Coroner & Legal
Resumption of the Court of The People of Tasmania
WITNESS EVIDENCE
Interrogatories – Part 2
ROLE — PROSECUTOR
PROSECUTOR:
CLIVE MALCOLM STOTT I remind you that you are still a sworn witness, as you resume your evidence.
Following on from your given reasons for establishing a web site, I will ask you some more specific questions.
1. Now would you please tell the jury about what you say are the “serious health problems” you suffer? If, after a brief explanation, you prefer to refer the jurors to where these are documented, that is permissible.
2. You say your “serious health problems” occurred as a result of the pollution from forest industry burns. How are you sure these burns did occur on the dates you specify?
3. How is it that you can be definite the burns were forestry industry burns?
4. You allege that the pollution you claim occurred was in the form of smoke. What evidence do you have to demonstrate that?
5. If, as you say the burns did occur, how do you verify that the pollution/smoke from those burns caused your illnesses?
6. Other than yourself, do you know of any other witnesses to the specific burns to which you refer?
PROSECUTOR:
Referring to your previous evidence, a) About me you told the ladies and gentlemen of the jury that you believe you are well qualified to speak with authority about the harmful effects of polluting smoke.
Now, Mr STOTT, could you please tell the jury
1. If, with your knowledge and experience in dealing with your poor health, you are now able to successfully manage and thus prevent the health troubles associated with particle pollution?
2. Does the advice received from the various authorities you nominate, assist you in the struggle to maintain a healthy breathing schedule?
PROSECUTOR:
When I asked you about your item b) headed Could you live like this? you told the jury that you wanted people to know just how your life and body had been affected by being forced to breathe the residue or rubbish from plantation activities.
Mr STOTT, would you now please tell the jury if, other than the serious health problems you have already detailed, are there other life problems you have suffered as a result of the pollution?
PROSECUTOR:
Mr STOTT, when I asked you about your item c) headed Environment’s answer you told the jury that you consider the state Environment Division’s claim that it “is working to address air, noise and water pollution issues” as nonsense.
Can you now please tell the jury if you attempted to raise your concern that the Department was NOT working to address air, noise and water pollution issues, with the defendant and Minister responsible, Ms. Michelle O’BYRNE?
PROSECUTOR:
Mr STOTT, in your response to my question about d) Parks & Wildlife Planned burns you told the jury of world experts’ confirmation of the wide-ranging effects. You reminded the jury that the defendant, Minister O’BYRNE has responsibility for Parks & Wildlife hence your claim she is to blame for the consequences of the toxic smoke on your health and well-being.
Could you please tell the court if, to your knowledge the defendant and Minister responsible, Ms. Michelle O’BYRNE accepts, or accepted as the case may be, that she — as you say “has the responsibility for Parks and Wildlife creating some of it, and our air quality?”
PROSECUTOR:
Mr STOTT, in your reply to my question about e) Forest Industry’s answer you said Forest Industries’ self-governance “is not working in this state”.
Will you please explain to the jury what you mean by your claim that Forest Industries are self-governed?
PROSECUTOR:
In your answer to my question about f) Photos you told the jury that these images indicate “how deliberate and careless the forest industry can be when they light smoky burns at a time when wind directions are forecast to push this smoke to populated areas.”
Mr STOTT, will you now please tell the jury who took these photos and can that person or persons testify they were taken on the days you specify?
PROSECUTOR:
In relation to your item g) Health Department’s Answer you categorised the State Health Department as inept (my word not yours) for its hands-off approach to the health problems connected to the said burns.
Mr STOTT,
1. I note the scan of your discovered document relating to this has no reference to the Tasmanian Department of Health. How can the jury be sure of the source of this document?
2. Would you please explain to the jury what you see as the difference in the Health Department (DHHS) general warning to Tasmanians, and Dr. Roscoe Taylor’s (DHHS) direct response to you?
3. Are you able to provide a source reference to your statement that “The World Health Organisation claims there is no safe level of fine particle pollution”?
PROSECUTOR:
In relation to your item h) Air Quality Monitoring you told the jury of specific weaknesses and shortcomings in the current management of this monitoring.
Mr STOTT, would you now please tell the jury
1. If it has ever been explained to you why is it not possible to publish up-to-date Air Quality readings?
2. If the readings are so outdated, what do you understand is the benefit of publishing them on the web site months later?
3. To your knowledge, are the readings available to the public from any other source at an earlier date?
4. To your knowledge, why is the monitoring of the air quality not performed independently of the Tasmanian Government, “who own Forestry Tasmania and support other private forest industries?”
5. Why you say there are deficiencies in the monitoring practices if the high concentrations of forestry smoke only surpassed two PM10 National Air Quality Standards per year?
6. Why you have quoted the defendant, Ms. O’BYRNE in this web page and to which you referred in your discovered documents. You use that quote in the context of your claim that “Tasmanian’s are not getting the air quality monitoring they rightly deserve because….” For the benefit of the jury, can you explain in a few words what you understand the defendant Minister O’BYRNE was then saying?
PROSECUTOR:
Mr STOTT, when answering my question relating to your item i) Is Smoke Dangerous you told the jury that the Environment Department’s website confirms “the harmful substances in woodsmoke.” In reference to your web- page revelations of “the travel distance for the two sizes of particles that are measured to determine our air quality” you believe a lot of people will be shocked when they read this.
Will you now please explain your statement to the jury that you believe “Many people would get a shock when they read this?”
PROSECUTOR:
Mr STOTT, in responding to my question relating to your item j) Asthma Foundation you tell of your attempts to dissuade others from supporting the foundation until it is prepared to call for an end to plantation burning. You say its policies are contrary to those of the WHO.
Will you now please tell the jury
1. If you have been notified of any reasons why Asthma Foundation Tasmania (AFT) do not lobby to prevent forestry plantation burning?
2. Why you say AFT “are snubbing” the World Health Organisation (WHO)?
PROSECUTOR:
Mr STOTT, in responding to my question relating to your item k) Peaceful Demonstration you admitted that you discharged a smoke flare at the defendant O’BYRNE’S electoral office and you told the court that this action came about as a result of the Minister’s refusal to meet with you, in order that you could discuss your health problems with her.
Now, I realise you have covered this in your discovered documents, but as a reminder to the jury,
1. Could you tell the court of the outcome to you of discharging the smoke flare at defendant O’BYRNE’S office?
2. How did you feel about this outcome as per your answer to my question k) 1. above?
PROSECUTOR:
In relation to your item l) Correspondence your discovered list is comprehensive.
Mr STOTT, would you please tell the jury if there are any specific documents in that discovery to which you wish to draw particular attention, and if so why?
PROSECUTOR:
Referring to your item m) Links, Mr STOTT, could you please tell the jury of any specific links that you believe are important for their better understanding of the evidence in this trial?
If it please your Honour.