Newton’s response to Penhalluriack’s questions about the timely and/or adequate handling of the ‘mulch affair’, relies heavily on:
- Communication with the Victorian Department of Health, and
- Implementation of consultant’s recommendations
Department of Health
Penhalluriack’s first question was: “On what investigatory grounds did Council twice deny that there was any danger to the community’s health……”. Newton responded with: ‘The advice was from the Victorian Department of Health’. We go on to learn that this ‘advice’ derives from Mr. Adcock from the Legionella section of the Department. Of interest is the fact that Penhalluriack is not restricting his question exclusively to legionella here, but any potential ‘danger’. Further, when arguing against the closure of the mulch depot at Tuesday night’s council meeting, Lipshutz claimed that council had received a Department of Health ‘report’. So what was it? ‘Advice’, or an official ‘report’? The difference is immense. ‘Advice’ could simply mean a note, a letter, a conversation? It could perhaps even be in response to carefully crafted questions that were forwarded to the Department? Or such ‘advice’ might also be the result of a phone call from one bureaucrat to another – possibly an old mate from the past?
What we do know is that Newton is meticulous in his use of language. We also know that selective editing, as evidenced in the first version of the agenda items with the deletion of telling and graphic photographs, is also a possibility. A little research reveals that Mr. Adcock is not a medico or researcher, but rather a bureaucrat charged with overseeing the legislation. His section deals exclusively with legionella and the link to water cooling systems. There is nothing on the section’s webpage that mentions anything else apart from cooling towers and other systems of that ilk. So did Newton, or his officers, subsequently ask about ALL POTENTIAL DANGERS, or did he restrict his queries (and answers) to legionella alone – even after Penhalluriack broadened his concerns to other pathogens? Unfortunately, we do not know what was asked, and neither do we have the complete ‘advice/report’. All we have are a couple of sentences without the necessary surrounding context.
Penhalluriack also queries why it has taken a ‘third warning’ before ‘expert opinion’ is sought. Newton simply responds with ‘It is difficult to imagine a more expert source?” (ie. The Health Department). Yet, we’ve already been told that the ‘advice’ from the Department was restricted to legionella alone. Penhalluriack’s broader concern is thus ignored.
But that’s not the end of the story. We also have the following inconsistency. Adcock, as a representative of the Department of Health, has basically ruled out the possibility of contracting legionella from woodchip/mulch. So how come that the Department of Health can publish the following?
Legionellae are ubiquitous in the environment. They are often isolated from water and wet areas in the natural environment such as creeks, hot springs, seawater, woodchips, mulch and soil. Potting mix is often colonised with Legionella species….” http://www.health.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/19902/bluebook.pdf
Curioser and curioser! How can we, on the one hand be told by a Department of Health official that ‘there is no evidence’ for the link between legionella and wood chips, yet the same Department finds it necessary to issue the above warning? We urge readers to simply do a Google search on these terms to locate literally hundreds and hundreds of scientific articles from reputable organisations and researchers, as well as government publications that highlight the potential link between legionella and mulch – not to mention the countless other conditions that are linked to woodchips and/or mulch.
What really caught our eye however, was this directive from a Western Australian council dating from 2007 that ordered its staff to wear protective masks, etc. We’ve uploaded this document and urge readers to note the precautions that this one council can take 4 years ago – and not necessarily in relation to legionella, but to other ‘dangers’.
Implementation of consultant’s recommendations
Newton states: “Of the six recommendations, five have been implemented and one is in the process of being implemented. None has been “ignored”.
Please note the use of language – ‘implemented’ is very definitely past tense, implying completion, gone, dusted, finished. Yet, when we come to the specific actions regarding these recommendations several pages later, we find sentences such as:
R4. An upgrade to the spray mist unit to allow manual dosing of mulch with water to suppress dust is being designed by engineers.
R5. Fact sheets are being made available on site.
R6. Signage at the site is currently being manufactured by Road Management Solutions Pty Ltd in accordance with the recommendations contained in the report.
So how many of the recommendations have actually been COMPLETED? Is it 5 as Newton would like to have us believe, or is it merely 2? The more important issue revolves around time lags. The first draft of the consultant’s report was in Newton’s hand on Feb. 2nd. It went to Audit committee members on Feb. 18th. Newton’s response was in the April 5th Agenda. Hence a time lag of two months! Two months to ‘manufacture’ signs? Two months for adequate ‘fact sheets’ to be made available? Two months for the ‘design’ of dosing equipment? And as Penhalluriack pointed out at Council meeting, the most important words in the ‘temporary’ warnings, somehow omitted to mention the nasty ‘legionella’.
We invite readers to draw their own conclusions as to the role of the audit committee in this ‘mulch affair’ and the validity of Newton’s responses. Do these ‘answers’ reveal a potential ‘cover up’ and the failure of correct risk management? Were residents, and employees unnecessarily exposed to potential health risks?
Glen Eira Debates 
April 9, 2011 at 4:22 PM
I am a bit perplexed by the concern about the mulch pile. If mulch is so dangerous, why do we allow enormous amounts of it to be put in our parks and gardens? The mulch pile was a great resource for the community. There needs to be a balance between risks and benefits. I am sure there is more risk from crossing a road than visiting the mulch pile. I for one don’t want to encourage the council to be excessively risk averse – which leads to bad decisions like cutting down trees because there is a small risk that a branch might fall one day!
April 9, 2011 at 5:14 PM
Agreed – the mulch heap is maybe a small risk factor to people’s health. Reckon what’s the real issue here is how it’s been handled or mishandled. It shouldn’t have got past the Audit committee and shouldn’t have taken 3 direct questions for them to get an expert’s report. They should have initiated this themselves. What’s their occupational health officers been doing for the past couple of years I wonder? I’m also worried about the ducks and drakes that Newton plays with his reports. We never get the full story on anything. It’s all disguised and hidden away. Reckon the bottom line is if he got advice or whatever that there’s a possibility of risk then something needed to be done weeks and weeks ago. It wasn’t! So how good is this mob in covering their arses. It shouldn’t have been that bloody hard to put up a few warning signs to people months ago. But no, they’ve tried to squirm out of everything. The buck stops with him.
I reckon it’s also unusual that his name isn’t attached to these answers. All that’s there is Chief Executive Officer. Normally there’s the bullshit about Enquiries. Even this isn’t there. Reckon it’s deliberate. This way we don’t know who wrote it, who okayed it and so on. Ducking and weaving all the time.
April 9, 2011 at 6:18 PM
Weasel words. Newton’s a master at it. Never answer a question. Make sure that everything you put down on paper can never be traced and be ever so selective in what you do write. Hats off to you Newton. Brilliant evasive stuff.
April 9, 2011 at 8:50 PM
It is my belief that a certain Store in our Municipality may be selling goods that are potentially harmfull to those who purchase them and handle them. I will be reporting this matter to the Council Health Department and asking for a Report on any potential danger to the Community and surrounding residents.If Potting mix sold in this establishment poses any danger to the community then the Facility must be immediatly closed just like the Mulch Pit.
April 9, 2011 at 9:30 PM
There you go again Anonymous showing your total ignorance. The councillor in question sells commercial products and they all have warnings plastered all around them. What Newton didn’t do was act when he knew there could be a problem. Instead his mates in the audit committee also did nothing. Gibbs, McLean, Newton,Lipshutz and now Magee. A great gang of five.
April 9, 2011 at 8:54 PM
Newton’s actions have been ***** (word deleted by moderators) and should be investigated **** (phrase deleted by moderators). Our “independent” audit committee members being Gibbs and Mclean have let the community down badly and should resign. Lipshutz and Magee need to think about whether they should remain on Council.
April 10, 2011 at 4:29 PM
Newton’s arguments are pathetic. What he is responsible for is that all councillors have the same information. His version is that the info only went to the ones that Penhalluriack asked for. What a cop out. Councillors are supposed to run the show not him, or Gibbs, or McLean with the abetting of Lipshutz and Magee this time.
April 11, 2011 at 10:34 PM
Let’s stop beating about the bush. No business should have its board members there in perpetuity which is what Glen Eira has done with Gibbs and McLean. Next, why did Newton repeatedly make their reappointment as part of confidential in camera business unless he wanted to keep this out of the public view. He must have known that it would cause a furore. Next, there’s absolutely no good commercial or other reason as to why this was done. We know that these blokes get about $1500 per meeting, so the argument that it’s ‘commercial in confidence’ is not on. We need to look for other reasons and the only thing I can come up with is that it suits Newton and his machinations to have two very, very friendly members of an audit committee that will either do his bidding, or overlook heaps of things. The minutes have already shown that they’re not averse to little private meetings with him alone, nor are they averse to ordering the internal auditor to change his recommendations. Each of these actions do not show me that governance is a high priority for this committee. In the end what’s happened is that you do away with the Finance Committee, and you’re home scot free. There is no-one else to oversee and to check that things are 100% kosher apart from Newton. As someone said at the C60 meeting, that’s like giving the keys to the blood bank to Dracula!