❓ The Minister provides an update on the Kimberley chemical use review, including the status of the expert committee's report, health services for affected workers, and adverse event reporting mechanisms for agricultural chemicals.
AnsweredQoN 1277Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the minister’s statement on Thursday, 13 March 2003 on the Kimberley chemical use review. (1) What is the current status of the review and the health status of affected former workers? (2) Since the ministerial statement was made, have any adverse event reporting mechanisms been implemented for chemicals used in agricultural protection programs? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
I thank Hon George Cash for the question. (1) The status of the inquiry at this stage is the referral of this matter to the committee of experts, comprising people from the field of toxicology generally, with international reputations. They are considering the primary question, amongst other questions, of whether a causal link can be established between the health status of the former employees and their occupational use of chemicals generally, but 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D in particular. It was originally expected that the committee of experts would refer a report to me in two weeks. I understand that that has been somewhat delayed, partly for reasons I will explain in a moment. It will probably be late next month before I see that report. One of the reasons for the delay has been a range of issues including literature research and, as I understand it, because some paper-trail chasing required more work than had first been thought. The issue of the paper trail was raised in this House in the last few days during discussion on Hon Robin Chapple’s motion. I believe a separate report was commissioned. This committee does not answer to me, but my understanding is that the committee commissioned this separate report. Again, that is one the reasons I was not keen for Hon Robin Chapple’s motion to be concluded today because I would like us to have the advantage, if that is possible, of seeing that report before the committee to which Hon Robin Chapple seeks referral of the matter has access to it. Those matters will be concluded hopefully by the end of October or early November. As to the health of the former employees, what the Government has done - I think members are generally aware, but it does not hurt to recap - is put in place a medical liaison service that involves the employment of a nurse in Derby. The Government has also ensured that the toxicology skills of medical practitioners in the Kimberley are upgraded. This addresses one of the key issues that was identified in Dr Harper’s report; that is, that although he recognised that the former employees were receiving medical attention, the symptoms that they were presenting with were not being analysed in the light of the workers’ former occupational exposure to chemicals. That issue is now fundamentally resolved. Other issues will flow from the ultimate report of the committee of experts. The reason I believe the committee of experts’ report is important is that, given its primary reference of trying to establish a causal link between health status and occupational use of a chemical, it should be able to assist the former APB employees in claims for workers compensation, some of which are on foot now and some of which will, no doubt, be lodged. We hope that can happen. (2) Technically this is a matter for the Department of Environmental Protection rather than the Department of Agriculture. However, having said that, it is incumbent upon any user of an agricultural or veterinary chemical to have such mechanisms in place within their own certification as users of such chemicals. The requirements that are now placed upon users of commercial quantities of agricultural and veterinary chemicals are quite rigorous as to the storage, handling and disposal of those chemicals and the reporting mechanism should an incident occur. Therefore, the answer is yes, but not as a result of the Derby issue. It is rather as a result of the general requirement for higher levels of safety in the handling of such material.
(1) What is the current status of the review and the health status of affected former workers? (2) Since the ministerial statement was made, have any adverse event reporting mechanisms been implemented for chemicals used in agricultural protection programs? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank Hon George Cash for the question. (1) The status of the inquiry at this stage is the referral of this matter to the committee of experts, comprising people from the field of toxicology generally, with international reputations. They are considering the primary question, amongst other questions, of whether a causal link can be established between the health status of the former employees and their occupational use of chemicals generally, but 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D in particular. It was originally expected that the committee of experts would refer a report to me in two weeks. I understand that that has been somewhat delayed, partly for reasons I will explain in a moment. It will probably be late next month before I see that report. One of the reasons for the delay has been a range of issues including literature research and, as I understand it, because some paper-trail chasing required more work than had first been thought. The issue of the paper trail was raised in this House in the last few days during discussion on Hon Robin Chapple’s motion. I believe a separate report was commissioned. This committee does not answer to me, but my understanding is that the committee commissioned this separate report. Again, that is one the reasons I was not keen for Hon Robin Chapple’s motion to be concluded today because I would like us to have the advantage, if that is possible, of seeing that report before the committee to which Hon Robin Chapple seeks referral of the matter has access to it. Those matters will be concluded hopefully by the end of October or early November. As to the health of the former employees, what the Government has done - I think members are generally aware, but it does not hurt to recap - is put in place a medical liaison service that involves the employment of a nurse in Derby. The Government has also ensured that the toxicology skills of medical practitioners in the Kimberley are upgraded. This addresses one of the key issues that was identified in Dr Harper’s report; that is, that although he recognised that the former employees were receiving medical attention, the symptoms that they were presenting with were not being analysed in the light of the workers’ former occupational exposure to chemicals. That issue is now fundamentally resolved. Other issues will flow from the ultimate report of the committee of experts. The reason I believe the committee of experts’ report is important is that, given its primary reference of trying to establish a causal link between health status and occupational use of a chemical, it should be able to assist the former APB employees in claims for workers compensation, some of which are on foot now and some of which will, no doubt, be lodged. We hope that can happen. (2) Technically this is a matter for the Department of Environmental Protection rather than the Department of Agriculture. However, having said that, it is incumbent upon any user of an agricultural or veterinary chemical to have such mechanisms in place within their own certification as users of such chemicals. The requirements that are now placed upon users of commercial quantities of agricultural and veterinary chemicals are quite rigorous as to the storage, handling and disposal of those chemicals and the reporting mechanism should an incident occur. Therefore, the answer is yes, but not as a result of the Derby issue. It is rather as a result of the general requirement for higher levels of safety in the handling of such material.
(2) Since the ministerial statement was made, have any adverse event reporting mechanisms been implemented for chemicals used in agricultural protection programs? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank Hon George Cash for the question. (1) The status of the inquiry at this stage is the referral of this matter to the committee of experts, comprising people from the field of toxicology generally, with international reputations. They are considering the primary question, amongst other questions, of whether a causal link can be established between the health status of the former employees and their occupational use of chemicals generally, but 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D in particular. It was originally expected that the committee of experts would refer a report to me in two weeks. I understand that that has been somewhat delayed, partly for reasons I will explain in a moment. It will probably be late next month before I see that report. One of the reasons for the delay has been a range of issues including literature research and, as I understand it, because some paper-trail chasing required more work than had first been thought. The issue of the paper trail was raised in this House in the last few days during discussion on Hon Robin Chapple’s motion. I believe a separate report was commissioned. This committee does not answer to me, but my understanding is that the committee commissioned this separate report. Again, that is one the reasons I was not keen for Hon Robin Chapple’s motion to be concluded today because I would like us to have the advantage, if that is possible, of seeing that report before the committee to which Hon Robin Chapple seeks referral of the matter has access to it. Those matters will be concluded hopefully by the end of October or early November. As to the health of the former employees, what the Government has done - I think members are generally aware, but it does not hurt to recap - is put in place a medical liaison service that involves the employment of a nurse in Derby. The Government has also ensured that the toxicology skills of medical practitioners in the Kimberley are upgraded. This addresses one of the key issues that was identified in Dr Harper’s report; that is, that although he recognised that the former employees were receiving medical attention, the symptoms that they were presenting with were not being analysed in the light of the workers’ former occupational exposure to chemicals. That issue is now fundamentally resolved. Other issues will flow from the ultimate report of the committee of experts. The reason I believe the committee of experts’ report is important is that, given its primary reference of trying to establish a causal link between health status and occupational use of a chemical, it should be able to assist the former APB employees in claims for workers compensation, some of which are on foot now and some of which will, no doubt, be lodged. We hope that can happen. (2) Technically this is a matter for the Department of Environmental Protection rather than the Department of Agriculture. However, having said that, it is incumbent upon any user of an agricultural or veterinary chemical to have such mechanisms in place within their own certification as users of such chemicals. The requirements that are now placed upon users of commercial quantities of agricultural and veterinary chemicals are quite rigorous as to the storage, handling and disposal of those chemicals and the reporting mechanism should an incident occur. Therefore, the answer is yes, but not as a result of the Derby issue. It is rather as a result of the general requirement for higher levels of safety in the handling of such material.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank Hon George Cash for the question. (1) The status of the inquiry at this stage is the referral of this matter to the committee of experts, comprising people from the field of toxicology generally, with international reputations. They are considering the primary question, amongst other questions, of whether a causal link can be established between the health status of the former employees and their occupational use of chemicals generally, but 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D in particular. It was originally expected that the committee of experts would refer a report to me in two weeks. I understand that that has been somewhat delayed, partly for reasons I will explain in a moment. It will probably be late next month before I see that report. One of the reasons for the delay has been a range of issues including literature research and, as I understand it, because some paper-trail chasing required more work than had first been thought. The issue of the paper trail was raised in this House in the last few days during discussion on Hon Robin Chapple’s motion. I believe a separate report was commissioned. This committee does not answer to me, but my understanding is that the committee commissioned this separate report. Again, that is one the reasons I was not keen for Hon Robin Chapple’s motion to be concluded today because I would like us to have the advantage, if that is possible, of seeing that report before the committee to which Hon Robin Chapple seeks referral of the matter has access to it. Those matters will be concluded hopefully by the end of October or early November. As to the health of the former employees, what the Government has done - I think members are generally aware, but it does not hurt to recap - is put in place a medical liaison service that involves the employment of a nurse in Derby. The Government has also ensured that the toxicology skills of medical practitioners in the Kimberley are upgraded. This addresses one of the key issues that was identified in Dr Harper’s report; that is, that although he recognised that the former employees were receiving medical attention, the symptoms that they were presenting with were not being analysed in the light of the workers’ former occupational exposure to chemicals. That issue is now fundamentally resolved. Other issues will flow from the ultimate report of the committee of experts. The reason I believe the committee of experts’ report is important is that, given its primary reference of trying to establish a causal link between health status and occupational use of a chemical, it should be able to assist the former APB employees in claims for workers compensation, some of which are on foot now and some of which will, no doubt, be lodged. We hope that can happen. (2) Technically this is a matter for the Department of Environmental Protection rather than the Department of Agriculture. However, having said that, it is incumbent upon any user of an agricultural or veterinary chemical to have such mechanisms in place within their own certification as users of such chemicals. The requirements that are now placed upon users of commercial quantities of agricultural and veterinary chemicals are quite rigorous as to the storage, handling and disposal of those chemicals and the reporting mechanism should an incident occur. Therefore, the answer is yes, but not as a result of the Derby issue. It is rather as a result of the general requirement for higher levels of safety in the handling of such material.
I thank Hon George Cash for the question. (1) The status of the inquiry at this stage is the referral of this matter to the committee of experts, comprising people from the field of toxicology generally, with international reputations. They are considering the primary question, amongst other questions, of whether a causal link can be established between the health status of the former employees and their occupational use of chemicals generally, but 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D in particular. It was originally expected that the committee of experts would refer a report to me in two weeks. I understand that that has been somewhat delayed, partly for reasons I will explain in a moment. It will probably be late next month before I see that report. One of the reasons for the delay has been a range of issues including literature research and, as I understand it, because some paper-trail chasing required more work than had first been thought. The issue of the paper trail was raised in this House in the last few days during discussion on Hon Robin Chapple’s motion. I believe a separate report was commissioned. This committee does not answer to me, but my understanding is that the committee commissioned this separate report. Again, that is one the reasons I was not keen for Hon Robin Chapple’s motion to be concluded today because I would like us to have the advantage, if that is possible, of seeing that report before the committee to which Hon Robin Chapple seeks referral of the matter has access to it. Those matters will be concluded hopefully by the end of October or early November. As to the health of the former employees, what the Government has done - I think members are generally aware, but it does not hurt to recap - is put in place a medical liaison service that involves the employment of a nurse in Derby. The Government has also ensured that the toxicology skills of medical practitioners in the Kimberley are upgraded. This addresses one of the key issues that was identified in Dr Harper’s report; that is, that although he recognised that the former employees were receiving medical attention, the symptoms that they were presenting with were not being analysed in the light of the workers’ former occupational exposure to chemicals. That issue is now fundamentally resolved. Other issues will flow from the ultimate report of the committee of experts. The reason I believe the committee of experts’ report is important is that, given its primary reference of trying to establish a causal link between health status and occupational use of a chemical, it should be able to assist the former APB employees in claims for workers compensation, some of which are on foot now and some of which will, no doubt, be lodged. We hope that can happen. (2) Technically this is a matter for the Department of Environmental Protection rather than the Department of Agriculture. However, having said that, it is incumbent upon any user of an agricultural or veterinary chemical to have such mechanisms in place within their own certification as users of such chemicals. The requirements that are now placed upon users of commercial quantities of agricultural and veterinary chemicals are quite rigorous as to the storage, handling and disposal of those chemicals and the reporting mechanism should an incident occur. Therefore, the answer is yes, but not as a result of the Derby issue. It is rather as a result of the general requirement for higher levels of safety in the handling of such material.
(1) The status of the inquiry at this stage is the referral of this matter to the committee of experts, comprising people from the field of toxicology generally, with international reputations. They are considering the primary question, amongst other questions, of whether a causal link can be established between the health status of the former employees and their occupational use of chemicals generally, but 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D in particular. It was originally expected that the committee of experts would refer a report to me in two weeks. I understand that that has been somewhat delayed, partly for reasons I will explain in a moment. It will probably be late next month before I see that report. One of the reasons for the delay has been a range of issues including literature research and, as I understand it, because some paper-trail chasing required more work than had first been thought. The issue of the paper trail was raised in this House in the last few days during discussion on Hon Robin Chapple’s motion. I believe a separate report was commissioned. This committee does not answer to me, but my understanding is that the committee commissioned this separate report. Again, that is one the reasons I was not keen for Hon Robin Chapple’s motion to be concluded today because I would like us to have the advantage, if that is possible, of seeing that report before the committee to which Hon Robin Chapple seeks referral of the matter has access to it. Those matters will be concluded hopefully by the end of October or early November. As to the health of the former employees, what the Government has done - I think members are generally aware, but it does not hurt to recap - is put in place a medical liaison service that involves the employment of a nurse in Derby. The Government has also ensured that the toxicology skills of medical practitioners in the Kimberley are upgraded. This addresses one of the key issues that was identified in Dr Harper’s report; that is, that although he recognised that the former employees were receiving medical attention, the symptoms that they were presenting with were not being analysed in the light of the workers’ former occupational exposure to chemicals. That issue is now fundamentally resolved. Other issues will flow from the ultimate report of the committee of experts. The reason I believe the committee of experts’ report is important is that, given its primary reference of trying to establish a causal link between health status and occupational use of a chemical, it should be able to assist the former APB employees in claims for workers compensation, some of which are on foot now and some of which will, no doubt, be lodged. We hope that can happen. (2) Technically this is a matter for the Department of Environmental Protection rather than the Department of Agriculture. However, having said that, it is incumbent upon any user of an agricultural or veterinary chemical to have such mechanisms in place within their own certification as users of such chemicals. The requirements that are now placed upon users of commercial quantities of agricultural and veterinary chemicals are quite rigorous as to the storage, handling and disposal of those chemicals and the reporting mechanism should an incident occur. Therefore, the answer is yes, but not as a result of the Derby issue. It is rather as a result of the general requirement for higher levels of safety in the handling of such material.
(1) What is the current status of the review and the health status of affected former workers? (2) Since the ministerial statement was made, have any adverse event reporting mechanisms been implemented for chemicals used in agricultural protection programs? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank Hon George Cash for the question. (1) The status of the inquiry at this stage is the referral of this matter to the committee of experts, comprising people from the field of toxicology generally, with international reputations. They are considering the primary question, amongst other questions, of whether a causal link can be established between the health status of the former employees and their occupational use of chemicals generally, but 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D in particular. It was originally expected that the committee of experts would refer a report to me in two weeks. I understand that that has been somewhat delayed, partly for reasons I will explain in a moment. It will probably be late next month before I see that report. One of the reasons for the delay has been a range of issues including literature research and, as I understand it, because some paper-trail chasing required more work than had first been thought. The issue of the paper trail was raised in this House in the last few days during discussion on Hon Robin Chapple’s motion. I believe a separate report was commissioned. This committee does not answer to me, but my understanding is that the committee commissioned this separate report. Again, that is one the reasons I was not keen for Hon Robin Chapple’s motion to be concluded today because I would like us to have the advantage, if that is possible, of seeing that report before the committee to which Hon Robin Chapple seeks referral of the matter has access to it. Those matters will be concluded hopefully by the end of October or early November. As to the health of the former employees, what the Government has done - I think members are generally aware, but it does not hurt to recap - is put in place a medical liaison service that involves the employment of a nurse in Derby. The Government has also ensured that the toxicology skills of medical practitioners in the Kimberley are upgraded. This addresses one of the key issues that was identified in Dr Harper’s report; that is, that although he recognised that the former employees were receiving medical attention, the symptoms that they were presenting with were not being analysed in the light of the workers’ former occupational exposure to chemicals. That issue is now fundamentally resolved. Other issues will flow from the ultimate report of the committee of experts. The reason I believe the committee of experts’ report is important is that, given its primary reference of trying to establish a causal link between health status and occupational use of a chemical, it should be able to assist the former APB employees in claims for workers compensation, some of which are on foot now and some of which will, no doubt, be lodged. We hope that can happen. (2) Technically this is a matter for the Department of Environmental Protection rather than the Department of Agriculture. However, having said that, it is incumbent upon any user of an agricultural or veterinary chemical to have such mechanisms in place within their own certification as users of such chemicals. The requirements that are now placed upon users of commercial quantities of agricultural and veterinary chemicals are quite rigorous as to the storage, handling and disposal of those chemicals and the reporting mechanism should an incident occur. Therefore, the answer is yes, but not as a result of the Derby issue. It is rather as a result of the general requirement for higher levels of safety in the handling of such material.
(2) Since the ministerial statement was made, have any adverse event reporting mechanisms been implemented for chemicals used in agricultural protection programs? Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank Hon George Cash for the question. (1) The status of the inquiry at this stage is the referral of this matter to the committee of experts, comprising people from the field of toxicology generally, with international reputations. They are considering the primary question, amongst other questions, of whether a causal link can be established between the health status of the former employees and their occupational use of chemicals generally, but 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D in particular. It was originally expected that the committee of experts would refer a report to me in two weeks. I understand that that has been somewhat delayed, partly for reasons I will explain in a moment. It will probably be late next month before I see that report. One of the reasons for the delay has been a range of issues including literature research and, as I understand it, because some paper-trail chasing required more work than had first been thought. The issue of the paper trail was raised in this House in the last few days during discussion on Hon Robin Chapple’s motion. I believe a separate report was commissioned. This committee does not answer to me, but my understanding is that the committee commissioned this separate report. Again, that is one the reasons I was not keen for Hon Robin Chapple’s motion to be concluded today because I would like us to have the advantage, if that is possible, of seeing that report before the committee to which Hon Robin Chapple seeks referral of the matter has access to it. Those matters will be concluded hopefully by the end of October or early November. As to the health of the former employees, what the Government has done - I think members are generally aware, but it does not hurt to recap - is put in place a medical liaison service that involves the employment of a nurse in Derby. The Government has also ensured that the toxicology skills of medical practitioners in the Kimberley are upgraded. This addresses one of the key issues that was identified in Dr Harper’s report; that is, that although he recognised that the former employees were receiving medical attention, the symptoms that they were presenting with were not being analysed in the light of the workers’ former occupational exposure to chemicals. That issue is now fundamentally resolved. Other issues will flow from the ultimate report of the committee of experts. The reason I believe the committee of experts’ report is important is that, given its primary reference of trying to establish a causal link between health status and occupational use of a chemical, it should be able to assist the former APB employees in claims for workers compensation, some of which are on foot now and some of which will, no doubt, be lodged. We hope that can happen. (2) Technically this is a matter for the Department of Environmental Protection rather than the Department of Agriculture. However, having said that, it is incumbent upon any user of an agricultural or veterinary chemical to have such mechanisms in place within their own certification as users of such chemicals. The requirements that are now placed upon users of commercial quantities of agricultural and veterinary chemicals are quite rigorous as to the storage, handling and disposal of those chemicals and the reporting mechanism should an incident occur. Therefore, the answer is yes, but not as a result of the Derby issue. It is rather as a result of the general requirement for higher levels of safety in the handling of such material.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied : I thank Hon George Cash for the question. (1) The status of the inquiry at this stage is the referral of this matter to the committee of experts, comprising people from the field of toxicology generally, with international reputations. They are considering the primary question, amongst other questions, of whether a causal link can be established between the health status of the former employees and their occupational use of chemicals generally, but 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D in particular. It was originally expected that the committee of experts would refer a report to me in two weeks. I understand that that has been somewhat delayed, partly for reasons I will explain in a moment. It will probably be late next month before I see that report. One of the reasons for the delay has been a range of issues including literature research and, as I understand it, because some paper-trail chasing required more work than had first been thought. The issue of the paper trail was raised in this House in the last few days during discussion on Hon Robin Chapple’s motion. I believe a separate report was commissioned. This committee does not answer to me, but my understanding is that the committee commissioned this separate report. Again, that is one the reasons I was not keen for Hon Robin Chapple’s motion to be concluded today because I would like us to have the advantage, if that is possible, of seeing that report before the committee to which Hon Robin Chapple seeks referral of the matter has access to it. Those matters will be concluded hopefully by the end of October or early November. As to the health of the former employees, what the Government has done - I think members are generally aware, but it does not hurt to recap - is put in place a medical liaison service that involves the employment of a nurse in Derby. The Government has also ensured that the toxicology skills of medical practitioners in the Kimberley are upgraded. This addresses one of the key issues that was identified in Dr Harper’s report; that is, that although he recognised that the former employees were receiving medical attention, the symptoms that they were presenting with were not being analysed in the light of the workers’ former occupational exposure to chemicals. That issue is now fundamentally resolved. Other issues will flow from the ultimate report of the committee of experts. The reason I believe the committee of experts’ report is important is that, given its primary reference of trying to establish a causal link between health status and occupational use of a chemical, it should be able to assist the former APB employees in claims for workers compensation, some of which are on foot now and some of which will, no doubt, be lodged. We hope that can happen. (2) Technically this is a matter for the Department of Environmental Protection rather than the Department of Agriculture. However, having said that, it is incumbent upon any user of an agricultural or veterinary chemical to have such mechanisms in place within their own certification as users of such chemicals. The requirements that are now placed upon users of commercial quantities of agricultural and veterinary chemicals are quite rigorous as to the storage, handling and disposal of those chemicals and the reporting mechanism should an incident occur. Therefore, the answer is yes, but not as a result of the Derby issue. It is rather as a result of the general requirement for higher levels of safety in the handling of such material.
I thank Hon George Cash for the question. (1) The status of the inquiry at this stage is the referral of this matter to the committee of experts, comprising people from the field of toxicology generally, with international reputations. They are considering the primary question, amongst other questions, of whether a causal link can be established between the health status of the former employees and their occupational use of chemicals generally, but 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D in particular. It was originally expected that the committee of experts would refer a report to me in two weeks. I understand that that has been somewhat delayed, partly for reasons I will explain in a moment. It will probably be late next month before I see that report. One of the reasons for the delay has been a range of issues including literature research and, as I understand it, because some paper-trail chasing required more work than had first been thought. The issue of the paper trail was raised in this House in the last few days during discussion on Hon Robin Chapple’s motion. I believe a separate report was commissioned. This committee does not answer to me, but my understanding is that the committee commissioned this separate report. Again, that is one the reasons I was not keen for Hon Robin Chapple’s motion to be concluded today because I would like us to have the advantage, if that is possible, of seeing that report before the committee to which Hon Robin Chapple seeks referral of the matter has access to it. Those matters will be concluded hopefully by the end of October or early November. As to the health of the former employees, what the Government has done - I think members are generally aware, but it does not hurt to recap - is put in place a medical liaison service that involves the employment of a nurse in Derby. The Government has also ensured that the toxicology skills of medical practitioners in the Kimberley are upgraded. This addresses one of the key issues that was identified in Dr Harper’s report; that is, that although he recognised that the former employees were receiving medical attention, the symptoms that they were presenting with were not being analysed in the light of the workers’ former occupational exposure to chemicals. That issue is now fundamentally resolved. Other issues will flow from the ultimate report of the committee of experts. The reason I believe the committee of experts’ report is important is that, given its primary reference of trying to establish a causal link between health status and occupational use of a chemical, it should be able to assist the former APB employees in claims for workers compensation, some of which are on foot now and some of which will, no doubt, be lodged. We hope that can happen. (2) Technically this is a matter for the Department of Environmental Protection rather than the Department of Agriculture. However, having said that, it is incumbent upon any user of an agricultural or veterinary chemical to have such mechanisms in place within their own certification as users of such chemicals. The requirements that are now placed upon users of commercial quantities of agricultural and veterinary chemicals are quite rigorous as to the storage, handling and disposal of those chemicals and the reporting mechanism should an incident occur. Therefore, the answer is yes, but not as a result of the Derby issue. It is rather as a result of the general requirement for higher levels of safety in the handling of such material.
(1) The status of the inquiry at this stage is the referral of this matter to the committee of experts, comprising people from the field of toxicology generally, with international reputations. They are considering the primary question, amongst other questions, of whether a causal link can be established between the health status of the former employees and their occupational use of chemicals generally, but 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D in particular. It was originally expected that the committee of experts would refer a report to me in two weeks. I understand that that has been somewhat delayed, partly for reasons I will explain in a moment. It will probably be late next month before I see that report. One of the reasons for the delay has been a range of issues including literature research and, as I understand it, because some paper-trail chasing required more work than had first been thought. The issue of the paper trail was raised in this House in the last few days during discussion on Hon Robin Chapple’s motion. I believe a separate report was commissioned. This committee does not answer to me, but my understanding is that the committee commissioned this separate report. Again, that is one the reasons I was not keen for Hon Robin Chapple’s motion to be concluded today because I would like us to have the advantage, if that is possible, of seeing that report before the committee to which Hon Robin Chapple seeks referral of the matter has access to it. Those matters will be concluded hopefully by the end of October or early November. As to the health of the former employees, what the Government has done - I think members are generally aware, but it does not hurt to recap - is put in place a medical liaison service that involves the employment of a nurse in Derby. The Government has also ensured that the toxicology skills of medical practitioners in the Kimberley are upgraded. This addresses one of the key issues that was identified in Dr Harper’s report; that is, that although he recognised that the former employees were receiving medical attention, the symptoms that they were presenting with were not being analysed in the light of the workers’ former occupational exposure to chemicals. That issue is now fundamentally resolved. Other issues will flow from the ultimate report of the committee of experts. The reason I believe the committee of experts’ report is important is that, given its primary reference of trying to establish a causal link between health status and occupational use of a chemical, it should be able to assist the former APB employees in claims for workers compensation, some of which are on foot now and some of which will, no doubt, be lodged. We hope that can happen. (2) Technically this is a matter for the Department of Environmental Protection rather than the Department of Agriculture. However, having said that, it is incumbent upon any user of an agricultural or veterinary chemical to have such mechanisms in place within their own certification as users of such chemicals. The requirements that are now placed upon users of commercial quantities of agricultural and veterinary chemicals are quite rigorous as to the storage, handling and disposal of those chemicals and the reporting mechanism should an incident occur. Therefore, the answer is yes, but not as a result of the Derby issue. It is rather as a result of the general requirement for higher levels of safety in the handling of such material.
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.