terms of normal tree breeding over time, as with many other plants, including food-producing plants, which we humans consume. So the first aspect of the claim that it is somehow due to genetic modification of a species Eucalyptus nitens seems to be questionable. The other aspect of the claim which seems to be being contested by the state government is that the toxicity of highly concentrated surface scum may relate to a number of things and certainly cannot be related to drinking water taken from below the surface. The claim states that high toxicity is to be expected in surface river scum, and that it is not a revelation.

What is most concerning is that these claims, which apparently are not allowed to be properly examined by the public health authorities, are out there in the public arena. There are aquaculture operators who have to sell their product in an environment where an untested claim suggests there is a toxic substance affecting the product they are growing. On that ground alone, one would have thought there was some obligation by those who produce the material to allow it to be publicly tested. Equally, there is the suggestion that this toxic substance, as it finds its way into public drinking water, is going to affect public health. One would have thought that, on public health grounds, Dr Bleaney would have accepted the need for a public examination of those claims, lest the public be alarmed by claims made in the media. It is suggested that these substances are cancer-causing agents which have led to a higher incidence of cancer. I note that the Director of Public Health, Dr Roscoe Taylor, has said that the Tasmanian Department of Health and Human Services has not discovered a higher incidence of any disease, including cancer, in the population affected within this catchment. My recollection is that, in previous discussions with Dr Bleaney and an examination of her records, no such disproportionate cancer or other disease population has been discovered.

I am concerned that if we have a public debate about this we ought to have impartial scientific examination of the material which is claimed to have been discovered. In the absence of that and, might I say, in the run-up to a state election, one might form the view that the motives of those making the claims and going on national TV are less than those of the statements that have been made. I urge Dr Bleaney and her associates to make all the research material available to Tasmanian health authorities so that the public can be either properly warned or assured that there is nothing to be afraid of.