We call on Dr Roscoe Taylor to resign as the Tasmanian Director of Public Health.
In support of our call we confine ourselves to only statements made by Dr Taylor relating to the E.nitens water crisis. There are two general grounds for this demand for Dr Taylor’s resignation. These are:
1) Dr Taylor failed to adequately inform himself of the privately funded science that has already been carried out on the toxins from E.nitens before issuing public reassurance about water quality; and
2) his numerous public announcements on this crisis has left the public confused as to its true nature. .
FAILURE TO INFORM HIMSELF
In relation to the first point, the second episode of ABC’s Australian Story went to air on Monday 22 February 2010. On that day Dr Taylor issued a public statement saying “surface scum could not be related to the water quality that people actually drank which is taken from the offtake points at least 1 metre below the surface”.
This was Dr Taylor’s first public assurance that the water was safe.
On the 23 February 2010 Dr Taylor issued a public statement saying that research by the Department of Primary Industry, Water and the Environment in 2005 found that “toxicity was not demonstrated in surface or subsurface water samples”. Dr Taylor went on to say that “there is no evidence to suggest that the conclusion” he reached in 2005 “was incorrect”.
This was Dr Taylor’s second public assurance that the water was safe.
On 25 February 2010 Dr Taylor issued a public statement saying, “I want to assure residents and visitors to St Helens that none of the information available or presented through the Australian Story program at this point in time has demonstrated a need for residents or visitors to St Helens to refrain from drinking from the town water supply.”
This was Dr Taylor’s third public assurance that the water was safe.
On 25 February 2010 Dr Taylor sent an email to St Helens GP, Dr Alison Bleaney with an attached copy of a letter to be sent out to residents which reassured them that there was no evidence to demonstrate that their water was unsafe to drink.
On 26 February 2010 Drs Alison Bleaney and Marcus Scammell replied by email saying they did not agree with the contents of Dr Taylor’s letter and advised that the most recent results by Dr Fiona Young found toxin in a grab sample taken approximately 40 cm below the surface near the water intake. (Dr Young is the University of Adelaide researcher who undertook the human cell toxicity assessments using the St Helens water samples). Dr Taylor immediately wrote back saying he was seeking contact with Dr Fiona Young.
On Saturday 27 February 2010 it was announced in the Mercury that the Minister for Health, Lara Giddings “acted immediately yesterday” on the recommendation of Dr Taylor that $250,000 would be made available to pay for an activated carbon purification system for the St Helens water supply and for further testing of that supply. In the Mercury report Dr Taylor is quoted as saying Dr Fiona Young “convinced him that more needed to be done to purify St Helens water supply immediately.”
It took five days for Dr Taylor to inform himself of just some of the rudimentary details of the privately funded science that had already been carried out on the toxins from E.nitens. Yet in that period he had given three public assurances that the water was safe without properly informing himself as to the true nature of the situation.
These details indicate that Dr Taylor had pre-judged the information contained in Australian Story and, while failing to properly inform himself, had gone ahead and given public assurances based upon his pre-judgement.
PUBLIC CONFUSION CREATED
In relation to the second reason for Dr Taylor’s resignation, on 4 March 2010 Dr Taylor issued a public statement in the form of a letter to residents saying, “there is as yet no scientific evidence to show your drinking water was unsafe”.
This statement occurred five days after the Government announcement of a $250,000 expenditure to protect the St Helens water supply. Such a statement is confusing and misleading. This statement also failed to acknowledge the private scientific research already undertaken on water quality in the George River.
This is one instance where Dr Taylor has created confusion with this public announcement.
On 6 March 2010 Dr Taylor issued a public statement saying, “I’ am pleased to be able to inform residents that testing done on treated and untreated water samples taken from the George River last weekend has come back negative to common compounds from eucalypts”.
This letter (6 March 2010) has some slight but significant differences in phrasing to a similar letter to residents dated 4 March 2010. For example, the 6 March 2010 letter refers to “common compounds from eucalypts” while the 4 March 2010 letter refers to “known chemicals from eucalyptus trees”.
‘Common compounds’ can suggest that the new and unusual toxins from E.nitens have not been found. In contrast, ‘known chemicals from eucalyptus trees’ excludes the possibility of new toxins from E.nitens. So what is it that Dr Taylor is assuring the public about? It is extremely unclear from these communications.
In addition to this particular confusion, the changed phraseology here is significant because together with its placement near the top of the 6 March 2010 letter, and with the good-news introductory phrase: “I’ am pleased to be able to inform residents” Dr Taylor seems to be indicating that all is well with the St Helens water.
Yet this is not the case and neither letter says it is the case. Further, the 4 March 2010 letter even indicates this with the statement “the test results so far do not prove that there is no problem”. Yet what is given to the public in the letter of 6 March 2010 is the reassurance that all is well while also implying that all is not well.
The view of all is well is confirmed by the report in the Sunday Tasmanian (7 March 2010), the headline of which says: Taylor reassures on town water quality: No sign of eucalyptus toxins in St Helens supply. As of 11 March 2010 there has been no retraction or clarification on the DHHS website of this view.
Here is another instance where Dr Taylor appears to have intentionally created confusion with his public announcement.
A third instance of confusion arises with Dr Taylor’s assurances that there is no indication of rising cancer rates in the area. He has stated this publicly on at least three occasions.
In his letter to residents on 6 March 2010 Dr Taylor says, “the Tasmanian Cancer Registry has now examined preliminary data for 2007 and advised that there is no indication of rising cancer rates in the area.”
But the data collected by the Tasmanian Cancer Registry and given on the Menzies website refers to rates of increase by municipalities and not specific areas like St Helens.
In addition, the latest report from the Menzies Centre notes that the rate of all cancers in Tasmania (excluding skin cancer) has increased by 41% for males and 33% for females during the period 1980 – 2006.
So what does Dr Taylor mean by “no indication of rising cancer rates in the area”?
Firstly, his statement implies that there is no difference between the whole Break O’ Day municipality and the St Helens area. Secondly, his statement suggests that the increase of cancer rates in the Break O’ Day municipality is rising at the same rate of increase as the rest of Tasmania. Dr Taylor also appears to have ignored these appalling state-wide rises in cancer rates.
Given that E.niten plantations cover most catchments in the State and that pesticides are sprayed over almost all the state it is perhaps no wonder that the increase in cancer rates is relatively uniform throughout the state.
Dr Taylor’s statement that there is “no indication of rising cancer rates in the area” is misleading.
This is a third major instance where Dr Taylor has created confusion with his public announcements.
CONCLUSION:
As Director of Public Health, Dr Taylor has a special responsibility to maintain trust and integrity in relation to his functions, as laid down by the Public Health Act (1997).
Democratic societies as well as commercial exchanges rest on a cultural infrastructure of trust and integrity that has been built up over the centuries. Dr Taylor’s recent statements in relation to the E.niten water crisis have undermined that culture of integrity and public trust in the Tasmanian public health system. He should now resign as the Tasmanian Director of Public Health.
Signed:
Dr Andrew Lohrey, Former Speaker of the House of Assembly and Cabinet Minister
Dr David Obendorf, veterinary pathologist working with Pollution Information Tasmania
Show Comments
Comments (17)