Page 2742 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 13 August 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR CONNOLLY: It may indeed. Mr Duby is quite right; it may well be under, but they can guarantee that it is not over. That is what the equipment is designed to do. They tell us that it can do it and I have no reason to doubt that. But they tell us that the existing equipment cannot guarantee that it is going in at the proposed new legal limit.
If you want to create a criminal offence that puts a major ACT statutory authority in a position where it does not know whether it is complying with the law, and in a fairly emotive field where there are any number of anti-fluoride advocates around the town who would be quite happy to test on any given day what the water fluoride levels are, be it on your own heads.
Mr Berry has brought this information to the Assembly, very shortly after it came to his notice. We are in a position where you are proposing an amendment to the criminal law. This is a criminal offence, attracting a substantial penalty. There is a high level of uncertainty. Mr Berry has given you an alternative wording that would allow your political point to be made to get fluoride levels down, but it would be done in such a way that you would not be putting the Electricity and Water Authority in a position where on any given day it is at risk of being in breach of the criminal law.
As a responsible Minister, I do not want to be in a position where a major statutory authority under my direction does not know from day to day whether it is complying with the law of this Assembly or not complying with the law of this Assembly. And it would not know because, as it has told the Assembly, its monitoring equipment cannot determine, within acceptable tolerances - in other words, cannot determine with any certainty - whether it would be within the law or not.
Mr Prowse told us about acceptable tolerances. When it comes to a point of law there is no acceptable tolerance. If the law says that it is an offence to put something in the water supply at greater than half a part per million, it is an offence. And, if the equipment puts it in at a half a part per million plus a little bit more, within acceptable engineering tolerances, it is still an offence. That is your fundamental problem.
If you want to go ahead tonight, if this Assembly wants to carry on in that fashion, it will be the laughing-stock of Australia once again. We in the Australian Labor Party think that would be a very sad set of circumstances. I am pleased to see that the responsible members of the Liberal Party also think that would be a sad set of circumstances. But, if the rest of you want to do that, be it on your own heads. You have been warned.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .