Page 2737 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 13 August 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
ELECTRICITY AND WATER (AMENDMENT) BILL 1991
[COGNATE BILL AND STANDING COMMITTEE REPORT:
WATER SUPPLY (CHEMICAL TREATMENT) (REPEAL) BILL 1991
SOCIAL POLICY - STANDING COMMITTEE - REPORT ON WATER FLUORIDATION]
Consideration resumed.
MR COLLAERY (10.57): I am indebted to Mr Berry. The amendment circulated by Mr Berry is obviously the result of advice from the Parliamentary Counsel on what a proper wording would be. That does not overcome the fact that the Government would be left without pressure on it on the important issue of whether the equipment at Stromlo at this stage is safe for the community. We have received no advice from Mr Berry to confirm that the equipment is out of date. It is not until this debate that I have chosen to talk about my experience of going to that place and watching the ancient operation of having that stuff drop into the water and break down whilst I was standing there.
So, I think we defer to advice, as far as I am concerned, if the amendment moved by Dr Kinloch does engage section 65 - if Mr Berry is correct in implying to the house that the Law Office's advice is that section 65 is engaged; because he has taken us by surprise. I happen to have my section 65 brief here, but it is an inch thick and we should have had an hour or so over the dinner break to consider this issue. There was some very equivocal wording from Mr Berry in his statement. If Mr Berry's advice is that he cannot, without spending $200,000 of public moneys, reduce the dosage rate, then we must defer to the existing interpretation of section 65, in my view.
Mr Berry: It is up to your consciences, not mine. We are happy with our interpretation of it.
MR COLLAERY: Mr Berry indicates to the house that he is not standing by his reference to section 65.
Mr Berry: No, I am asking what you will do with your conscience.
MR COLLAERY: I am not going to give any credit to Mr Berry's further statement, other than to conclude by saying that the letter relates that "ACTEW have written to ACT Health Services re funding of necessary equipment". That is an issue, of course, that we can take up in another forum in the Assembly in terms of the minor works budget of Mr Duby's former department. I think it is incumbent on Mr Berry not to play a smart alec role tonight and drop it on us, but to give us clear advice as to how quickly this equipment could be installed, and at what cost, to provide the minimum machinery necessary to safely reduce the dosage. I believe that Mr Berry needs to speak to that issue.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .