Page 73 - Week 01 - Tuesday, 12 February 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
make what I hope will not be seen now - as I hope it was not seen then - to be a patronising comment. It is certainly not for me to do that; I am not a scientist. The levels of debate and discussion in the 100 per cent real world of our committee were very high indeed. I have 30 to 35 years' experience of other kinds of discussions, often academic, often about things that have already happened and are in the past. We were dealing with real issues in our committee rooms in this building and in Brisbane, or wherever we went. I just want to say that I was enormously impressed.
Just as much, the levels of good temper and control, although sorely tested, were a credit to every member of the committee, under Mr Wood and Mrs Nolan. Mr Stevenson again may be surprised to hear me say this, but we are indebted to him for his good temper and often his good humour. I also believe that we did not let partisan considerations of a political kind get in our way. I read a report in the paper which seemed to suggest, "The ALP thinks this, the Liberals think that, and the Residents Rally think that". Those were not considerations in our committee, were they, Mr Wood? Were they, Mrs Nolan? They were not. There were new kinds of partisanship. You could say that those areas of partisanship were to do with the arguments about fluoride, but there was no straight political agenda within our committee.
I now want to come to the reputation of our Assembly. Much nonsense has flowed under the bridges of Canberra on this issue, from columnists, editorialists, journalists and cartoonists. They had a great time with us and we grinned with our gleaming and healthy teeth and we bore it, and we continue to bear it. I now want to say as strongly and unequivocally as I can that we have done well by the people of Canberra. I believe that it was right that we set up this committee. The work that we have done, we have done carefully. There is now no doubt at all in my mind - although not in Mr Stevenson's mind - that the dental health of all children benefits from the use of fluoride, including fluoride added to the water supply; but we have been wise to recognise the need to do two things at once. I think this is absolutely central and I endorse what Mr Wood has said about that. It is essential to do two things at once: To maximise the benefits and minimise the risks of fluoride.
The way we arrived at the 0.5 level was exactly through that process. We did not arrive at it suddenly. We went through many processes before that: We took much evidence, we looked at much material, we had much debate, and finally, unanimously, we agreed. There are benefits and there are risks. We moved to a more effective point at 0.5 instead of one part per million.
Furthermore, I believe that one of the very best things we have achieved is to lead to the recommendations in relation to paragraph 10.136. It is a brief recommendation. You
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .