Summary:
Published by MAC on 2004-04-05Summary: Workers who showered in and drank contaminated water at the Ranger uranium mine are considering taking legal action. Interview with Chris Prast, Slater & Gordon.
ABC Darwin Radio Program hosted by Richard Margetson
Date: 5 April 2004
Producer Mr Wayne Shields 08 8943 3222
Contact: Tang Lien 08 8363 9990
RICHARD MARGETSON – PRESENTER:
Twelve days ago we heard about the contamination of drinking water at Ranger uranium mine; in fact, we heard about it on this very program. Workers showered and drank the water before the mine was closed down.
This morning on ABC local radio, on 105.7 ABC Darwin, workers who were contaminated spoke for the very first time. They’re not satisfied with the procedures that took place after the contamination, saying they were only told about the extent of the contamination after the mine was shut down.
They’re considering taking legal action and we’ll speak with the law firm representing them in just a minute. But first, let’s hear what one of the workers had to say; his name’s Paul McDonald. He was working casually as a fitter and he drank two to three litres of the contaminated water and in this interview, this is some of it that he spoke about with Julia Christiansen earlier today.
[Excerpt from earlier show]
PAUL McDONALD – FORMER RANGER MINE WORKER: The mine site shut around nine o’clock on the Wednesday; we was told that the water was contaminated but we weren’t told to what extent. We actually read it in the newspaper that it was contaminated with uranium, four hundred times above the accepted level and obviously we all went into a panic then. We stayed … we phoned our boss back in Perth and informed him what was going on.
JULIE CHRISTIANSEN – PRESENTER: So what did the company, ERA, tell you about why they hadn’t informed you sooner?
McDONALD: They apologised. They just basically said that for some reason my three colleagues and myself had actually (indistinct) slipped through the net. I was just very annoyed that nobody had been and told me exactly how serious it was. I just thought the contamination would be probably a little bit (indistinct) or (indistinct) or whatever. I was mortified when I found out it was uranium and another cocktail of acids. The other standing point at the moment too, is that we have not actually been told exactly what contents or what we've actually consumed from the drinking fountain we was at.
CHRISTIANSEN: When were you actually offered medical treatment and/or testing by ERA?
McDONALD: We didn’t see any representative for two and a half days. Like I said, I think it was on the Friday afternoon, we was offered medical treatment then.
CHRISTIANSEN: So did you fly to Perth to get that treatment and testing?
McDONALD: My three colleagues actually live in Perth. Once we realised we were in … what we’d … what we thought we’d been drinking, we was all feeling pretty nauseous and suffering headaches, we wanted to come home in case we deteriorated because we wanted to be near our families.
CHRISTIANSEN: And so did ERA or the contractor who employed you help pay for the travel home?
McDONALD: No, the contractor that employed us sacked us there and then. [End of file excerpt]
MARGETSON: That’s a pretty amazing story from Paul McDonald, one of the workers at Ranger uranium mine who drank contaminated water about twelve days ago. That interview with Julia Christiansen was held on 105.7 earlier today. Later on, on the Territory Radio you would have heard Paul McDonald speaking again as well.
The legal firm representing him is Slater & Gordon. Chris Prast (ph.sp.) is helping to prepare that case; he’s the managing law clerk there. And, Chris, thanks for joining us today.
CHRIS PRAST – SLATER & GORDON: It’s a pleasure.
MARGETSON: That story, which is pretty extensive; they were sent home, they didn’t know what they’d been contaminated with, they flew home to be with their families, they seek medical treatment, they get sacked, they don’t still know exactly what they drank and are waiting for results of medical tests. None of that sounds good, but it makes me wonder where the legal arguments are in that and what you’re planning to do as … for legal representation.
PRAST: Well, it’s very early days in our investigation. Slater & Gordon won’t commence proceedings unless we are confident that they have some reasonable prospects of a decent result. But I must say, in the twenty-six years or so that I’ve been involved in this business, I can’t think of a set of facts that cry out more for some proper compensation. It’s quite extraordinary that workers could go to work and be exposed to water of that kind from a drinking fountain.
MARGETSON: This is what I’m wondering; I’m wondering whether you would approach it if you managed to establish enough facts – and, as you say, you’re still working on that – as an industrial issue or an environmental issue. What would the arguments be?
PRAST: Well, it’s clearly an industrial issue. Clearly, employers in this country have to provide a safe place of work and operators of a mine site have to provide safe facilities for their workers and contractors. And I wouldn’t have thought this water fountain was a safe workplace.
MARGETSON: So the action would come against ERA or the contractor that employed them? Particularly ERA for the safe water?
PRAST: Well, they have two kinds of claim; they have an ordinary workers’ compensation claim against their actual employer, but ERA would seem to be – from the instructions that we have received – the party who’s responsible for the operation of the mine site, and they are the people that we would be looking to for some proper compensation.
MARGETSON: We spoke with representatives of ERA virtually as soon as this story broke on this program and the implication that we got on that day was that everything was very low key, there were very few people who needed to worry about any health issues and that pretty much everything would be back to normal within hours of us speaking. That certainly is not the case. Are you surprised at the way in which ERA have dealt with it as a community and … dealt with the community trying to spread the information that they want to spread?
PRAST: Their response disappoints me but it doesn’t surprise me. It could never be said, I would have thought, that this water was safe. It could never be said that this is fair treatment for people who go to work expecting to be able to come home and sleep at night, not having consumed water that’s clearly dangerous.
MARGETSON: What about the role of the contractor who sacked particularly Paul McDonald on the spot when they left for what they said was medical treatment?
PRAST: Well, although that sort of behaviour, again, disappoints me, they really are only sending workers to a mine site, presumably, that they think will be safe. They’re probably as disappointed as our clients to find out what they’ve been drinking up there.
MARGETSON: When you say your clients, are you representing Paul McDonald, and how many other workers are you representing?
PRAST: We act for three of the people at the moment, three people who come from Perth. And so Slater & Gordon are acting for those three at the moment and I think one of the things to investigate is whether or not there are more people who have been affected in this way and possibly suffered the same or similar complaints to these people.
MARGETSON: Would you want to gather more clients into that base overall as part of you gathering more evidence?
PRAST: Well, not so much gathering more clients, but certainly, if there are people who have something to say about what went on on that day. And in particular, anybody who can give information to Slater & Gordon in Perth about the length of time it took the mine operator to alert the workers on the mine site as to what had happened, that information would be very useful.
MARGETSON: When are you expecting to see information about the results of the medical test?
PRAST: Well, that’s a good question. We wrote on Thursday to ERA and the response we’ve received to date is that they are still investigating it. I’m being hopeful that their investigations wouldn’t take too much longer, it’s a very long wait for these people who’ve consumed this water.
MARGETSON: Are you dealing with just the company, or are you dealing with the Chief Scientist as well?
PRAST: Our contact at the moment is with the company.
MARGETSON: Just for the record, are you doing this as pro bono work or are you actually taking a fee for this?
PRAST: Well, at the moment we haven’t negotiated any arrangement with these people. Our first role in this is to investigate the matter and decide whether or not they do have a case. If they do have a case we will talk to them about our fee arrangement.
MARGETSON: That conversation that we just heard from Paul McDonald, does that sound like a case to you?
PRAST: Certainly Paul is very entitled to feel very disgruntled at the treatment he’s received and there’s an old maxim that says something like that, if there’s a wrong there should be a remedy. And it would sound in this case that there should be a remedy for these people and anybody, in fact, who’s been affected by this water.
MARGETSON: Chris Prast, thanks for joining us.
PRAST: Pleasure.
MARGETSON: Chris Prast is from Slater & Gordon in Perth, the managing law clerk there. They’re representing three people so far who were involved in that contaminated water incident at the ERA Ranger Mine and it sounds like there’s a little bit of legal toing and froing to go yet.