Glen Eira Debates

Newton’s response to Penhalluriack’s questions about the timely and/or adequate handling of the ‘mulch affair’, relies heavily on:

1. Communication with the Victorian Department of Health, and
2. 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. 2^nd. It went to Audit committee members on Feb. 18^th. Newton’s response was in the April 5^th 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?