Page 4161 - Week 13 - Thursday, 25 November 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
from the briefing note to a journalist that was signed by the manager, north region or south region. As I said in the letter, this is the sequence of events that we have determined. You can draw from that a different conclusion, but it is not correct. I offered Mrs Carnell the full facts and a briefing. Instead of taking up that offer of a briefing, she has come in here and chosen to trivialise and sensationalise the issue.
Mrs Carnell: With a briefing note signed by your people.
MR CONNOLLY: It is hardly a state secret, Mrs Carnell. It is a note to a journalist. It is a note to a journalist by an official in ACTEW which used loose language and which has not conveyed the full facts. The full facts were conveyed in a letter to you with the offer of a substantial briefing. Instead of taking that substantial briefing, instead of listening to the evidence before drawing your conclusion, you jump to your conclusion.
Mrs Carnell: The evidence is here.
MR CONNOLLY: What a silly thing to say, Mrs Carnell! You, Mrs Carnell, wrote to me asking for the full data. You are trained in scientific method. You were offered the full information. You were offered a full briefing with the relevant engineers and scientists. Instead, you have come into this place to make trivial and sensational allegations, and damaging allegations. Mrs Carnell, I am disappointed in you.
As my statement stands, the full facts were as set out in the brief to you, with the further material that was offered for your briefing. ACTEW did not know that sewage was going into the creek in September. They suspected that it may have been, as was said in the note to you. The advice to the EPS in September - I cannot recall the date, but I think it was the 29th - indicated "seepage (?)" as a possible cause. It is the responsibility of ACTEW to advise EPS of what is going on, or what they think may be going on. It is a matter really for EPS to take further steps and to issue public health warnings if necessary. Public health was not an issue here, as was said in the letter to you, but which you have chosen not to take up briefing on, because these were high nutrient levels, not high bacteriological levels.
Mrs Carnell: And they do not run together at all, do they, Mr Connolly?
MR CONNOLLY: No, they do not, Mrs Carnell. They do not necessarily, in an area where you are taking water samples for a working dairy. Again, if you were serious about this issue you could have taken up the briefings from the environmental scientists and engineers. You do not want to do that. You want to come in here, to cheapen this issue, to sensationalise this issue, and to make silly allegations.
Mrs Carnell: May I table the briefing note, please?
Leave granted.
Mrs Carnell: Thank you very much.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .