I received an email a few weeks ago about an article in the local Broken Hill newspaper that claimed the NSW Environment Protection Agency (EPA) has failed to release a report relating to child blood lead results in a timely fashion.

That has now been followed up with an article in the Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/sep/05/environment-watchdog-buried-report-on-lead-in-childrens-blood-to-placate-mining-companies-emails-show

What is quite clear from the articles is that the EPA is collaborating rather closely with the miners whose operations it is supposed to be monitoring. A degree of cooperation is certainly required, but since the EPA’s role is to monitor and manage the environmental impacts of mining, it seems inappropriate for them to be managing media releases in a way to minimise friction with the miners.

It is an inescapable fact that miners have significant influence on government policies concerning mining or the results of mining, not just because of lobbying and job creation, but also because their operations provide many jobs, and last but not least royalties for the government coffers.

That has unfortunately resulted in government policies that are far more in tune with the mining industry’s publicity requirements than a focus on public safety and health. What makes this situation particularly bad is that the miners, by and large have only one goal, making money, and because of that it’s pretty much a case of anything goes that’s allowed.

When there is a choice between profit and ethical environmental practices, or worker safety, profit rules, even if some effort has to be made in managing government priorities and public expectations.

Nevertheless, governments should be seen to be looking after the public interest as well, and while pollution control efforts overall have been less than successful, the government’s efforts in Broken Hill, in the reduction of child exposure to lead has been better than average. I say this comparing Broken Hill to Mount Isa and Port Pirie, which isn’t as great as it could be, but it is better.

I’d like to talk briefly about efforts that are being made to reduce the public health impact of the mining operations in Broken Hill. There are two 2 NSW government departments directly involved in managing the monitoring and abatement of child lead exposure in Broken Hill, Health and Public Works,

The lead abatement program is headed by Gavin Priestley and it’s role is lead exposure abatement. This program has been quite successful in achieving a significant reduction in apparent child blood lead levels in Broken Hill. The measure of successful abatement is falling child blood lead levels and that appears to have in fact happened, at least until recently, which likely prompted the EPA to withhold testing information.

You have to understand that lead pollution in Broken HIll is not only due to the present mining of lead-rich ores and the extensive lead-rich dust that can produce, but Broken Hill also has the legacy of extensive slag heaps from smelting activity in the past, before smelting was moved to Port Pirie.

There is lead dust in houses, in ceiling spaces, in yards and playgrounds, basically everywhere and slag heaps in the middle of the town. There is also lead paint dust from pre-1970s-built houses that are often used for social housing.

There is no place in Broken Hill where a child can play without coming into contact with some lead-containing dust Regardless of the best efforts of the lead abatement group, some exposure is inevitable, and this will result in a baseline average blood lead level that is still well above what you would see in an area away from lead ore deposits.

The Health Department blood lead group is headed by Priscilla Stanley, and the role of the group is to organize and maintain the blood testing programs for children. These could certainly be considered as almost adequate when compared to the efforts by Queensland Health in Mount Isa, as this program has been ensuring that a significant percentage of Broken Hill children are tested each year. But the lack of a timely release of results is worrying from the viewpoint of what else is being hidden.

The EPA obviously has a role in ensuring that lead pollution is kept at manageable levels. Their role “ought” to be monitoring mining operations and invoking controls if and when needed as environmental guidelines are exceeded. Instead, they have been exposed as managing public information to the miner’s benefit. How can they do their job if they are in bed with the miners, with the enemy? Then there are the minor peccadillos like a dust monitor that has been lying on the ground, indicating that the monitoring of the dust monitors is at best slipshod.

Despite extensive monitoring of blood lead levels, and the obvious reduction of lead exposure, the dirty fact remains that Broken Hill is a heavily lead-polluted city. There is a practical limit to the degree of exposure abatement that can be achieved, and despite monitoring of blood lead levels in younger children, that has simply confirmed there is a limit to what can be achieved in the face of the inevitable exposure to lead in the city.

So what is next?

Not a lot really. The local member, Roy Butler states that he has a deep interest in ensuring the safety of children in Broken Hill, but the concern at this stage seems limited to passing the buck to government agencies, who in turn pass the buck to expert panels that may or may not exist. While I concede that the Public Works department may not have or need much lead expertise, I am nearly certain that NSW Health lacks any apparent current expertise. I would be pleased to be found wrong, but I’m not hopeful.

I used the word corrupted in the title of this blog and that’s not a trivial claim. Then again, my idea of corruption changed pretty radically after a stay in Jakarta, where I was informed that there was minor corruption where government officials received some sort of benefit for allowing themselves to be steered in various directions, and major corruption where the government officials (and politicians) disappear the total funding for a project, that is, they don’t just get a cut of the action, they take it all.

There is the form of corruption which is seen quite frequently as politicians and public servants leave public service and get well-paying jobs in the industry they favoured with their decisions in government. That also goes for getting well paid jobs in university departments funded by the mining industry. I’ve seen this too often myself. It doesn’t say much for the moral character of these people, but that’s only my opinion because we all need to keep food on the table.

Then again, I’m simple-minded. I think the Public service ought to be about service of the public. The pay is adequate and the superannuation benefits are pretty good. I know real life is more complicated, but when I see public officials looking the other way because they’ve been persuaded to, I get a bit pissed off.

We can’t afford to forget that people have egos as well and are often easily influenced by making them feel important. Then again, I remember the story of city councilor who was given free access to a property developer’s yacht. No money changed hands, so was it corruption?

I’ve been involved in a particularly sordid (in my opinion) case concerning what was New Zealand’s one and only oil refinery and the case is worth discussing when it comes to talking about corruption.

The refinery was first established because the government of the day decided it was essential as a strategic resource. I believe that was an astute decision, but what followed illustrates quite nicely what corruption can achieve. The building of the refinery was flawed as not enough money was invested in the refinery. As a result, the distillate produced had such a poor octane rating that refinery management decided they had no choice but to add extra lead additives to produce a fuel with an acceptable octane rating. Safety procedures were largely ignored resulting in severe lead-poisoning of some refinery employees who were handling the additives. An unfortunate side-consequence was the much heavier lead pollution along roadways all over New Zealand, but particularly in the larger cities.

The eventual cost to the people of New Zealand, to their society, will be immense. As a footnote, I can’t help pointing out that New Zealanders were duped into shutting the refinery down by the oil companies because it apparently wasn’t economically viable. That was New Zealand’s only chance to avoid energy starvation in the event of unpleasantries affecting the delivery of petroleum products from Singapore. It also meant the loss of a superior quality bitumen which they no longer get.

Back to leaded petrol. Despite some concern from department of Health officers, the senior administrators in the department didn’t view lead pollution as a serious problem. After all, New Zealand has enough wind to dilute the lead and blow it away. It may be hard to decide if this was an example of abject ignorance or corruption, but the association between the senior administrators and the company supplying the lead additives does tend to suggest the latter.

When government officials make decisions that are absolutely against the public interest we do have to deal with the debate about whether it’s ignorance or corruption. We also need to be aware that a job in politics is about juggling priorities which may not be apparent to the public.

Sorry, I’m wandering.

In Australia, miners have a lot of influence on governments, and while I would hope that Australia has higher standards than some African nations, we do have some indications.

Glencore was heavily fined for bribery and corruption spanning a decade, paying over $100 million in bribes to foreign officials in Africa and South America to secure oil contracts, avoid audits, and gain business advantages, with payments often disguised through sham consulting fees and intermediaries. Regardless of whether that’s the way you have to do business there, it does provide a measure of the corporate culture of whatever it takes.

It would be foolish of me to suggest Glencore would undertake anything like that in Australia, since simply announcing mass job losses is quite enough to get the government’s interest. But the point I’m trying to make is that mining provides influence at multiple levels. Where else in the world does a government subsidise the extraction of valuable resources by reducing the amount of royalties paid to the Australian people?

Influence also makes mining companies relatively immune to some types of government regulatory attention. One example that springs to mind is the monitoring of lead ore dust levels in Townsville harbour when ore is being loaded on to bulk carriers. There is a sophisticated XRF dust monitor on the other side of the water opposite the Glencore loading area.
It provides a near real-time readout of dust levels and composition. Ships are normally loaded in the early morning before stronger sea breezes are blowing, and the dust monitor indicates lead dust levels well above the allowable limit during the 2 hour loading time. Luckily for Glencore, the dust levels are averaged over 24 hours so everything looks fine on the daily chart.

But they aren’t fine. 90 years of loading activity has left parts of Townsville heavily polluted with lead ore dust, with lead ore dust detected over a wide area and even on children’s playground equipment. I spoke with the captain of one of the bulk loaders operating out of Townsville and he told me how his ship was left grey with ore dust that they had to wash off after leaving harbour.

Queensland’s excuse for an EPA, the Department of the Environment, Tourism, Science and Innovation (DETSI) doesn’t appear to have a problem with this.

It’s probably unfair to just point the finger at DETSI since other government departments (eg Health) also seem to be blind when it comes to lead exposure. The Health Department in particular, no longer publishes notifiable lead numbers, no longer actively monitors or reports child blood lead levels in Mount Isa, and responds to embarrassing questions by blocking senders (me) at their mail server.

It’s quite obvious that from a government viewpoint, lead exposure, whether due to mining activities, leaded petrol residue or older houses painted with lead paint is largely ignored.

I lodged a complaint with the Queensland Health Ombudsman about the Health Department avoiding any meaningful discussions about their failures with regard to dealing with the effects of lead exposure. I was told the lack of communication was due to government, not departmental policy.

And there you are. Lead poisoning has negative effects on the health sector, education and justice (lead-poisoned young adults are more like to be incarcerated) but the official response is we don’t talk about that.

I could ask what they are hiding, but I know the answer. Past and present sins?