❓ A WA parliamentary question addresses the testing of drum samples in Kimberley for dioxin contamination, following a media release. The minister commits to tabling the report, with some redactions, and acknowledges the need for a more thorough answer regarding environmental factors affecting the test results.
AnsweredQoN 1120Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
KIMBERLEY, TESTING OF DRUM SAMPLES
I refer to the minister’s media release of 8 March 2002 titled “Testing of Kimberley drum samples completed”. (1) Will the minister table the results of the tests conducted by Gutteridge Haskins and Davey Pty Ltd? (2) If no to (1), why not? (3) Given that the drum was perforated and had been exposed to wet seasons and regular fires for approximately 17 years, how was this history taken into account in the testing process? (4) For what reason or reasons has it taken more than four months for such tests to be undertaken? (5) Where and when were the tests carried out? Hon KIM CHANCE
I refer to the minister’s media release of 8 March 2002 titled “Testing of Kimberley drum samples completed”. (1) Will the minister table the results of the tests conducted by Gutteridge Haskins and Davey Pty Ltd? (2) If no to (1), why not? (3) Given that the drum was perforated and had been exposed to wet seasons and regular fires for approximately 17 years, how was this history taken into account in the testing process? (4) For what reason or reasons has it taken more than four months for such tests to be undertaken? (5) Where and when were the tests carried out? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
I thank Hon Robin Chapple for some notice of the question. (1) Yes, I will table the GHD report in the near future. It will be tabled in a form that will be complete, save the exclusion of the names of two pastoral stations that voluntarily handed in the material. Those two pastoral stations indicated that they would supply the material on the basis that the identities of their properties remained confidential. At this stage I know of no other area in the report that we would seek to delete prior to public release. In the event that another section that should not be released is brought to my attention, I will bring that to the member’s attention, and, indeed, I will probably report that matter to the House. However, at this stage the only exclusions that I anticipate are the names of those two pastoral stations. (2) Not applicable. (3) The consultant, Gutteridge Haskins and Davey, referred to its in-house expert in contaminated sites, published research and used a degradation formula to model the dioxin levels in the soil surrounding the drum at the leprosarium tip. Frankly, that answer does not seem to properly address the member’s question in (3), so I will ask for that to be updated. (4)-(5) GHD was contracted to extract the samples and report on the contents of each drum sampled; namely, whether the original dioxin levels exceeded the 0.1 parts per million TCDD - I understand that is the chemical term for dioxin - regulatory limit of the day and establish whether any 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol detected was concentrated or diluted. GHD coordinated the delivery of the samples to the Australian Government Analytical Laboratories in Sydney for phenoxy herbicide testing. The Australian Government Analytical Laboratories provided the preliminary test results to GHD in mid January, and samples were then forwarded to AgriQuality New Zealand Ltd Ultra Trace Laboratories for dioxin and furans analyses. GHD managed the process from sampling on 29 November to report delivery on 5 March. It took approximately three months.
(1) Will the minister table the results of the tests conducted by Gutteridge Haskins and Davey Pty Ltd? (2) If no to (1), why not? (3) Given that the drum was perforated and had been exposed to wet seasons and regular fires for approximately 17 years, how was this history taken into account in the testing process? (4) For what reason or reasons has it taken more than four months for such tests to be undertaken? (5) Where and when were the tests carried out? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Robin Chapple for some notice of the question. (1) Yes, I will table the GHD report in the near future. It will be tabled in a form that will be complete, save the exclusion of the names of two pastoral stations that voluntarily handed in the material. Those two pastoral stations indicated that they would supply the material on the basis that the identities of their properties remained confidential. At this stage I know of no other area in the report that we would seek to delete prior to public release. In the event that another section that should not be released is brought to my attention, I will bring that to the member’s attention, and, indeed, I will probably report that matter to the House. However, at this stage the only exclusions that I anticipate are the names of those two pastoral stations. (2) Not applicable. (3) The consultant, Gutteridge Haskins and Davey, referred to its in-house expert in contaminated sites, published research and used a degradation formula to model the dioxin levels in the soil surrounding the drum at the leprosarium tip. Frankly, that answer does not seem to properly address the member’s question in (3), so I will ask for that to be updated. (4)-(5) GHD was contracted to extract the samples and report on the contents of each drum sampled; namely, whether the original dioxin levels exceeded the 0.1 parts per million TCDD - I understand that is the chemical term for dioxin - regulatory limit of the day and establish whether any 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol detected was concentrated or diluted. GHD coordinated the delivery of the samples to the Australian Government Analytical Laboratories in Sydney for phenoxy herbicide testing. The Australian Government Analytical Laboratories provided the preliminary test results to GHD in mid January, and samples were then forwarded to AgriQuality New Zealand Ltd Ultra Trace Laboratories for dioxin and furans analyses. GHD managed the process from sampling on 29 November to report delivery on 5 March. It took approximately three months.
(2) If no to (1), why not? (3) Given that the drum was perforated and had been exposed to wet seasons and regular fires for approximately 17 years, how was this history taken into account in the testing process? (4) For what reason or reasons has it taken more than four months for such tests to be undertaken? (5) Where and when were the tests carried out? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Robin Chapple for some notice of the question. (1) Yes, I will table the GHD report in the near future. It will be tabled in a form that will be complete, save the exclusion of the names of two pastoral stations that voluntarily handed in the material. Those two pastoral stations indicated that they would supply the material on the basis that the identities of their properties remained confidential. At this stage I know of no other area in the report that we would seek to delete prior to public release. In the event that another section that should not be released is brought to my attention, I will bring that to the member’s attention, and, indeed, I will probably report that matter to the House. However, at this stage the only exclusions that I anticipate are the names of those two pastoral stations. (2) Not applicable. (3) The consultant, Gutteridge Haskins and Davey, referred to its in-house expert in contaminated sites, published research and used a degradation formula to model the dioxin levels in the soil surrounding the drum at the leprosarium tip. Frankly, that answer does not seem to properly address the member’s question in (3), so I will ask for that to be updated. (4)-(5) GHD was contracted to extract the samples and report on the contents of each drum sampled; namely, whether the original dioxin levels exceeded the 0.1 parts per million TCDD - I understand that is the chemical term for dioxin - regulatory limit of the day and establish whether any 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol detected was concentrated or diluted. GHD coordinated the delivery of the samples to the Australian Government Analytical Laboratories in Sydney for phenoxy herbicide testing. The Australian Government Analytical Laboratories provided the preliminary test results to GHD in mid January, and samples were then forwarded to AgriQuality New Zealand Ltd Ultra Trace Laboratories for dioxin and furans analyses. GHD managed the process from sampling on 29 November to report delivery on 5 March. It took approximately three months.
(3) Given that the drum was perforated and had been exposed to wet seasons and regular fires for approximately 17 years, how was this history taken into account in the testing process? (4) For what reason or reasons has it taken more than four months for such tests to be undertaken? (5) Where and when were the tests carried out? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Robin Chapple for some notice of the question. (1) Yes, I will table the GHD report in the near future. It will be tabled in a form that will be complete, save the exclusion of the names of two pastoral stations that voluntarily handed in the material. Those two pastoral stations indicated that they would supply the material on the basis that the identities of their properties remained confidential. At this stage I know of no other area in the report that we would seek to delete prior to public release. In the event that another section that should not be released is brought to my attention, I will bring that to the member’s attention, and, indeed, I will probably report that matter to the House. However, at this stage the only exclusions that I anticipate are the names of those two pastoral stations. (2) Not applicable. (3) The consultant, Gutteridge Haskins and Davey, referred to its in-house expert in contaminated sites, published research and used a degradation formula to model the dioxin levels in the soil surrounding the drum at the leprosarium tip. Frankly, that answer does not seem to properly address the member’s question in (3), so I will ask for that to be updated. (4)-(5) GHD was contracted to extract the samples and report on the contents of each drum sampled; namely, whether the original dioxin levels exceeded the 0.1 parts per million TCDD - I understand that is the chemical term for dioxin - regulatory limit of the day and establish whether any 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol detected was concentrated or diluted. GHD coordinated the delivery of the samples to the Australian Government Analytical Laboratories in Sydney for phenoxy herbicide testing. The Australian Government Analytical Laboratories provided the preliminary test results to GHD in mid January, and samples were then forwarded to AgriQuality New Zealand Ltd Ultra Trace Laboratories for dioxin and furans analyses. GHD managed the process from sampling on 29 November to report delivery on 5 March. It took approximately three months.
(4) For what reason or reasons has it taken more than four months for such tests to be undertaken? (5) Where and when were the tests carried out? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Robin Chapple for some notice of the question. (1) Yes, I will table the GHD report in the near future. It will be tabled in a form that will be complete, save the exclusion of the names of two pastoral stations that voluntarily handed in the material. Those two pastoral stations indicated that they would supply the material on the basis that the identities of their properties remained confidential. At this stage I know of no other area in the report that we would seek to delete prior to public release. In the event that another section that should not be released is brought to my attention, I will bring that to the member’s attention, and, indeed, I will probably report that matter to the House. However, at this stage the only exclusions that I anticipate are the names of those two pastoral stations. (2) Not applicable. (3) The consultant, Gutteridge Haskins and Davey, referred to its in-house expert in contaminated sites, published research and used a degradation formula to model the dioxin levels in the soil surrounding the drum at the leprosarium tip. Frankly, that answer does not seem to properly address the member’s question in (3), so I will ask for that to be updated. (4)-(5) GHD was contracted to extract the samples and report on the contents of each drum sampled; namely, whether the original dioxin levels exceeded the 0.1 parts per million TCDD - I understand that is the chemical term for dioxin - regulatory limit of the day and establish whether any 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol detected was concentrated or diluted. GHD coordinated the delivery of the samples to the Australian Government Analytical Laboratories in Sydney for phenoxy herbicide testing. The Australian Government Analytical Laboratories provided the preliminary test results to GHD in mid January, and samples were then forwarded to AgriQuality New Zealand Ltd Ultra Trace Laboratories for dioxin and furans analyses. GHD managed the process from sampling on 29 November to report delivery on 5 March. It took approximately three months.
(5) Where and when were the tests carried out? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Robin Chapple for some notice of the question. (1) Yes, I will table the GHD report in the near future. It will be tabled in a form that will be complete, save the exclusion of the names of two pastoral stations that voluntarily handed in the material. Those two pastoral stations indicated that they would supply the material on the basis that the identities of their properties remained confidential. At this stage I know of no other area in the report that we would seek to delete prior to public release. In the event that another section that should not be released is brought to my attention, I will bring that to the member’s attention, and, indeed, I will probably report that matter to the House. However, at this stage the only exclusions that I anticipate are the names of those two pastoral stations. (2) Not applicable. (3) The consultant, Gutteridge Haskins and Davey, referred to its in-house expert in contaminated sites, published research and used a degradation formula to model the dioxin levels in the soil surrounding the drum at the leprosarium tip. Frankly, that answer does not seem to properly address the member’s question in (3), so I will ask for that to be updated. (4)-(5) GHD was contracted to extract the samples and report on the contents of each drum sampled; namely, whether the original dioxin levels exceeded the 0.1 parts per million TCDD - I understand that is the chemical term for dioxin - regulatory limit of the day and establish whether any 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol detected was concentrated or diluted. GHD coordinated the delivery of the samples to the Australian Government Analytical Laboratories in Sydney for phenoxy herbicide testing. The Australian Government Analytical Laboratories provided the preliminary test results to GHD in mid January, and samples were then forwarded to AgriQuality New Zealand Ltd Ultra Trace Laboratories for dioxin and furans analyses. GHD managed the process from sampling on 29 November to report delivery on 5 March. It took approximately three months.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Robin Chapple for some notice of the question. (1) Yes, I will table the GHD report in the near future. It will be tabled in a form that will be complete, save the exclusion of the names of two pastoral stations that voluntarily handed in the material. Those two pastoral stations indicated that they would supply the material on the basis that the identities of their properties remained confidential. At this stage I know of no other area in the report that we would seek to delete prior to public release. In the event that another section that should not be released is brought to my attention, I will bring that to the member’s attention, and, indeed, I will probably report that matter to the House. However, at this stage the only exclusions that I anticipate are the names of those two pastoral stations. (2) Not applicable. (3) The consultant, Gutteridge Haskins and Davey, referred to its in-house expert in contaminated sites, published research and used a degradation formula to model the dioxin levels in the soil surrounding the drum at the leprosarium tip. Frankly, that answer does not seem to properly address the member’s question in (3), so I will ask for that to be updated. (4)-(5) GHD was contracted to extract the samples and report on the contents of each drum sampled; namely, whether the original dioxin levels exceeded the 0.1 parts per million TCDD - I understand that is the chemical term for dioxin - regulatory limit of the day and establish whether any 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol detected was concentrated or diluted. GHD coordinated the delivery of the samples to the Australian Government Analytical Laboratories in Sydney for phenoxy herbicide testing. The Australian Government Analytical Laboratories provided the preliminary test results to GHD in mid January, and samples were then forwarded to AgriQuality New Zealand Ltd Ultra Trace Laboratories for dioxin and furans analyses. GHD managed the process from sampling on 29 November to report delivery on 5 March. It took approximately three months.
I thank Hon Robin Chapple for some notice of the question. (1) Yes, I will table the GHD report in the near future. It will be tabled in a form that will be complete, save the exclusion of the names of two pastoral stations that voluntarily handed in the material. Those two pastoral stations indicated that they would supply the material on the basis that the identities of their properties remained confidential. At this stage I know of no other area in the report that we would seek to delete prior to public release. In the event that another section that should not be released is brought to my attention, I will bring that to the member’s attention, and, indeed, I will probably report that matter to the House. However, at this stage the only exclusions that I anticipate are the names of those two pastoral stations. (2) Not applicable. (3) The consultant, Gutteridge Haskins and Davey, referred to its in-house expert in contaminated sites, published research and used a degradation formula to model the dioxin levels in the soil surrounding the drum at the leprosarium tip. Frankly, that answer does not seem to properly address the member’s question in (3), so I will ask for that to be updated. (4)-(5) GHD was contracted to extract the samples and report on the contents of each drum sampled; namely, whether the original dioxin levels exceeded the 0.1 parts per million TCDD - I understand that is the chemical term for dioxin - regulatory limit of the day and establish whether any 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol detected was concentrated or diluted. GHD coordinated the delivery of the samples to the Australian Government Analytical Laboratories in Sydney for phenoxy herbicide testing. The Australian Government Analytical Laboratories provided the preliminary test results to GHD in mid January, and samples were then forwarded to AgriQuality New Zealand Ltd Ultra Trace Laboratories for dioxin and furans analyses. GHD managed the process from sampling on 29 November to report delivery on 5 March. It took approximately three months.
(1) Yes, I will table the GHD report in the near future. It will be tabled in a form that will be complete, save the exclusion of the names of two pastoral stations that voluntarily handed in the material. Those two pastoral stations indicated that they would supply the material on the basis that the identities of their properties remained confidential. At this stage I know of no other area in the report that we would seek to delete prior to public release. In the event that another section that should not be released is brought to my attention, I will bring that to the member’s attention, and, indeed, I will probably report that matter to the House. However, at this stage the only exclusions that I anticipate are the names of those two pastoral stations. (2) Not applicable. (3) The consultant, Gutteridge Haskins and Davey, referred to its in-house expert in contaminated sites, published research and used a degradation formula to model the dioxin levels in the soil surrounding the drum at the leprosarium tip. Frankly, that answer does not seem to properly address the member’s question in (3), so I will ask for that to be updated. (4)-(5) GHD was contracted to extract the samples and report on the contents of each drum sampled; namely, whether the original dioxin levels exceeded the 0.1 parts per million TCDD - I understand that is the chemical term for dioxin - regulatory limit of the day and establish whether any 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol detected was concentrated or diluted. GHD coordinated the delivery of the samples to the Australian Government Analytical Laboratories in Sydney for phenoxy herbicide testing. The Australian Government Analytical Laboratories provided the preliminary test results to GHD in mid January, and samples were then forwarded to AgriQuality New Zealand Ltd Ultra Trace Laboratories for dioxin and furans analyses. GHD managed the process from sampling on 29 November to report delivery on 5 March. It took approximately three months.
(2) Not applicable. (3) The consultant, Gutteridge Haskins and Davey, referred to its in-house expert in contaminated sites, published research and used a degradation formula to model the dioxin levels in the soil surrounding the drum at the leprosarium tip. Frankly, that answer does not seem to properly address the member’s question in (3), so I will ask for that to be updated. (4)-(5) GHD was contracted to extract the samples and report on the contents of each drum sampled; namely, whether the original dioxin levels exceeded the 0.1 parts per million TCDD - I understand that is the chemical term for dioxin - regulatory limit of the day and establish whether any 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol detected was concentrated or diluted. GHD coordinated the delivery of the samples to the Australian Government Analytical Laboratories in Sydney for phenoxy herbicide testing. The Australian Government Analytical Laboratories provided the preliminary test results to GHD in mid January, and samples were then forwarded to AgriQuality New Zealand Ltd Ultra Trace Laboratories for dioxin and furans analyses. GHD managed the process from sampling on 29 November to report delivery on 5 March. It took approximately three months.
(3) The consultant, Gutteridge Haskins and Davey, referred to its in-house expert in contaminated sites, published research and used a degradation formula to model the dioxin levels in the soil surrounding the drum at the leprosarium tip. Frankly, that answer does not seem to properly address the member’s question in (3), so I will ask for that to be updated. (4)-(5) GHD was contracted to extract the samples and report on the contents of each drum sampled; namely, whether the original dioxin levels exceeded the 0.1 parts per million TCDD - I understand that is the chemical term for dioxin - regulatory limit of the day and establish whether any 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol detected was concentrated or diluted. GHD coordinated the delivery of the samples to the Australian Government Analytical Laboratories in Sydney for phenoxy herbicide testing. The Australian Government Analytical Laboratories provided the preliminary test results to GHD in mid January, and samples were then forwarded to AgriQuality New Zealand Ltd Ultra Trace Laboratories for dioxin and furans analyses. GHD managed the process from sampling on 29 November to report delivery on 5 March. It took approximately three months.
(4)-(5) GHD was contracted to extract the samples and report on the contents of each drum sampled; namely, whether the original dioxin levels exceeded the 0.1 parts per million TCDD - I understand that is the chemical term for dioxin - regulatory limit of the day and establish whether any 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol detected was concentrated or diluted. GHD coordinated the delivery of the samples to the Australian Government Analytical Laboratories in Sydney for phenoxy herbicide testing. The Australian Government Analytical Laboratories provided the preliminary test results to GHD in mid January, and samples were then forwarded to AgriQuality New Zealand Ltd Ultra Trace Laboratories for dioxin and furans analyses. GHD managed the process from sampling on 29 November to report delivery on 5 March. It took approximately three months.
(1) Will the minister table the results of the tests conducted by Gutteridge Haskins and Davey Pty Ltd? (2) If no to (1), why not? (3) Given that the drum was perforated and had been exposed to wet seasons and regular fires for approximately 17 years, how was this history taken into account in the testing process? (4) For what reason or reasons has it taken more than four months for such tests to be undertaken? (5) Where and when were the tests carried out? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Robin Chapple for some notice of the question. (1) Yes, I will table the GHD report in the near future. It will be tabled in a form that will be complete, save the exclusion of the names of two pastoral stations that voluntarily handed in the material. Those two pastoral stations indicated that they would supply the material on the basis that the identities of their properties remained confidential. At this stage I know of no other area in the report that we would seek to delete prior to public release. In the event that another section that should not be released is brought to my attention, I will bring that to the member’s attention, and, indeed, I will probably report that matter to the House. However, at this stage the only exclusions that I anticipate are the names of those two pastoral stations. (2) Not applicable. (3) The consultant, Gutteridge Haskins and Davey, referred to its in-house expert in contaminated sites, published research and used a degradation formula to model the dioxin levels in the soil surrounding the drum at the leprosarium tip. Frankly, that answer does not seem to properly address the member’s question in (3), so I will ask for that to be updated. (4)-(5) GHD was contracted to extract the samples and report on the contents of each drum sampled; namely, whether the original dioxin levels exceeded the 0.1 parts per million TCDD - I understand that is the chemical term for dioxin - regulatory limit of the day and establish whether any 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol detected was concentrated or diluted. GHD coordinated the delivery of the samples to the Australian Government Analytical Laboratories in Sydney for phenoxy herbicide testing. The Australian Government Analytical Laboratories provided the preliminary test results to GHD in mid January, and samples were then forwarded to AgriQuality New Zealand Ltd Ultra Trace Laboratories for dioxin and furans analyses. GHD managed the process from sampling on 29 November to report delivery on 5 March. It took approximately three months.
(2) If no to (1), why not? (3) Given that the drum was perforated and had been exposed to wet seasons and regular fires for approximately 17 years, how was this history taken into account in the testing process? (4) For what reason or reasons has it taken more than four months for such tests to be undertaken? (5) Where and when were the tests carried out? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Robin Chapple for some notice of the question. (1) Yes, I will table the GHD report in the near future. It will be tabled in a form that will be complete, save the exclusion of the names of two pastoral stations that voluntarily handed in the material. Those two pastoral stations indicated that they would supply the material on the basis that the identities of their properties remained confidential. At this stage I know of no other area in the report that we would seek to delete prior to public release. In the event that another section that should not be released is brought to my attention, I will bring that to the member’s attention, and, indeed, I will probably report that matter to the House. However, at this stage the only exclusions that I anticipate are the names of those two pastoral stations. (2) Not applicable. (3) The consultant, Gutteridge Haskins and Davey, referred to its in-house expert in contaminated sites, published research and used a degradation formula to model the dioxin levels in the soil surrounding the drum at the leprosarium tip. Frankly, that answer does not seem to properly address the member’s question in (3), so I will ask for that to be updated. (4)-(5) GHD was contracted to extract the samples and report on the contents of each drum sampled; namely, whether the original dioxin levels exceeded the 0.1 parts per million TCDD - I understand that is the chemical term for dioxin - regulatory limit of the day and establish whether any 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol detected was concentrated or diluted. GHD coordinated the delivery of the samples to the Australian Government Analytical Laboratories in Sydney for phenoxy herbicide testing. The Australian Government Analytical Laboratories provided the preliminary test results to GHD in mid January, and samples were then forwarded to AgriQuality New Zealand Ltd Ultra Trace Laboratories for dioxin and furans analyses. GHD managed the process from sampling on 29 November to report delivery on 5 March. It took approximately three months.
(3) Given that the drum was perforated and had been exposed to wet seasons and regular fires for approximately 17 years, how was this history taken into account in the testing process? (4) For what reason or reasons has it taken more than four months for such tests to be undertaken? (5) Where and when were the tests carried out? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Robin Chapple for some notice of the question. (1) Yes, I will table the GHD report in the near future. It will be tabled in a form that will be complete, save the exclusion of the names of two pastoral stations that voluntarily handed in the material. Those two pastoral stations indicated that they would supply the material on the basis that the identities of their properties remained confidential. At this stage I know of no other area in the report that we would seek to delete prior to public release. In the event that another section that should not be released is brought to my attention, I will bring that to the member’s attention, and, indeed, I will probably report that matter to the House. However, at this stage the only exclusions that I anticipate are the names of those two pastoral stations. (2) Not applicable. (3) The consultant, Gutteridge Haskins and Davey, referred to its in-house expert in contaminated sites, published research and used a degradation formula to model the dioxin levels in the soil surrounding the drum at the leprosarium tip. Frankly, that answer does not seem to properly address the member’s question in (3), so I will ask for that to be updated. (4)-(5) GHD was contracted to extract the samples and report on the contents of each drum sampled; namely, whether the original dioxin levels exceeded the 0.1 parts per million TCDD - I understand that is the chemical term for dioxin - regulatory limit of the day and establish whether any 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol detected was concentrated or diluted. GHD coordinated the delivery of the samples to the Australian Government Analytical Laboratories in Sydney for phenoxy herbicide testing. The Australian Government Analytical Laboratories provided the preliminary test results to GHD in mid January, and samples were then forwarded to AgriQuality New Zealand Ltd Ultra Trace Laboratories for dioxin and furans analyses. GHD managed the process from sampling on 29 November to report delivery on 5 March. It took approximately three months.
(4) For what reason or reasons has it taken more than four months for such tests to be undertaken? (5) Where and when were the tests carried out? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Robin Chapple for some notice of the question. (1) Yes, I will table the GHD report in the near future. It will be tabled in a form that will be complete, save the exclusion of the names of two pastoral stations that voluntarily handed in the material. Those two pastoral stations indicated that they would supply the material on the basis that the identities of their properties remained confidential. At this stage I know of no other area in the report that we would seek to delete prior to public release. In the event that another section that should not be released is brought to my attention, I will bring that to the member’s attention, and, indeed, I will probably report that matter to the House. However, at this stage the only exclusions that I anticipate are the names of those two pastoral stations. (2) Not applicable. (3) The consultant, Gutteridge Haskins and Davey, referred to its in-house expert in contaminated sites, published research and used a degradation formula to model the dioxin levels in the soil surrounding the drum at the leprosarium tip. Frankly, that answer does not seem to properly address the member’s question in (3), so I will ask for that to be updated. (4)-(5) GHD was contracted to extract the samples and report on the contents of each drum sampled; namely, whether the original dioxin levels exceeded the 0.1 parts per million TCDD - I understand that is the chemical term for dioxin - regulatory limit of the day and establish whether any 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol detected was concentrated or diluted. GHD coordinated the delivery of the samples to the Australian Government Analytical Laboratories in Sydney for phenoxy herbicide testing. The Australian Government Analytical Laboratories provided the preliminary test results to GHD in mid January, and samples were then forwarded to AgriQuality New Zealand Ltd Ultra Trace Laboratories for dioxin and furans analyses. GHD managed the process from sampling on 29 November to report delivery on 5 March. It took approximately three months.
(5) Where and when were the tests carried out? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Robin Chapple for some notice of the question. (1) Yes, I will table the GHD report in the near future. It will be tabled in a form that will be complete, save the exclusion of the names of two pastoral stations that voluntarily handed in the material. Those two pastoral stations indicated that they would supply the material on the basis that the identities of their properties remained confidential. At this stage I know of no other area in the report that we would seek to delete prior to public release. In the event that another section that should not be released is brought to my attention, I will bring that to the member’s attention, and, indeed, I will probably report that matter to the House. However, at this stage the only exclusions that I anticipate are the names of those two pastoral stations. (2) Not applicable. (3) The consultant, Gutteridge Haskins and Davey, referred to its in-house expert in contaminated sites, published research and used a degradation formula to model the dioxin levels in the soil surrounding the drum at the leprosarium tip. Frankly, that answer does not seem to properly address the member’s question in (3), so I will ask for that to be updated. (4)-(5) GHD was contracted to extract the samples and report on the contents of each drum sampled; namely, whether the original dioxin levels exceeded the 0.1 parts per million TCDD - I understand that is the chemical term for dioxin - regulatory limit of the day and establish whether any 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol detected was concentrated or diluted. GHD coordinated the delivery of the samples to the Australian Government Analytical Laboratories in Sydney for phenoxy herbicide testing. The Australian Government Analytical Laboratories provided the preliminary test results to GHD in mid January, and samples were then forwarded to AgriQuality New Zealand Ltd Ultra Trace Laboratories for dioxin and furans analyses. GHD managed the process from sampling on 29 November to report delivery on 5 March. It took approximately three months.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank Hon Robin Chapple for some notice of the question. (1) Yes, I will table the GHD report in the near future. It will be tabled in a form that will be complete, save the exclusion of the names of two pastoral stations that voluntarily handed in the material. Those two pastoral stations indicated that they would supply the material on the basis that the identities of their properties remained confidential. At this stage I know of no other area in the report that we would seek to delete prior to public release. In the event that another section that should not be released is brought to my attention, I will bring that to the member’s attention, and, indeed, I will probably report that matter to the House. However, at this stage the only exclusions that I anticipate are the names of those two pastoral stations. (2) Not applicable. (3) The consultant, Gutteridge Haskins and Davey, referred to its in-house expert in contaminated sites, published research and used a degradation formula to model the dioxin levels in the soil surrounding the drum at the leprosarium tip. Frankly, that answer does not seem to properly address the member’s question in (3), so I will ask for that to be updated. (4)-(5) GHD was contracted to extract the samples and report on the contents of each drum sampled; namely, whether the original dioxin levels exceeded the 0.1 parts per million TCDD - I understand that is the chemical term for dioxin - regulatory limit of the day and establish whether any 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol detected was concentrated or diluted. GHD coordinated the delivery of the samples to the Australian Government Analytical Laboratories in Sydney for phenoxy herbicide testing. The Australian Government Analytical Laboratories provided the preliminary test results to GHD in mid January, and samples were then forwarded to AgriQuality New Zealand Ltd Ultra Trace Laboratories for dioxin and furans analyses. GHD managed the process from sampling on 29 November to report delivery on 5 March. It took approximately three months.
I thank Hon Robin Chapple for some notice of the question. (1) Yes, I will table the GHD report in the near future. It will be tabled in a form that will be complete, save the exclusion of the names of two pastoral stations that voluntarily handed in the material. Those two pastoral stations indicated that they would supply the material on the basis that the identities of their properties remained confidential. At this stage I know of no other area in the report that we would seek to delete prior to public release. In the event that another section that should not be released is brought to my attention, I will bring that to the member’s attention, and, indeed, I will probably report that matter to the House. However, at this stage the only exclusions that I anticipate are the names of those two pastoral stations. (2) Not applicable. (3) The consultant, Gutteridge Haskins and Davey, referred to its in-house expert in contaminated sites, published research and used a degradation formula to model the dioxin levels in the soil surrounding the drum at the leprosarium tip. Frankly, that answer does not seem to properly address the member’s question in (3), so I will ask for that to be updated. (4)-(5) GHD was contracted to extract the samples and report on the contents of each drum sampled; namely, whether the original dioxin levels exceeded the 0.1 parts per million TCDD - I understand that is the chemical term for dioxin - regulatory limit of the day and establish whether any 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol detected was concentrated or diluted. GHD coordinated the delivery of the samples to the Australian Government Analytical Laboratories in Sydney for phenoxy herbicide testing. The Australian Government Analytical Laboratories provided the preliminary test results to GHD in mid January, and samples were then forwarded to AgriQuality New Zealand Ltd Ultra Trace Laboratories for dioxin and furans analyses. GHD managed the process from sampling on 29 November to report delivery on 5 March. It took approximately three months.
(1) Yes, I will table the GHD report in the near future. It will be tabled in a form that will be complete, save the exclusion of the names of two pastoral stations that voluntarily handed in the material. Those two pastoral stations indicated that they would supply the material on the basis that the identities of their properties remained confidential. At this stage I know of no other area in the report that we would seek to delete prior to public release. In the event that another section that should not be released is brought to my attention, I will bring that to the member’s attention, and, indeed, I will probably report that matter to the House. However, at this stage the only exclusions that I anticipate are the names of those two pastoral stations. (2) Not applicable. (3) The consultant, Gutteridge Haskins and Davey, referred to its in-house expert in contaminated sites, published research and used a degradation formula to model the dioxin levels in the soil surrounding the drum at the leprosarium tip. Frankly, that answer does not seem to properly address the member’s question in (3), so I will ask for that to be updated. (4)-(5) GHD was contracted to extract the samples and report on the contents of each drum sampled; namely, whether the original dioxin levels exceeded the 0.1 parts per million TCDD - I understand that is the chemical term for dioxin - regulatory limit of the day and establish whether any 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol detected was concentrated or diluted. GHD coordinated the delivery of the samples to the Australian Government Analytical Laboratories in Sydney for phenoxy herbicide testing. The Australian Government Analytical Laboratories provided the preliminary test results to GHD in mid January, and samples were then forwarded to AgriQuality New Zealand Ltd Ultra Trace Laboratories for dioxin and furans analyses. GHD managed the process from sampling on 29 November to report delivery on 5 March. It took approximately three months.
(2) Not applicable. (3) The consultant, Gutteridge Haskins and Davey, referred to its in-house expert in contaminated sites, published research and used a degradation formula to model the dioxin levels in the soil surrounding the drum at the leprosarium tip. Frankly, that answer does not seem to properly address the member’s question in (3), so I will ask for that to be updated. (4)-(5) GHD was contracted to extract the samples and report on the contents of each drum sampled; namely, whether the original dioxin levels exceeded the 0.1 parts per million TCDD - I understand that is the chemical term for dioxin - regulatory limit of the day and establish whether any 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol detected was concentrated or diluted. GHD coordinated the delivery of the samples to the Australian Government Analytical Laboratories in Sydney for phenoxy herbicide testing. The Australian Government Analytical Laboratories provided the preliminary test results to GHD in mid January, and samples were then forwarded to AgriQuality New Zealand Ltd Ultra Trace Laboratories for dioxin and furans analyses. GHD managed the process from sampling on 29 November to report delivery on 5 March. It took approximately three months.
(3) The consultant, Gutteridge Haskins and Davey, referred to its in-house expert in contaminated sites, published research and used a degradation formula to model the dioxin levels in the soil surrounding the drum at the leprosarium tip. Frankly, that answer does not seem to properly address the member’s question in (3), so I will ask for that to be updated. (4)-(5) GHD was contracted to extract the samples and report on the contents of each drum sampled; namely, whether the original dioxin levels exceeded the 0.1 parts per million TCDD - I understand that is the chemical term for dioxin - regulatory limit of the day and establish whether any 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol detected was concentrated or diluted. GHD coordinated the delivery of the samples to the Australian Government Analytical Laboratories in Sydney for phenoxy herbicide testing. The Australian Government Analytical Laboratories provided the preliminary test results to GHD in mid January, and samples were then forwarded to AgriQuality New Zealand Ltd Ultra Trace Laboratories for dioxin and furans analyses. GHD managed the process from sampling on 29 November to report delivery on 5 March. It took approximately three months.
(4)-(5) GHD was contracted to extract the samples and report on the contents of each drum sampled; namely, whether the original dioxin levels exceeded the 0.1 parts per million TCDD - I understand that is the chemical term for dioxin - regulatory limit of the day and establish whether any 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol detected was concentrated or diluted. GHD coordinated the delivery of the samples to the Australian Government Analytical Laboratories in Sydney for phenoxy herbicide testing. The Australian Government Analytical Laboratories provided the preliminary test results to GHD in mid January, and samples were then forwarded to AgriQuality New Zealand Ltd Ultra Trace Laboratories for dioxin and furans analyses. GHD managed the process from sampling on 29 November to report delivery on 5 March. It took approximately three months.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.