Page 2828 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 14 August 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR HUMPHRIES: Indeed, there are heavy penalties to pay. Those members, of course, under normal circumstances abide by those rules. Just to address one point, the suggestion has been raised that because an inaccurate version of that policy convention decision was issued members are, in fact, bound by the inaccurate version of that issued policy. I want members to note that the document I have tabled, which sets out the policy of the party, is dated and was issued by the divisional office of the Liberal Party on 14 August 1991, which, of course, is today's date.
MR MOORE (4.51): This issue, Mr Deputy Speaker, for a long time has raised strong arguments on both sides. In fact, there is such a mass of information to go through that it is not difficult to understand why the community is so divided and why there is so much difference of opinion within the Assembly. Contrary to what Mr Humphries says - that there is absolutely no scientific reason for going for 0.5 - in fact there are quite good reasons for establishing 0.5 as a base level rather than going for one milligram per litre or one part per million as it is often described.
When fluoride was added originally to the water there was a fairly arbitrary decision to put in one part per million. Where you have evidence that some harm could possibly occur by action that we are taking, then it is appropriate to bring the level back to a level where it is much less likely to cause any harm. I do not accept the arguments put up by Mr Stevenson and Mr Prowse, who say, "This is a terrible poison and therefore we cannot take it". There are many situations where we do take things that are clearly poisonous to us.
Mr Prowse: Not against your will.
MR MOORE: If you take enough sugar, you will die. Of course, even more often people drink alcohol. Mr Prowse interjects, "Not against your will". Of course, he raises by that the civil liberties issue. This was dealt with very well by the Standing Committee on Social Policy in its inquiry into water fluoridation in the ACT. It reported in January 1991. The civil liberties issues are set out on pages 106, 107 and 108, and a little bit further on. The conclusions they draw at that point balance the risk against the benefit. The working group they refer to of the NHMRC considered the risk benefit evaluation of water fluoridation at about one part per million and also considered a series of things that are set out in that report. The report that we have is a very detailed and very comprehensive study of all the arguments of the matter we are discussing.
There are additional comments and a dissenting report by Mr Stevenson in the appendix to that report. Anybody who wishes to has the ability to read the very detailed dissenting report by Mr Stevenson - dare I say, an enthusiastic dissenting report - and the report of the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .