Page 2740 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 13 August 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Collaery made the point quite well. He talked about the equipment breaking down while he was out there. One of the reasons fluoride equipment breaks down so regularly is because of the - - -
Mr Humphries: Because it is toxic.
MR STEVENSON: Well, "toxic" is one word that could be used, Mr Humphries; but you should well know that the correct word is "corrosive". Fluoride is one of the most corrosive agents you can get. It is actually used for metal etching, such is the corrosive factor of it. So, as I said, little credence can be given to Mr Berry's suggestion that it cannot be done. Mr Prowse has indicated clearly the truth of the matter. Indeed, I also agree with a reduction of fluoride in the water supply, down to 0.5 and onwards.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (11.09): Members should be aware of what they are doing here tonight. They are dealing with a provision of the law of this Territory that imposes a very substantial criminal penalty. The Electricity and Water Act was amended by the legislation in 1989 to make it an offence for a body corporate to add a chemical to the water supply and it carries a penalty of $50,000. There was then an exemption to say that that does not apply to the addition of fluoride at a set rate. We are now debating in this amendment whether the rate should be one part per million or a half a part per million.
Mr Stevenson: Or whether it should be there at all, I might suggest.
MR CONNOLLY: No, Mr Stevenson, at the moment we are debating whether it should be at half a part per million. Mr Berry has today tabled a letter from ACTEW engineers. So, the structure of the law is that it is a criminal offence to add anything to the water supply, but not fluoride at half a part per million.
Mr Duby: One part.
MR CONNOLLY: The proposal is that it be half a part per million. The advice that we got today, although I note that it is dated tomorrow, came from ACTEW, from my engineers. Mr Humphries says that he is not an engineer. I am not an engineer. I preside over a department which has lots of engineers. Mr Duby, the former Minister, was not an engineer, and I am sure that he took the same prudent course that I do, and that is that I tend to accept the advice of engineers.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .