Page 2840 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 14 August 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
coded messages. The question of the codes is rather more than that; it is differences within that NHMRC committee and actual quotations which I read to you yesterday where clearly there are worries about what the overall conclusions may or may not be.
I would say thank you to ACTEW for several reasons. ACTEW gave a submission to the committee. Paul McGrath, an excellent man, came before the committee. There was a long piece of testimony from him. In that testimony he talked about the machinery. It has nothing to do with 0.5 or one or nothing, but he made the point that at some time soon there would have to be $300,000 spent to upgrade the machinery. That is nothing to do with what we are now talking about. Some of that is reflected in the report.
Mr Berry, I think rightly in his context, raised the question of section 65 of the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act. I was concerned about that and therefore sought careful, professional, independent and, dare I say, non-political advice and was assured that the particular amendment moved did not offend against section 65. I was most anxious to know that and I am very grateful to the people who helped me.
Finally on that matter, I would like to join Mr Collaery in thanking the Law Office for the help that they have given; help wherever it has been asked, in the terms in which it has been asked for each party which has asked it. They have acted most properly and in the best traditions of the public service.
I worry a lot about one aspect of Mr Berry's original amendment because it seemed to me that it would put off a decision. I do not want to go into that now. I only want to argue for this new amendment and to say that it would not have been good to put things off. We need to decide now. The committee report has been put in. We have argued it. It has been before you. The amendment has been carried.
But there is now a need to implement another committee recommendation. I do not propose that we get into this right now, you will be relieved to hear;, but given that the amount of fluoride is to be reduced to 0.5, then it is very necessary indeed. This is a direct reflection of the NHMRC report. The committee recommended that:
The ACT Government urgently seeks NHMRC funding to establish a major independent study on the effects on dental health of a reduced level of fluoride in the ACT water supply.
Please ask yourselves: Why did the NHMRC report call for further research? They did that formidably and I will not restate those quotes. They did so because they were worried about the level of fluoride in the water. They had this "not proven" kind of judgment.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .