Page 2829 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 14 August 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
majority of the members of that committee. Clearly, that committee had the opportunity to look at all the arguments, the ones that have been raised here again and again, and to come to a conclusion. If their conclusion is a compromise, then that is the nature of politics. Often things are achieved as a compromise and sometimes that is better. Occasionally, a compromise winds up without achieving anything. But in this particular instance the compromise happens to fit very well within the possible benefits and costs associated with using fluoride.
It is sad that some people have turned this into a black and white issue. The reality for most of us who look at it from a rational point of view is that there is clear evidence to show that there is a benefit to children as far as their teeth go. But there is also a great deal of evidence to suggest that we should look at the level of fluoridation in the water supply.
A number of members have spoken since this debate started about the effect that this may have on children and how we should have concern for the children in our community. When I look around I see that the impact of fluoride is most pronounced in very young children. In fact I am the only member who has children of that age at the moment and I take this matter very seriously, of course, as anybody would. I understand that all members take it very seriously. So, we need to determine very carefully what our stance should be. If I believe that the benefits will still accrue by halving the amount of fluoride we have in the water but that the risks will be minimised, then that is a logical and rational stance to take. It is not just a political compromise.
The letter that was tabled last night by Mr Berry raises some questions. Quite clearly, there are specific answers to specific questions. The fact that the Government has brought this matter on as executive business again after we were still sitting at 11.15 last night - clearly, most members were working on other issues earlier today - makes me think it is a strategy, and nothing other than a strategy, to try to prevent us having enough time to assess the other possibilities of this issue.
Mr Berry: It has to be done this week. It runs out on 31 August.
MR MOORE: The interjection is that it has to be done this week. It is still possible for us to change the date tomorrow, should we need to. An extra day would have been nice, considering that we finished at 11.15 last night. It is worth drawing attention to the fact that, although Googong Dam can supply the 50 per cent level without any difficulties, the Stromlo water treatment plant can only dose at 0.5 milligrams within acceptable tolerances at high flows. That being the case, it is important that members of the Assembly consider ways that we can achieve the goal, other than just accepting the proposed amendment that Mr Berry circulated.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .