Page 637 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 20 May 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR HUMPHRIES: The fact is, Madam Speaker, that the chairman of the committee, a member of the Labor Party - - -
Mr Kaine: We now have an equivocal Minister.
MR HUMPHRIES: We have an equivocal Minister. The fact is that you recommended that we go to 0.5 parts per million in the report of the committee you chaired, which you supported unanimously. So, it seems to me that we are not the only party that has had some problems of difference of view in the past.
Mr De Domenico: He was wrong then and he is right now.
MR HUMPHRIES: Indeed. He was wrong then, but he is right now. I would support that contention, Madam Speaker. We are doing today, by supporting this Bill, a major service not only to the health of the people of Canberra but also to the health of the reputation of this Assembly. We, as an Assembly, or the Assembly which was first elected in 1989, have suffered severe disrepute in the eyes of the community, and no issue so characterised that poor esteem in which the community held its Assembly as the question of fluoridation of the water supply. It is time we put that issue behind us once and for all by returning to the standard position adopted by most Australian jurisdictions, and that is that the ACT should have fluoride in its water supply at one part per million, for evermore.
MR WOOD (Minister for Education and Training, Minister for the Arts and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (12.22): I am rising to put a matter raised by Mr Humphries into perspective. It is true that I agreed, as did five members of that committee, on 0.5 parts per million. Mr Stevenson could elaborate and point out where he later opposed that in any case. It was a case of getting the best deal he could. He can explain it better than I can.
Mr Stevenson: You do not give me time. Give me time and I will explain it.
MR WOOD: I believe that there is a considerable amount of time yet to be taken up in this debate. Mr Stevenson will not be short of any time to express whatever he wants. The fact has been put here recently, I believe, in this debate, and at other times, that when you put fluoride into your water supply you do not get one part per million. If you aim for one part per million you can get anything from perhaps 0.7 parts per million to 1.3 parts per million, or maybe even a wider variation. I pointed out at the time that I was quite happy to see fluoridation in the water supply - I was very emphatic about that - within a range, as best can be established, of 0.5 parts per million to one part per million.
MR DE DOMENICO (12.24): I rise in support of this Bill because I think it is more than a debate on how much fluoride should be put into the water. I think it is, once again, an opportunity for this Assembly to restore sanity and rid ourselves, once and for all, of some of the things that were done by the last Assembly. I quote from an article in the Australian newspaper of 13 May. The title of this article is "Our Capital Capers". I quote:
The first Legislative Assembly was not impressive. With an odd mixture of inexperienced politicians, it managed to win headlines for such trivia as taking fluoride out of the water - then putting it back in.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .