Remember the build up to the US invasion of Iraq, where all the best intelligence and science bombarded us to join a coalition to start a war? The rhetoric was based on perceived ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’ (WMD). It was an easy ’sell’ – Saddam Hussein was a real tyrant –  so we just went along with it only to find nothing. Many people got rich in the process, but not Iraqis.

Similarly, Cr Brian Stockwell and others tell us that we simply don’t get it or understand when it comes to key environmental principles. At last week’s Council meeting, he told all assembled and watching on video about Principle 15, Rio Declaration of the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity and stated we must adopt the ‘Precautionary Principle’ because uncertainty about environmental threats should not be used as a reason to wait for conclusive science. We should apply the Precautionary Principle and get on with the fix.

The basis of his assertion as it related to local issues is, I suspect, that the Noosa Biosphere Reserve Foundation (NBRF) has presented evidence that is ‘good enough’ to warrant the spending of significant amounts of ratepayers’ money on projects that are, in Cr Stockwell’s opinion, critical to address today – not tomorrow.

The message seems to be that the Noosa River and other parts of the natural environment are in such bad shape that we must act now. This is the core argument and the basis of the ‘full steam ahead’ whistle even if we lack conclusive evidence.

Yet, in reality, what we have in terms of science is an aggregation of mainly unrelated reports (some incomplete) that reveal very little data we can rely on. However, when this disparate information is carefully packaged, it alarms us that we are confronting our own WMDs!

Cr Stockwell is obviously a passionate and intelligent man on this subject, but when you dig deeper into his position things are not as black and white as he proposes. The International Union for Conservation of Nature states that the Precautionary Principle is only relevant where the following elements are present:

  • The threat is relatively certain and a causal link can be established, the probability of occurrence can be calculated, and the damage insured against. Clearly in Noosa we do not know this because we have not done the scientific research over time to identify all issues and determine causality.

Over the past 30 years we have seen the the Precautionary Principle (which has many guises) incorporated into laws and policies including in Australia. Despite rapid growth in its adoption, the principle remains controversial, and its success has been questioned in terms of improving environmental and natural resource management and of promoting sustainable development.

Here are some of the issues that we need to address in Noosa:

  • What level (threshold) of threat or potential for harm is sufficient to trigger application of the principle?
  • Are the potential threats balanced against other considerations, such as costs or non-economic factors, in deciding what precautionary measures to implement?
  • Does the principle impose a positive obligation to act or simply allow action?
  • Where does the burden of proof rest to show the existence or absence of risk of harm?
  • Is liability for environmental harm assigned and, if so, who bears liability?

I have and continue to argue that, while most initiatives that are aimed at protecting our environment are a very good thing, the actions we take have to be based on real, solid empirical data over time. This is because it is a general principle that, to justify the need for action, the burden of proof generally falls on those people advocating precautionary action.

This is something that NBRF and some Councillors allude that we have, when in reality we do not have any causal research. A good recent example is the Oyster Reef Trial that should, by any scientific measure, have been conducted for a minimum of three years with additional time added for analysis and interpretation.

Yet after only 11 months it was claimed claimed we had empirical evidence. This sense of urgency seemed to exist only to ‘push’ through other agendas, such as to work with The Nature Conservancy or inform (however scarce the data) the Noosa River Plan.

Some Councillors and the NBRF brushed aside those who dared to question their position and ask for clarification or evidence. It was intimated the questioners were negative, destructive and even malicious. One impression the public received from the Council was that it is an affront to challenge the NBRF because those involved work pro bono. Really? If it were private money involved that would be one thing, but when it is ratepayers’ money that volunteers are spending we surely retain the right to ask reasonable questions.

Why was asking for detail seen by many Councillors as an attack on their character or their colleagues’ character? Whether in politics, business or personal life, we all operate without complete information and in the end decisions often come down to reasonable risk taking. Some people act upon instinct or ‘gut feel’. Others will research and analyse. But I believe most people in Noosa simply want Council and NBRF to disclose the facts, the evidence and what their considerations are before arriving at conclusions of serious magnitude. Then allow us to question them.

What I found interesting is that, in practice, when using the Precautionary Principle, actions the  Council might adopt could be a ‘wait and see approach’, where the issue could be reviewed when better information became available; the adoption of flexible policies that can be adapted in response to new information; and prohibition (either temporary or permanent).
Such actions would depend on the circumstances, including:
  • The extent and significance of the information gaps and uncertainties, and the prospects and costs and benefits of obtaining better information.
  • The seriousness of possible hazards, including the possibility of catastrophic events, and society’s degree of risk aversion.
  • The incidence of damage: for example, whether those likely to be most seriously affected are children (where larger safety factors are often applied); whether adverse effects are concentrated on future generations; or whether environmental impacts will have large flow-on effects through ecological systems.
  • The capacity and costs of altering policies in the future, which may depend on whether policy measures would require, or generate incentives for, long-lived investments.
  • The potential costs and benefits to society of each alternative action.

Watching the televised Council meeting, I observed a tendency for some Councillors to ‘jump on the bandwagon’ when it came to environmental support and actions they apparently had not fully researched or considered all aspects of their position.

As an example, what many in the Council do not understand when applying the Precautionary Principle is that a lack of clarity in how decisions have been made opens up opportunities for legal challenge, and the potential for courts to adopt an interpretation of the Precautionary Principle at odds with that intended by the policy maker.

A case in point was Cr Ingrid Jackson’s questioning of the scientific qualifications of ‘Fresh Advisory’ to be able to to provide a scientific, research-based paper for the Noosa Fishing Futures strategy. Clearly those involved at Fresh Advisory are political PR specialists and not scientists, so why couldn’t Council staff answer the question about their qualifications with a simple yes or no? Why were a few Councillors so quick to defend the appointment of this firm?

It is  areas such as this that open up challenges and, right or wrong, convey to the public a lack of transparency. Council will find it has little to zero credibility with any scientific work Fresh Advisory initiates unless it is clear that qualified and subject relevant scientists have done the work.

So Cr Stockwell, why is our Council not committed to do things in a structured, methodical, empirical way when it comes to the science that affects us?

Are we so uninformed or not understanding as you stated at the Council meeting?

Please show us exactly how Rome is burning so badly that proper procedures to deal with the fire are dispensed with!

Nick Hluszko
Nick Hluszko earned an M.B.A. degree at Monash University along with a long list of executive level courses and worked in executive roles all across the globe before settling here. From his riverside home he keeps a keen eye on the comings and goings of the Noosa River and keeps himself informed on issues affecting North Shore residents in his current role as President of the Noosa North Shore Association Inc.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

19 COMMENTS

  1. You absolutely nailed it there Nick. On point all the way and perfectly put. Well done and thanks for helping us all to realign everyone to a common cause.

  3. I tuned in at the time and watched this debate with interest. My conclusion was that Ingrid’s questions were well answered by staff, and some of her colleagues made good points about how the appointment of Fresh Advisory brings essential political skills together with the technical and scientific analysis required.

    The selection even appears to please the local fishing folk given the industry experience of one of the consultants.

    Given the lack of apparent interest in the invitation to quote process, and the urgency to make an appointment given that funding needed to be applied for asap, I believe it was reasonable For Council to choose this consultantcy group. Of course, time will tell if it was the right choice.

    • Rod,
      The gentleman actually doing the work for Fresh Advisory – Winston Harris is not a scientist as far as anyone knows. He has run an industry body earlier but is not a scientist. Now given that a major criteria for completing this work and selection is to.. “Undertake a technical and scientific analysis including impacts and benefits of other sustainable fisheries management initiatives” a reasonable person would demand that a scientist do this and not a layperson irrespective of their work experience. I have also asked the very simple and direct question of Council – does he have the qualifications or not? I am awaiting a reply. From 40 years of corporate life, I never saw an appointment of a supplier simply because no-one else tendered at that time. I am pretty sure that if the tender went to say USC, UQ, James Cook Uni, et al and Council gave themselves a few extra weeks and highly qualified scientific consultant would have easily be found. While the Mayor denied that the intent of the work was political and only scientific it is difficult to accept it not the case.
      Regards,
      Nick

  4. Nick, I don’t share your concern. Since they have fishing industry connections, they can surely just hire a scientist.

  6. Rod…you surprise me! Are you saying that it’s ok to trust someone to possible do something as opposed to simply ensuring that a specification is met? How is it ok that a clear specification to do scientific work is accepted by you on the basis that they ‘could’ or ‘might’ hire a reputable/known scientist without?? Would you fix your plumbing with a licensed Plumber of someone who knows pipes? I have industry connections also but that doesn’t qualify me to conduct scientific work! You are of course entitled to think that your position is ok but I am not – show me the scientist for the $50K of our money!

  7. Lloyd…Following our introduction ‘virtually’ recently and after what you just sent me is obviously very disturbing and I can understand how many would want to simply ignore the issue. I think that despite all of the huge obstacles involved, quantification and qualification of the issue in our catchment should be an Environmental priority for Council.I have no idea what would be involved?…the cost?…where you should test?….who would do testing? ….who pays the bill? ….How you would define acceptable limits?….what would the extent of any clean-up program? …etc, etc, etc I think that the important thing is to do testing first in a historic ‘hot spots’ and surrounding areas initially? With a Council election looming in the next 12 months your timing could be perfect to bring this issue to the forefront – after all you would be proposing a small test initially. Nick

  8. Rod, you surprise me too. It seemed pretty clear from the discussion that the qualities Council used in making and justifying the decision to hire this consultant had more to do with his connections in government and his lobbying powers than any scientific knowledge. Why hire a lobbyist to hire a scientist to do scientific work?

  9. Judy. Because the lobbiest might get a grant sufficient enough to hire a decent scientist to do the scientific work! 🐟🐟🐟🐟🐟

    • Rod … might? This was not the tender spec! How do you do this then post facto try and correct when caught out… why are you defending an obvious non compliance … why not just say yes! They screwed up and should be forced to get an acknowledged scientist doing the work? I don’t know you or your politics but I am very quickly forming an opinion. Nick

    • Is that how you conducted business during your years as a printing executive, Rod? I can’t believe you did. Your responses here are very supportive of the Council and that shows great loyalty to your mates, but I refuse to believe they represent a serious contribution to a subject that demands an answer to the question, “What is going on here?”

  10. Nick, I think you might take my last comment as irony. The point about this tender result is that there was no competition. The people they chose were the only bidders.

    Keith, Sorry, never worked in printing, rather it was publishing. I’m not as stereotypical as you suggest and I try to call things as I see them. I believe many council issues have not been well handled and I’m not afraid to call decisions on these issue out. And this despite regarding all the councillors quite highly. I certainly respect their different positions on different topics since, as elected representatives, they must listen to their constituents and vote on issues as they see fit.

    I believe insinuations and allegations need to be supported by evidence and where is it in this case?

  11. Rod, If I was the owner of a large lead mine in the Noosa Shire and twenty years after I closed the mine the mine executives found that during the processing it had been found there was a major problem in the separation process and they have found that a dangerous amount of lead has leaked into the environment which could be dangerous to all living things so testing needs to be done immediately what should I do?

    What if when I notified the Government they had laws against testing for lead in the Noosa environment? Who would the community expect to test the levels and give us an accurate contamination overview if the testing wasn’t allowed and if it was the results wont be publicised anyway? Would you expect the mine executives to diligently test and prove this first before Government decided whether it would do anything and while it carried on with business as if the lead wont matter a bit to their plan for Noosa? Would you trust the result advised by the mine or call for the Government to test it for the people anyway? If after ten years of studying this ecosystem the Government paid entities hadn’t found any problems because they didn’t test for lead but the mine executives can see obvious lead poisoning in the environment? Should the mine executives lobby the community to test for the lead or just personally ignore the known contaminated areas and get on with their lives?
    That is a similar comparison to what is going on Rod but you have a problem relating to how that chemical got so bad in the environment when it was just in the water that was sprayed onto the pastures. If you think of it a different way it might help you to understand so I will give you a different view.
    Lets say you have a stick of white chalk that only attracts TCDD and nothing else. When a dot of TCDD gets onto the chalk it turns blue. If you leave the chalk in the sun it will eventually fade away and become white again so you make sure the chalk goes white before you put anymore TCDD there keeping the balance and everything is working fine. Then you get severe rain and every White chalk in your paddock has turned a brighter blue than you had ever seen before? What do you do? Call a conservation ambassador? Get a scientist to work out what has happened and where all the TCDD came from? Start testing yourself and hope you find something that can prove to someone you have a problem? What do you do if all of your neighbours chalk has turned blue as well? How many neighbouring pastures have to have blue chalk before the Local Council or the Government should be involved? Should the investigation be done by a Government Authority with all of the due diligence or should the investigation be handed to a private entity that is seeking donations for a different agenda altogether that you know wont work if they find TCDD? Which way will give you the reliable results you trust?

  12. Nick, As we are locals we should make our meeting real. I would really like your scientific knowledge to mix with my non-scientific knowledge as I am sure you would like to do the same. I think small steps turn into huge leaps with this information very quickly. Perhaps we could meet at the Cooroy Hall to question SEQ Water and Dick Barnes on their vigilance with strategic testing for this chemical in our environment and our drinking water for the last Fifty years?
    It would be great to talk to people that actually understand what TCDD is and what that means. At present I haven’t ever talked to a scientist in person about TCDD. This has been mainly because I was trying to prove science was what got us into this mess. Now that I have established it is real and must be dealt with by robust science the scientific world isn’t the enemy to me.
    Until I increased my public awareness campaign over the last six months I had supposed scientists knocking me all the way for a lack of science to prove what I was saying. That made it extremely difficult to keep moral while trying to prove that because the science wasn’t done this has happened. I was in fact faced with proving suspected robust science was wrong without any robust science to prove it. That was a huge Mountain Range to get over but determination and dedication got me over the top. Now that I made it right to the peak of that Mountain Range I want everyone to see the view I see.
    As a scientist you would fully understand the implications of this dioxin in our everyday environment and how this finding has changed the whole dynamics of science in this Country. There has been constant outcry about Vaccines and there effects on children especially. The scientists keep testing the vaccines and they find them safe. So they cant be blamed or can they? What hasn’t happened is the robust science was never done to firstly test individual ecology’s for levels of dioxin and then to test contradictions between the chemical components. With a mutating chemical as strong as TCDD this has had a disastrous affect worldwide without anyone ever noticing.
    What I have found with my personal studies is the toxic dioxin levels in the population seem to be related to the huge increase of Suspected Meniere’s Disease and tinnitus. The increase in these illnesses originated from the Byron Bay area and gradually crept into the East Coast all the way up to Qld. The 24-D spraying for Groundsel Bush originated in the Byron Bay area and gradually crept over the East Coast all the way to Qld. Do you notice any similarity? This is what science has missed completely by not testing for TCDD and joining all the dots. Perhaps science is too predictable and the possible probabilities made the whole equation too hard to work out. Maybe it needed someone that wasn’t tainted by that regimental way of thinking to keep an open mind to get to the real cause which was a lack of science. The effects of high dioxin levels are related to most of the medical problems in this country it’s just science hasn’t found it yet. The People that are suffering these Marker, Toxic dioxin exposure brain injury related illnesses should be tested and receive the best health and dietary care that can be provided. Not ignored because science wasn’t done. The same results are being seen with Prescription medication. None of this medication has been robustly tested for contradiction with the mutating TCDD yet it is in our drinking water so cant be avoided. Science is so busy trying to come up with cures they can make money out of to look for the cause. Maybe they knew and did it for profit.
    It is up to us to do what we can to identify this is the cause of our problems and give everyone a solid baseline to work with. Too much science has gone ahead without the robust science to lead the way. Ideology and a lack of science is what gave us this monster in the mist.
    You would be able to relate to the dismay I felt at the Council continuing the development approval for a retirement village next to a school in the downstream flow area from the Sewerage Treatment Plant as Item 1 of the meeting they had. That to me showed an absolute blatant lack of care for the fragile people that will inhabit this contaminated zone. As we are both aware it doesn’t matter what Laws say what if they allow this to happen then there should be new laws made that it cant happen. This doesn’t have choices or options the Noosa Council can Make. It has a certain direction that robust science has to lead. Change the law to make that happen. There is no other way we will exist.
    Noosa Council seem totally unaware of the consequences of a severe 2,3,7,8,TCDD contamination. It is like they have had NO scientific explanation to consequences of exposure. They appear to be blissfully unaware of the increased human exposure to this dioxin just through the extra dioxin in the air and water alone. I noticed almost immediately that the Wellington led Council had an obvious agenda to continue on with poorly advised previous Council’s decisions for this Shire. They showed an immediate ignorance of what that means to the people of Noosa. Expecting to see all development plans for Item 1 cancelled pending environmental results from the robust science done in that area I was in shock and awe at them even considering it. That straight away showed me that Wellington himself had the agenda and certain Councillors shared his ideology. It seems his agenda is to continue with his idea of the Biosphere until ordered otherwise and only rely on decisions made by previous Council’s so as to avoid blame for any Planning decisions made when the contamination was found. That is so wrong. He blatantly disregarded any effects a TCDD contamination will have on the population and failed totally to adjust ALL of Council’s decisions concerning Town planning because of that. His ideology was reaffirmed to us through Brian Stockwell advising Council will proceed ahead anyway despite what it already knows. Obviously Brian is a member of this ideology team inside Council and is also very unaware of what TCDD is or means to an environment. This ideology cant exist anymore. It needs to be taken to the dump and vigilant diligence be done for all Council’s decisions going forward. Council will have to expand it’s services to the community to solely deal with the consequences in the community. There needs to be Health programs set up for the people that have been exposed as well as family history in this area for every resident. Every property that was ever sprayed with the impure 24-D needs to be individually tested both legally and morally for what TCDD remains. The Public need advice from the food industry in this area such as produce, livestock, water quality, safe fish species for human consumption, Safe crab and Prawn species to eat or not eat. The Tourists need advice on measures to be taken after being exposed to our water and beaches. Even if the Council be lax and let all the relevant groups produce their own warnings a group to combine all of this information is needed.
    Council has amazed me by their ignorance of all of this. The Mayor just brushes me off as an “Environmental Detective” in his words. He thinks he can just brush what I bring to the table off and continue with his ideology without question. He thinks that if Council don’t notice then it wont matter. He is not prepared to get his Council to do all the work needed to redo every decision that has been made by Noosa Council for the last Fifty years without regard to this contamination. This has to be done no matter what, as you would understand, so if the present Council is not able to diligently deal with work overload from this new direction maybe they should stand down.
    I am of the opinion that the current Council in it’s formation cannot and does not have the ability to set a new direction for the people. Because of this concern I have written to Parliament requesting their intervention into this Council’s way of governing going ahead. Either the Mayor and the CEO go to TCDD boot camp for a month or they resign and a more informed Council be formed. There is no room for a less than diligent Council in this contaminated environment any more. That is what got us here but it wont get us back where we were no matter what. Even though I have spoken to Brian Stockwell about this contamination twice he seems to have not interpreted the enormity of what that means. The only ones that have taken the time to talk to me and find out the true meaning of it all are Sandy Bolton and Brendan Weatherill. Ingrid Jackson also took the time out at the start to listen to all of my information and concerns.
    What needs to be done cant be done by a couple of individual Councillors. It will take a very committed, dedicated team in Council to even cope with this properly and in a diligent manner so there is no room in Council for ideologies or fogged views of the future due to Managerial ignorance. I am that appalled by Noosa Council that I am calling on Parliament for the present Council to be sacked or totally retrained under a new Mayor. The Mayor and the CEO don’t seem to comprehend what is needed to address this contamination. From what we have been told Council intends on ignoring this contamination and letting every citizen in the Shire suffer an early death from a dioxin related injury. Between that Council understanding of the problem at hand and Rod’s understanding of the whole matter, as a layman, when he was involved from the start it has encouraged me to keep slapping it in front of Parliament continually until we get some answers. Everyone either wants to play dumb or is dumb when it comes to TCDD. That needs to stop so that we can have informed people making Council decisions for the community. Do you understand and relate to my views Nick as far as TCDD is affecting this Shire more than it should ever be allowed in a population? Do you share my view that the Council cant sleep it’s way through this one and must deal with it as a priority for all before any further decisions are made?

  13. Lloyd, on your fb page, where you helped me advise the family of the leukemia baby ( now an adult) I did a post about how council threatened me with court action if I did not do an aerial spray of my 30 acres of groundsel bushes.(that we bought in what is now Tunba Court) and we cleared it by hand! Took a few weeks, working a few hours every day. Council said it could not be done and that we would never be able to clear it, “As long as my ar#e hole points to the ground” That was twice said to me, I kid you not. So it was not necessary to spray this poison.

  14. Lloyd…apologies for the late response. Been very tied up with recent events to do with the fires on the Noosa North Shore amongst other things. Do I subscribe to your views and concerns? Logic does suggest that if you use chemicals as was seemingly the case back in the day then of course there has to be residue and contamination. But in the time that I have been in and out of this subject, I have quickly learned that this is not just a Council question nor a state one – it really does and should involve the Feds. This practice was not restricted to just Noosa – it was common and widespread. The ramifications, as you have always pointed out are of such magnitude that the mind boggles. BUT! politicians and bureaucrats like many, are folk who who are risk adverse and if there is no clearly visible smoking gun e.g. deformed animals, plants, cancer, etc, etc they will not go out on a limb for this is what I suspect. Unless rates of some human disease are abnormal here they won’t do a thing in a precautionary sense is what I feel.

    Of course morally it is not the right thing to do, but I guess people at all levels are thinking that if not is not a problem now leave it all alone and if it does arise in the future then its someone else’s problem….I personally hate this POV and level of defeatism and cannot understand why the money cannot be found to do some very simple testing??? Unless it already has been done and the answer know at governmental levels??

    As a former businessman, I would bite off what I could chew here and lay it all out in simple terms for all as a proposal Lloyd. The starting point would be – where to test and how many times for TCDD? Who could do this work reputably and at what cost? Then find backing (financial and other)from locals, government, environmental groups like the NPA, etc to do it. This is how I would approach it because unless you make it easy people won’t buy-in to the issue and buy-n is what is needed….Nick

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.