Page 356 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 19 February 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
will do that", or proposed anything of that nature at all. The decision was not political; it was not a compromise. Each of the members had his or her own reasons for the decisions that they took.
For me, and I think certainly in large measure for other members, the reason was predominantly that, with the level of water that we are now consuming from a variety of sources, it simply may not be necessary to have fluoride at the level of one part per million as formerly. Members will know that indeed I had earlier voted for one part per million, and I was quite comfortable with that. I think 0.5 parts per million is also sustainable, given the reason that I indicated. There was no politicking, or bargaining, or anything of that nature as we came to our decision.
Mr Moore: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I seek clarification of that. Dr Kinloch actually used .05. I wonder whether that was actually a mistake on Dr Kinloch's part.
Dr Kinloch: Yes. I am sorry; it was my mistake.
Auditor-General's Report
MR CONNOLLY: My question is to the Chief Minister. I refer the Chief Minister to the article in the Canberra Times of Saturday, 16 February, entitled "Kaine, PS reject auditor's view". Do you believe that it is appropriate for you to so quickly dismiss problems raised by the Auditor-General; and do your comments undermine his authority?
MR KAINE: First of all, Mr Speaker, I made no comment about the matters raised by the Auditor-General. The comment to which I was referring was not a comment made in his report; it was a statement made outside his report, and on a radio station, I believe. There is no relationship between what I said about that part of the Auditor-General's comment and anything that appears in his report.
I think I have made it quite clear that this Government appointed an Auditor-General to do exactly what he has done. I would not jump up as quickly as that if I were you, Mr Connolly, because the Government that you would have belonged to had you been here did nothing about appointing an Auditor-General. We appointed an Auditor-General because we thought that there was a need to review and to report to this Assembly on the activities of the administration that is responsible to this Assembly.
That the Auditor-General has done. He has raised legitimate matters of concern about management matters in some areas. The Government will address those. That was why we appointed him, to do just what he has done. I make no apology for the Government's approach. We will be examining every item that he has raised in his report to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .