Page 72 - Week 01 - Tuesday, 12 February 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
DR KINLOCH (8.53): I would also like to endorse all the comments made about the staff. I could not speak too highly about that. Because others have said it, I will not repeat it. I will say that especially in the last few days we have been aware of how much work has been done.
MR SPEAKER: Dr Kinloch, you turned away from the microphone and possibly you could not be heard, and probably you were not recorded in Hansard. You probably need to repeat what you just said.
DR KINLOCH: I was saying - properly and necessarily - complimentary things about Mrs Judith Henderson and her staff.
I want to insert a point here. Perhaps it should come at another point, but I want to get this in here quickly in case I run out of time. I want, especially, to acknowledge the importance of the NHMRC, the National Health and Medical Research Council. That has been a central body and its reports have been central to our discussions. Its future full report will be a central element for this Legislative Assembly to consider. No matter how many submissions there may have been on which side, or whatever side, we have to recognise that the premier body in Australia in this matter is the NHMRC.
We cannot set ourselves up as a body of experts in contradistinction to that body which is publicly funded - at a very great level of public funding, I might say - to be in the business of making a scientific judgment about the questions which faced us. Thanks to our committee staff as well as to Mr Wood and all members of the committee, we went to very considerable lengths to make sure that we heard all we could from the NHMRC, but there is more yet to be heard.
This may sound self-congratulatory, but I want to say something very special about our committee. We have been working together for a very long time. I want to say to everyone on the committee, including Mr Stevenson, who may be surprised at this, that everyone played an important part. We came to a unanimous decision. I think it would not be a surprise to members of this Assembly to realise the important diplomatic role played by our chairman and deputy chairman.
It has been not only a tremendous learning experience about fluoride, the range of views about fluoride, and the very difficult questions of public health, but also a learning experience in politics, in political discussion, and ways in which reasonable recommendations may be reasonably arrived at, including a dissenting report. In saying that, I also recognise the considerable input to the committee by Mr Stevenson.
At one point in our many hours of discussions, especially after a series of careful and well thought-out statements around the table, I deliberately took the opportunity to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .