Page 2741 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 13 August 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The advice of the engineers is that the existing equipment cannot guarantee that it can dose at a half a part per million. Mr Prowse says that "within acceptable tolerances" means that it might be around about a half a part per million, but a bit higher. But the advice of the engineers is that, in order to dose at half a milligram per litre, new equipment will be required.
If you go ahead and make it the law in this Territory that ACTEW is committing a criminal offence, with a penalty on each occasion of $50,000, if it puts fluoride in the water supply at greater than half a part per million, or half a milligram per litre or whatever it is, an offence will have been committed, attracting a penalty of $50,000, if it can be shown that there was 0.50001 milligrams, or anything above 0.5. What you are proposing is that it be an offence for ACTEW to put fluoride in the water supply above half a part per million.
You are told by engineers that the existing equipment does not allow us to say with accuracy that we are putting it in at that half a part per million. It is an offence to drive a motor vehicle above a certain blood alcohol limit. It is no defence to say, "Well, it is a bit of a tolerance thing that I was over .05".
Mr Prowse: You are wrong.
MR CONNOLLY: Mr Prowse says, "You are wrong". I am not wrong, Mr Prowse. You are creating a criminal offence of putting fluoride in the water supply at greater than a specific amount, whatever the amount is. I support one part per million; you support a half a part per million. Your proposal is that it is an offence to add fluoride to the water supply at greater than a half a part per million.
You are told by the engineers that the existing equipment does not allow us to say with certainty that we are within the tolerance. In other words, Mr Prowse, the existing equipment does not allow ACTEW to know whether, from day to day, they are obeying the law or disobeying the law.
Mr Jensen: Therefore, they are against the law now. Are they breaking the law now, Mr Connolly?
MR CONNOLLY: No, Mr Jensen, because their existing equipment is designed to put it in at one part per million.
Mr Duby: Not exceeding.
MR CONNOLLY: Yes, not exceeding; so it may be a bit under.
Mr Duby: It might be 0.7.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .