Stockholm Convention Obligations.
- agentorangechild
- May 1
- 10 min read
Updated: May 11
1st May 2025
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese
Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, Hon. Matt Keogh MP
Secretary, Department of Veterans’ Affairs
Minister for Health, Hon. Mark Butler MP
Secretary, Department of Health and Aged Care
Minister for the Environment, Hon. Tanya Plibersek MP
Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force
Federal Labour Candidate for Capricornia, Emily Mawson
Member for Capricornia, Hon. Michelle Landry MP
Formal Request: Recognition of TCDD Exposure as Unintentional POP under Stockholm Convention Obligations
Dear Ministers & Departmental Representatives,
I am writing to formally request access to information and support in relation to my ongoing health conditions, which are consistent with second-generation exposure to TCDD (dioxin) — a substance internationally classified as an unintentional Persistent Organic Pollutant (POP) under the Stockholm Convention, to which Australia is a party.
As you are aware, Australia has acknowledged TCDD as an unintentional POP in its National Implementation Plans under the Convention and is bound to reduce or eliminate exposure, protect public health, and provide transparency and access to information under Articles 5 and 10. This includes recognising and addressing historical contamination and harm.
My medical specialist has confirmed that I present with multiple chronic and degenerative conditions linked to TCDD exposure, and I am now seeking relevant medical records, environmental data, and departmental acknowledgement to access the care and protection I am entitled to under international law. I also request clear justification if any relevant requests for information or support are being denied.
Australia has a legal and moral obligation to act in accordance with its commitments under the Stockholm Convention. Denying access to critical medical information — particularly where it may extend my life or improve my quality of life — may be in direct contradiction with these obligations.
Please treat this request as urgent and in line with your public health and human rights responsibilities.
Warm Agent Orange Burns regards,
Danielle
The above letter has Criminal & International Law implications for the people I specifically sent it to.
Stockholm Convention, especially the specific responsibilities under Article 5 and Article 10, and how they connect to your situation as a second-generation TCDD-exposed individual.
Article 5 – Measures to Reduce or Eliminate Unintentional Releases
This article requires countries to:
Identify sources of unintentional POPs (like TCDD).
Develop action plans to reduce or eliminate their release.
Promote best available techniques (BAT) and environmental practices to stop future harm.
Address stockpiles and contaminated sites, including those that are a result of historical military or industrial activity.
In your context:
Australia used and stored herbicides containing TCDD during the Vietnam War and may have used them domestically or disposed of them in ways that contaminated the environment.
Children of exposed veterans, like yourself, are victims of historical contamination — an area the Convention says must be addressed.
Article 5 doesn’t allow countries to say, “It was in the past, so we’re not responsible.” In fact, it emphasizes ongoing obligations, especially when harm continues into future generations.
By asking for environmental data and departmental acknowledgment, you’re invoking Australia’s duty to recognize and act on historical sources of TCDD — even if they were “unintentional.”
Article 10 – Public Information, Awareness and Education
This article says parties (including Australia) must ensure that people have access to information about POPs exposure and health risks.
Specifically, governments must:
Promote public awareness of POPs (including risks and preventive measures).
Ensure transparency in their policies, contamination data, and research findings.
Provide public access to health and environmental data, especially for those affected.
Encourage education and training for healthcare professionals to better recognize POPs-related conditions.
In your context:
You have multiple medical conditions that your doctor has linked to TCDD exposure.
You are asking for access to medical and environmental data that may affect your health, quality of life, and ability to seek care.
Article 10 means Australia cannot keep that data hidden, deny it without reason, or obstruct your ability to understand your own exposure.
So when you request:
Departmental acknowledgment,
Access to exposure history, or
Justification for denied claims or data,
You’re asserting a legal right under Article 10, not just making a moral appeal.
Australia’s National Implementation Plan (NIP)
Australia is required to report to the UN on how it is meeting its Stockholm obligations. These reports are public, and they acknowledge that TCDD is an unintentional POP. They also say Australia will:
Monitor emissions and releases,
Address historical contamination, and
Work with health and environmental agencies to reduce harm.
Yet — if Australia is not applying this to TCDD survivors or second-generation victims, it could be in non-compliance with its own stated commitments.
Summary So Far
The Stockholm Convention is legally binding, and Australia is failing to meet its duties if it denies recognition or access to data.
Articles 5 and 10 specifically require action on historic contamination, not just future prevention.
These articles support your demand for transparency, medical data, environmental records, and official acknowledgment.
1. Australia’s Commitment to the Stockholm Convention
Australia ratified the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) in 2004. As a party to the Convention, Australia is obligated to develop and implement a National Implementation Plan (NIP) outlining measures to reduce or eliminate the release of POPs, including unintentional by-products like TCDD .
2. National Action Plan for Addressing Dioxins
To specifically address dioxins, including TCDD, Australia developed the National Action Plan (NAP) for Addressing Dioxins in 2005. This plan, integrated into the NIP, outlines strategies to:
Identify and assess sources of dioxin emissions.
Implement measures to reduce or eliminate releases.
Monitor environmental and human exposure to dioxins.
Promote public awareness and access to information regarding dioxin risks .
3. Monitoring and Research Initiatives
Under the NIP and NAP, Australia has undertaken several initiatives to monitor and research dioxin levels:
Environmental Monitoring: Studies have been conducted to assess dioxin concentrations in air, soil, water, and biota.
Human Exposure Studies: Research has been carried out to evaluate dioxin levels in the Australian population, including in blood and breast milk samples.
Food Safety Assessments: Investigations into dioxin levels in food products to ensure they remain within safe limits .
4. Access to Information and Public Awareness
Consistent with Article 10 of the Stockholm Convention, Australia’s NIP emphasizes the importance of:
Public Access to Information: Ensuring that data on dioxin emissions and exposure are available to the public.
Community Engagement: Involving communities in decision-making processes related to dioxin management.
Education and Training: Providing resources and training to healthcare professionals and the public on the risks associated with dioxin exposure .
5. Implications for Second-Generation Exposure
While the NIP and NAP focus on current and future exposures, the legacy of past dioxin releases, such as those from the use of Agent Orange, has implications for second-generation individuals. The Stockholm Convention and Australia’s NIP recognize the need to:
Address Historical Contamination: Implement remediation strategies for contaminated sites.
Provide Health Support: Offer medical assistance and monitoring for individuals affected by past exposures.
Ensure Transparency: Maintain open communication about historical dioxin use and its long-term effects.
Conclusion
Australia’s NIP under the Stockholm Convention outlines comprehensive strategies to manage and reduce dioxin exposure, including TCDD. These plans underscore the country’s commitment to environmental protection and public health. For individuals experiencing health issues potentially linked to historical dioxin exposure, the NIP provides a framework for seeking information, support, and remediation.
In your case, the Stockholm Convention and Australia’s National Implementation Plans (NIP and NAP) give you a strong legal and ethical foundation for demanding recognition, access to information, and appropriate health support for your second-generation exposure to TCDD (dioxin).
Here’s what this means for you directly:
1. Australia has already acknowledged TCDD as dangerous
TCDD is listed as an unintentional Persistent Organic Pollutant (POP).
Australia admits in its official documents that:
TCDD is toxic, long-lasting, and causes harm to humans and the environment.
It is released through military, industrial, and waste practices.
Even small exposures can cause long-term health damage.
This admission supports your claim that TCDD-related harm is real, acknowledged, and actionable.
2. The government is legally bound to reduce and respond to harm
Under Article 5 of the Stockholm Convention, Australia must:
Take action on historical sources of TCDD — not just prevent future exposure.
Address environmental contamination and protect people’s health.
Investigate and monitor possible exposure routes — including military use like Agent Orange.
Your case involves past exposure with ongoing health consequences, making you entitled to:
Acknowledgment of harm,
Long-term medical monitoring and care, and
Measures to reduce further risk (e.g. support for your children).
3. You have a legal right to access information
Under Article 10 and the NIP, you are entitled to:
Medical records relating to TCDD exposure,
Environmental testing data (e.g. military bases, disposal sites, contaminated water or soil),
Risk assessments of your exposure history,
A clear explanation if the government denies you access to any of the above.
If they withhold or ignore your request, they may be violating international law — especially if it delays or denies you medical care.
4. Australia’s NIP says you should be included
Australia’s official plans say they will:
Engage the public, especially those affected by TCDD,
Educate doctors and the community about the effects of dioxins,
Be transparent about past and present risks.
But you’ve had to fight for answers, recognition, and care — which means Australia is not living up to its commitments. That strengthens your complaint and gives weight to your legal argument in Australia and internationally.
5. Your life and health are tied to government obligations
Your doctor has confirmed that your conditions match those caused by TCDD.
Australia has:
A legal obligation under the Stockholm Convention,
A moral obligation under human rights principles,
And a public health duty under its own NIP.
So denying you care, ignoring your history, or refusing data could be seen as neglect, discrimination, and non-compliance — not just bureaucratic delay.
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), which Australia ratified in 1975. Your letter’s language about access to care, protection, and medical records sits squarely within that framework.
1. Article 12 of ICESCR – The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health
Australia is legally bound to respect, protect, and fulfil your right to health. This includes:
Access to healthcare services without discrimination.
Prevention, treatment, and control of diseases — especially when linked to environmental harm.
Access to essential health-related information — like your exposure risk and toxicology records.
In your case:
By stating in your letter that you are requesting:
Medical records,
Environmental data,
Departmental acknowledgement,
And care “that may extend [your] life or improve [your] quality of life,”
—you are invoking your Article 12 right to both treatment and transparency about the environmental cause of your conditions. Denial of these can be seen as a violation of your fundamental rights.
2. General Comment No. 14 – UN Clarification on Article 12
This UN interpretation makes your case even stronger. It says governments must:
Pay special attention to vulnerable or marginalised groups (like second-generation toxic survivors).
Take action against avoidable environmental health harms.
Ensure the health system is available, accessible, acceptable, and of good quality (the “AAAQ” framework).
Connection to your letter:
Your situation includes:
Confirmed multi-system harm from a known unintentional POP.
Repeated denial of access to treatment and documentation.
A need for urgent care, with risks of life-shortening conditions.
This positions you as a marginalised person whose access to care is being obstructed, giving grounds for international legal action and complaint under ICESCR mechanisms.
3. Australia’s Reporting and Accountability
Australia must regularly report to the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and show how it is fulfilling Article 12. But your experience — documented in your letter — reflects:
A failure to protect and support victims of known environmental contamination.
Lack of transparency about exposure risks.
Ongoing harm from historical government-linked pollution (TCDD).
This suggests Australia is not upholding its ICESCR obligations — and your letter puts them on formal notice of this failure.
4. Connection to Your Request for Urgency
You wrote:
“Please treat this request as urgent and in line with your public health and human rights responsibilities.”
That directly invokes Australia’s duty to act with urgency when someone’s health or life is at risk due to systemic or environmental exposure. Under Article 12, governments must respond rapidly to such situations — not delay, deflect, or ignore them.
Summary: How Your Letter Aligns with ICESCR
Your letter:
Triggers Australia’s legal responsibility to support and protect your health;
Demands access to essential information you are entitled to;
Frames denial as a human rights failure under international law;
Can be used as evidence in future complaints to the UN or international bodies if Australia fails to act.
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), which Australia ratified in 2008. This treaty gives you enforceable rights as a person living with chronic, disabling health conditions that stem from confirmed environmental exposure (TCDD).
1. Article 25 – Health
Article 25 of the CRPD guarantees:
The right to the same range, quality, and standard of health care as others.
Health services specifically needed because of disability.
No discrimination in healthcare.
Early identification and intervention, including environmental causes of disability.
In your case:
Your letter says:
“My medical specialist has confirmed that I present with multiple chronic and degenerative conditions linked to TCDD exposure…”
This directly qualifies you under Article 25. The government is obligated to:
Recognise your disability as a result of toxic exposure,
Provide appropriate diagnosis and treatment,
Ensure equal access to care, and
Not deny you health services because your disability was caused by environmental harm.
Failure to do this is not just bad policy — it’s a violation of your rights under the CRPD.
2. Article 4 – General Obligations
Governments must:
Adopt all measures to ensure full rights of persons with disabilities,
Avoid any acts or practices inconsistent with the Convention, and
Protect individuals from rights violations by government or private actors.
Connection to your letter:
By writing to multiple departments — Health, Veterans’ Affairs, Environment, Defence — you’re saying:
“I am disabled because of state-linked environmental harm, and I am being denied access to records, care, and acknowledgement.”
That puts the state on notice of systemic failure, which under Article 4, the government is legally required to fix — not ignore.
3. Article 31 – Statistics and Data Collection
This article says states must collect data on disabilities and make it available, especially if it helps understand causes or improves services.
Your letter demands:
“Relevant medical records, environmental data, and departmental acknowledgement…”
This is fully supported by Article 31. You’re not asking for special treatment — you’re asking for data that could:
Support diagnosis,
Justify care,
And protect others.
If they fail to give you that, they’re withholding disability-related information in violation of the CRPD.
4. Article 8 – Awareness-Raising
The CRPD also requires states to:
Combat stereotypes and misinformation,
Raise awareness about environmental and systemic causes of disability,
Promote the acceptance of people with disabilities as part of human diversity.
TCDD-exposed second-generation survivors are an invisible disability group. By writing this letter, you are engaging in protected advocacy under Article 8 — and the government must not punish, ignore, or stigmatise you for it.
5. Article 7 – Children with Disabilities
You also refer to ongoing harm to your children. Article 7 gives children with disabilities (including those genetically or developmentally harmed by TCDD) the right to protection and early intervention.
This expands your letter into a multigenerational disability rights case. Failing to recognise or support your children may add another layer of CRPD non-compliance.
Final Word:
Your letter is more than a medical request — it is a formal invocation of your human rights under the CRPD. Australia is legally required to:
Recognise your disability as TCDD-linked,
Provide care and support tailored to that,
Disclose any government-held data about your exposure or health,
And protect your right to live with dignity and access the highest attainable standard of health.
In short you broke me, now fix the system to ensure lives are lived under the laws you say you follow. Being sanctioned under International Human Rights violations is not a good look Australia, and for sitting Ministers & Department Representatives
to be criminally investigated domestically & internationally is life changing and not in a good way.
Comments