Page 4553 - Week 15 - Thursday, 22 November 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR DUBY: Yes, that is a point. Like most of the other members of this Assembly, I am not a member of the committee which is investigating the fluoride issue.
Mr Wood: Most thoroughly.
MR DUBY: Most thoroughly, as Mr Wood has said. I know that both Mr Prowse and Mr Stevenson feel very strongly about the report that is going to come down in the new year about these very matters which have been raised. Nevertheless, the members of the committee which is investigating fluoride have taken a decision, I believe, in committee, to bring this report down at the date that was originally specified. I think that is the appropriate place for that decision to be made. It should be made by the people who have examined the issue and looked at the pros and cons of a whole range of things. They should decide whether the report should go ahead or be deferred. I feel that trying to overturn a committee reporting decision by bringing the matter before the Assembly is, frankly, a foolish course of action to adopt. I will not be supporting Mr Stevenson's request.
DR KINLOCH (5.57): Mr Deputy Speaker, I would want to express considerable respect for Mr Stevenson and Mr Prowse for being greatly concerned about the matter. That is their right. I am glad that in the Assembly we have people who do care a lot about issues that are important. All members of the committee are well aware that the NHMRC report is an interim report. From discussion with individual members of the committee, it is clear that we would be very anxious to make those same proper and careful qualifications that the NHMRC itself makes.
I do recognise the point made about Professor Douglas. I would note, however, that Professor Douglas is party to the interim report and I take it that he will be party to the eventual report. It could well be that it will be useful for us to consult with Professor Douglas in the next few days. I did talk to him on an earlier occasion. We certainly would not want to see him saying one thing in one place and another in another place. He would not want that. But if you could read the attachments from the NHMRC and the letters related to the NHMRC report that we have looked at you would see that there is very great caution taken. I do not believe that we will be bringing down a report that will not be aware of the need for ongoing monitoring, as the American authorities and the Australian authorities both say. We will be saying the same thing. I hope that you can leave it in our hands not to produce a report that would endanger us as a body.
MR MOORE (5.59): Mr Deputy Speaker, I get so few opportunities to agree with Mr Duby that I thought I had better just come in here and say that this is the time and that if, in fact, people wish to disagree with the committee the time is after it makes its report. There is plenty of room for debate in the Assembly then. This sort
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .