|
An ongoing investigation by the Socialist Equality Party |
|
Return to Record of the Workers Inquiry The Workers Inquiry and David Gilmour On June 20, 1997, just over four weeks before the Workers Inquiry, the Committee for a Workers Inquiry addressed a letter to David Gilmour, the chairperson of Illawarra Residents Against Toxic Environments (IRATE), inviting him to testify at the inquiry. Both the letter of the Committee and David Gilmour's reply are appended below. The issues raised by the exchange of correspondence between the Workers Inquiry and David Gilmour are of fundamental importance not only for the Workers Inquiry but the working class as a whole. When the Committee for a Workers Inquiry wrote to Gilmour on June 20 its members did so because, as IRATE chairperson and as a member of the Steering Committee appointed to produce the Illawarra Public Health Unit's leukaemia report, he had access to information and material that was vital to unravelling the leukaemia and cancer crisis and the years of official whitewash. The Committee invited him to testify at the Workers Inquiry on three matters: (1) a reported phone call received by the Health Unit's director Dr Victoria Westley-Wise from NSW Premier Carr demanding to know why the Health Unit was making a submission to a government inquiry on the reopening of the Port Kembla copper smelter. (2) any information to which Gilmour was privy on the functioning of the government-appointed Steering Committee, and in particular the part played by the Carr government itself and certain members of the Steering Committee, such as BHP, the NSW Environment Protection Agency and WorkSafe. (3) the evidence assembled by residents, scientists and lawyers for a legal challenge to the smelter decision. On the very eve of the court case, the Carr government had passed special legislation to block the case. It did so to prevent the release of damaging documents and other material showing that the levels of toxic emissions from the reopened smelter would far exceed the government's claims. The Workers Inquiry provided a means of answering Carr's assault on basic democratic rights. It was a public platform for the release of this vital material, as well as for lifting the lid on the manoeuvres of the Carr government and the Health Unit. As the Committee's letter stated, Gilmour's testimony could provide a damning exposure of the fraud of the entire smelter inquiry process and the real relations between big business, the Labor government and the Health Unit. The Committee's invitation was not conditional on any agreement with the Socialist Equality Party's policies. The Workers Inquiry was open to all. If he so desired, Gilmour could have given his testimony and stated his opposition to the SEP's views. The Committee simply asked him to speak publicly about what he knew of the ongoing coverup of the growing health crisis by the Labor government and the Health Unit. He chose not to do so. Instead he has strenuously defended the Health Unit's report, which has protected BHP, the past and present owners of the copper smelter, such as Rio Tinto, and other Port Kembla polluters. 'Sacrificing the truth'In explaining his reasons for declining to testify, Gilmour states: "I do not believe that the motivation behind the Workers Inquiry is for the good of the community but is more for the advancement of the Socialist Equality Party and it's [sic] ideologies. I believe that because of this motivation the objective, of getting to the truth, will be sacrificed in order to promote the Socialist Equality Parties [sic] political platform." A number of vital questions are raised. How is the truth to be established in a society where there are conflicting class interests? How did the Workers Inquiry expose the years of coverup of the leukaemia and cancer crisis? Has the political program of the SEP been a barrier? Ascertaining the truth on any crucial issue means clearing away the myths and deceptions used by the ruling circles to camouflage the pursuit of their profit interests at the expense of the mass of ordinary people. As Lenin once observed, to expect social science to be impartial in class society is as naive as to expect impartiality from the employers on whether workers' wages ought to be raised by decreasing profits. Writing at the turn of the century, he reported there was a well-known saying that if geometrical axioms affected economic interests, attempts would certainly be made to refute them. In the Workers Inquiry, establishing the truth was not a question of simply assembling facts. It was a continuous political battle against the various agencies, such as the Health Unit, the EPA, the Cancer Council, the trade unions and the state Labor government, which have worked for years to bury the evidence of the cancer crisis and suffocate every struggle by concerned workers and residents. On that basis, the Workers Inquiry was able to reveal, through information supplied by steelworkers, that BHP rigged the benzene monitoring results by temporarily turning down coke ovens emissions and halting the burning of wastes. It also forced the Cancer Council to release long-withheld postcode cancer figures showing that the government and the health authorities had known for years of a two-decade pattern showing far higher levels of leukaemias and cancers near the Port Kembla smokestacks. At every point, the Workers Inquiry has based itself on fighting for the independent needs and interests of the working class, irrespective of the impact on the corporate bottom line. Unlike the government and its regulatory agencies, the Workers Inquiry has no vested interest in shielding the major companies. What is the relationship between this approach and the political perspective of the SEP, which initiated the Workers Inquiry? It is very open and very direct. Our program seeks the ending of the domination of society by the profit system and a wealthy minority. It calls for the creation of a genuine democracy in which the majority of people are, for the first time, able to control the direction of society, including production, armed with accurate information. The SEP stands for the formation of a workers' government, one that is not just for the workers but by and of the working class -- a society in which the state would not stand above and separate from the majority of people but in which they would fully participate. In other words, we fight for the establishment of a socialist world in which the working people themselves organise production and society as a whole in the interests of all. This program is based on exposing the deceptions of the government and corporate sector, laying bare the intimate relations between them and providing workers and youth with the knowledge and political understanding they need to completely reshape society. In other words, it is based, at the most fundamental level, on revealing the truth. BHP, Rio Tinto and the like, on the other hand, have a definite reason for suppressing the truth: the establishment of the link between industrial pollution and cancers will cost them billions of dollars in compensation and modifications to their production methods. While Gilmour readily accuses the SEP
of sacrificing the truth, he has no hesitation in sitting alongside
BHP and all the government agencies which have protected its
operations for decades. It should be noted that Gilmour not only defends the presence of BHP -- one of the prime suspects in the leukaemia crisis -- on the Steering Committee but also claims that the company did not have overriding control of the outcome. The Workers Inquiry demonstrated that BHP very much controlled the Steering Committee report's outcome. BHP supplied the benzene estimates and back-dated "modelling" of past benzene emissions upon which the entire report hinged. Moreover, the company which supposedly "audited" BHP's figures, Holmes Air Sciences (the same firm which produced the Carr government's sulphur dioxide emission calculations for the copper smelter), admitted that it works for BHP and is seeking to continue doing so. Gilmour was part of a committee that accepted such domination by BHP as a matter of course. The company's representative on the Steering Committee would not have had to overtly dictate its findings -- the entire project was designed to exonerate BHP. The right to disagreeGilmour's next reason for refusing to testify is that the SEP has publicly stated a disagreement with IRATE. In fact, Gilmour declares that the SEP and Workers News have no right to criticise IRATE. He writes: "Because we choose to fight our protest in a method that is different to yours, does not give you the right to denigrate our actions." Although he does not identify the "attack" to which he is referring, Gilmour is referring to the July 11, 1997 editorial in Workers News entitled "The Workers Inquiry: the political issues". There, we stated that: "the leaders of groups such as Illawarra Residents Against Toxic Emissions (IRATE) have continued to promote the poisonous illusion that action within the official framework can pressure the authorities to change course." Let us deal first with the claim that we have "no right" to make our differences plain. A basic issue of democracy is raised here. Is it not an elementary democratic right to publicly state one's considered opinion?
In the July 11 editorial we reviewed some bitter experiences of the working class. We drew out that in so far as workers and residents had been confined to the "official channels" -- including agencies such as the EPA and WorkSafe, "consultative committees" and the trade unions -- they had been bureaucratically straitjacketed and politically suffocated. We explained: "The real purpose of these organisations is not to defend the interests of working people. It is to ensure that the elemental strivings of the working class for decent living and working conditions and for a healthy social environment are bureaucratically smothered. "Moreover, to the extent that workers understand that their basic demands are continually threatened by the operations of the profit system, the various regulatory organisations work to ensure that this understanding never assumes the form of an independent political program." The issue is not whether protests, lobbies or even court challenges should be organised, but what perspective must guide these activities. If the aim is to convince the authorities to change course, then the inevitable outcome will be the wearing down and demoralisation of those taking part. If, on the other hand, such activities are part of a broader campaign, then they can play an important role in developing an informed, politically-aware and militant movement of the working class as a whole. And the more such a movement develops, challenging at every stage the legitimacy of the so-called official bodies and exposing their role, the more the independent needs of workers and residents will be asserted, increasingly demonstrating the capacity of working people to re-organise society. A question of methodGilmour raises the following question: "Who is to say that your method is the only method." In doing so, he calls into question the very possibility of drawing any lessons from past experiences or establishing any truth in the field of politics. He appeals to a commonly held prejudice that in politics one should "live and let live". To use an analogy, what would one say in any field of science if it was asserted that one method is just as good as any other? Science would not be able to proceed. No research institute would allow a scientist to conduct potentially fatal experiments with complete disregard for what science had already demonstrated. For the working class, such conceptions are equally dangerous in the field of politics. How can workers and residents find a way forward except by learning from the past struggles, setbacks, defeats and occasional partial victories? The science of politics may not be as exact as the physical sciences but nonetheless it must be based on historical experience. Consider the test of events surrounding the Workers Inquiry. The SEP was able to warn from the outset that the Health Unit report was going to be a whitewash. Our analysis was not based on speculation as to the intentions of Health Unit officials but on an understanding of the essential role of such government agencies, proven over decades: that of facilitating the operations of the major corporations. Every development over the past 11 months has verified the correctness of that assessment. As the evidence presented at the Workers Inquiry revealed in detail, the Health Unit constructed an "investigation" to arrive at two pre-arranged conclusions: that no cause could be found for the leukaemias and BHP was innocent. Gilmour's admission that Carr made a "please explain" phone call to Westley-Wise on the copper smelter issue also confirms the role of the Health Unit. Carr had been told in no uncertain terms by the copper smelter consortium that it would abandon the project unless all opposition was silenced. That was why he called Westley-Wise and why his government shut down the court challenge. According to Gilmour, the Health Unit's submission went ahead unaltered. That submission, however, did not oppose the reopening of the smelter. The Health Unit's position was summarised as follows by the copper smelter Commissioners of Inquiry: "The Illawarra Public Health Unit supports the proposed upgrade of SCL's smelter and refinery". Community groupsGilmour next accuses the SEP of assailing community groups: "It is actions such as the attack you pose on community groups that only serves to weaken the strength of the community as a whole." Let us make it clear. We have not denounced community groups. We have opposed the conception promoted by certain IRATE leaders, and taken into practice by David Gilmour by volunteering for the Steering Committee, that residents and workers must be confined to the official institutions. In recent years groups of residents have sprung up on many fronts to fight the dangers to their health and environment. To a large extent they have emerged because residents and workers have been utterly betrayed by the Labor and union organisations. Our criticisms are directed at strengthening the struggles of these groups by providing a clear program and direction -- one based on rejecting the dictates of the profit system. By contrast, it is the path advocated by the IRATE leadership which weakens these groups -- by subordinating their independent activity to the very structures which have been established to stifle them. Gilmour refers to the "community as a whole". In reality, the "community" consists of divergent and opposed tendencies. The needs and interests of the great majority -- ordinary workers and their families -- are continually in conflict with the profit demands of the major companies, whether it be on wages and working conditions, social welfare or health and safety. The term "community" is often adopted by politicians, media commentators and boardroom chiefs to disguise these fundamental class antagonisms. Over recent years BHP has provided a classic example. The more viciously it has eliminated jobs and destroyed conditions, the more it has portrayed itself as a concerned member of the "community". In the early 1980s, for instance, as it axed thousands of jobs, it sponsored a rugby league team -- the Illawarra Steelers -- as a means of diverting workers' hostility. For Gilmour the "community as a whole" includes not only BHP, but other business interests, the Labor-controlled city council, government agencies and the trade unions -- the very forces which have conspired together for years to hide the cancer crisis. He was an active member of the Health Unit's Community Reference Group, whose report echoed that of the Steering Committee. The group's primary recommendation was the formation of a permanent government-funded "community-controlled" group to work with governments and health authorities. This "community" group would invite representatives of business, government agencies and Wollongong Council to participate in its work. And its finances would inevitably depend on the political services it provided to the government. Perhaps Gilmour would prefer that IRATE became such an officially-sanctioned safety valve. 'Realistic process'All the issues in Gilmour's letter are summed up in the penultimate paragraph. Gilmour writes: "You may criticise our actions of following the processes to be but until a more realistic process is introduced this is all we have to go on." In the first place, the so-called "realistic" process of seeking change through the official apparatus has proven to be the most unrealistic of all. The lessons from the Carr government's suppression of the copper smelter challenge, via the passage of draconian, anti-democratic legislation supported by every single Labor and Coalition MP, must be drawn. This government and its agencies will stop at nothing to suppress the truth and quash any opposition to the dictates of the corporate boardrooms. Again, the issue is not the taking of legal action per se, but the question of perspective. Whatever use may have to be made of the legal process, its deliberations are not in the end decisive. What is decisive is the emergence of the working class as an independent factor, asserting its interests -- those of the majority -- against those of the profit system. This is the course charted by the Workers Inquiry. Gilmour's phrase, "until a more realistic process is introduced," expresses the basic conception that nothing can change through the independent action of the working class. Instead, workers must wait for someone else -- someone in authority -- to "introduce" a "more realistic process". In essence, change must be approved by the very forces whose drive for profit is destroying workers' health and lives. The Workers Inquiry has demonstrated that the only "realistic" processes for halting the destruction of lives and health involve the working class taking matters into its own hands. Through the combined efforts of workers,
residents, victims' families and professional people, who gathered
evidence, prepared submissions and actively participated in the
public hearings, the Workers Inquiry has uncovered the truth
about the link between industrial pollution and cancers. We are confident that through this experience and many others in the coming period, millions of working people will begin to draw informed conclusions about the nature of the present economic and political order and how to go about overturning it in order to organise society along socialist lines to meet their basic needs. Letter from the Workers Inquiry to David Gilmour June 20, 1997 Dear David, It has been reported to us by two sources that the Illawarra Public Health Unit's director, Victoria Westley-Wise, was personally admonished by Premier Carr last year for raising any suggestion of opposition to the reopening of the copper smelter. It was also reported that you were aware of this. Are these reports true? If so, they provide a damning picture of the Labor government and reveal the real relations between the government and the Health Unit. This information is vital for the working class. It demonstrates the utter fraud of the supposed inquiry process which rubberstamped the smelter's reopening. It also demolishes the government's claims to be concerned in any way with the health of residents. In addition, it raises obvious questions about the Health Unit's leukaemia investigation. Doesn't it indicate that the government will have similarly intervened to determine the outcome of that inquiry as well? Has this happened? As a member of the steering committee for the Health Unit's investigation have you been privy to other information which sheds further light on these issues? What information do you have on the functioning of the Health Unit, the government's role and the part played by steering committee members such as BHP, the EPA and WorkSafe? Much of the evidence prepared for the copper smelter legal challenge has now been suppressed by the Carr government's extinguishment of all rights of appeal. Through your involvement in the case on behalf of IRATE do you have access to this material? It is crucial that all the testimony and evidence from the smelter case now be made known to the public at the Workers Inquiry, to answer Carr's action and to expose the official coverup of the growing health crisis. We invite you to testify at the Workers Inquiry, which will be held on July 19 and 20, in relation to the above matters. Please contact us at the earliest opportunity. Yours sincerely, Mike Head for the Committee David Gilmour's replyJuly 15, 1997 To the committee, Upon receipt of your letter dated June 20 1997, I have given much consideration to your request that I testify at the Workers Inquiry. My response is that I am not prepared to testify. My reasons for not testifying are basic and simple. I do not believe that the motivation behind the Workers Inquiry is for the good of the community but is more for the advancement of the Socialist Equality Party and it's ideologies. I believe that because of this motivation that the objective, of getting to the truth, will be sacrificed in order to promote the Socialist Equality Parties political platform. I find it very annoying that for many months the IRATE group has been sharing and providing the Socialist Equality Party with every piece of information that we have uncovered. We have invited your group to speak at public meetings organised by us. Yet the only gratitude that we get from you is an attack in your publication, the Workers News. Because we choose to fight our protest in a method that is different to yours, does not give you the right to denigrate our actions. Who is to say that your method is the only method. It is actions such as the attacks you pose on community groups that only serve to weaken the strength of the community as a whole. Remind yourself of one thing, most community groups are formed due to an action that pushes them into action. We gain no rewards for our efforts nor do we expect any rewards. Initially our group believed that we were all fighting the same fight for equity and justice. With the passage of time it has become apparent that this sentiment is not shared by your group. We have had discussions within our group and have decided that as a group we will no longer support the efforts of the Socialist Equality Party. We have not restricted, nor will we ever restrict, the right of the individual members to support your cause. To answer the questions you posed in your letter: 1. Yes! I was aware that Victoria Westley-Wise had received a phone call about her submission to the Modification of the Consent Conditions to Southern Copper as a please explain. The fact is the submission was still made and was not altered. 2. As a member of the Steering Committee, I can only say that the process was not impeded by any government intervention and I believe that this is evident from the fact that the recommendations were accepted by the government. The underlying intention of these recommendations is to continue trying to find the cause of the cluster and to improve the monitoring of the health and environment in our area. BHP involvement in the committee did not have overriding control of the outcome of the report. The EPA was a strong advocate of testing all the information gathered on the monitoring of Benzene. I will also add that the dedication of the Community Conference Report to Melissa Cristiano was at the request of the community and approval was sought from both her husband and mother. 3. No I do not have access to all the evidence that was prepared for Helen Hamilton's legal challenge but we are trying to gain access. You may criticise our action of following the processes to be but until a more realistic process is introduced this is all we have to go on. In closing, I would like to wish the Workers Inquiry all the success in its endeavours and I hope that whatever factual leads that are uncovered are used for the good of the community as a whole. Yours faithfully, David Gilmour |