Page 639 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 20 May 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The NHMRC were equally concerned when in 1989 they received a letter from a group of doctors - Drs Diesendorf, Sutton and Colquhoun. They were concerned because their recommendation at that stage was that one part per million of fluoride was the appropriate level in reticulated water supplies. Accompanying the letter from Dr Diesendorf and others was a document entitled "A Summary of the Scientific Evidence that the Benefits of Water Fluoridation Have Been Greatly Exaggerated". The NHMRC were concerned about this; so they set up a working party.
This working party, with a number of the most eminent doctors and others and professors in Australia, looked at Dr Diesendorf's submission and other comments. Over the next two years they looked at a number of issues. First of all, they looked at the historical studies related to water fluoridation and the critique of those studies contained in Dr Diesendorf's submission. The working party affirmed - as I say, after two years of intense work - that the clear weight of evidence was that water fluoridation was effective in substantially reducing the occurrence of dental caries.
MADAM SPEAKER: Mrs Carnell, I am sorry to interrupt you; but it is 12.30 pm, and in accordance with standing order 77 as amended the debate has to be interrupted.
Sitting suspended from 12.30 to 2.30 pm
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Chief Minister's Staff
MR KAINE: I address a question to the Chief Minister and Treasurer. The Chief Minister and Treasurer has spent a lot of time over the last year talking about reducing staff numbers in the public service, a program of reduction by 250 people and a reduction of budgetary expenditure on government. On a number of occasions she has spoken at length about the Government's program in this respect. I ask the Chief Minister: How does that fit with the fact that her own staff has increased by 200 per cent in the last eight months in terms of SES level officers, whose perks now include cars, I understand, although they did not previously? What is the cost to the Executive budget of this increase in her staff as compared to the original annual provision? What are all these people doing, since they are supplemented by specific consultancies that the Chief Minister's office has let as well? What are all these people doing, given the blank paper we have in our hands that stands as the alleged program of work of this Government?
MS FOLLETT: Madam Speaker, I would like to address the last, or close to the last, point that Mr Kaine has raised. I currently have no consultancies to my office; indeed, it has been the very rare occasion upon which I have used consultants.
Mr Kaine: That is interesting. That is not consistent with the answers that you have given me to questions on notice.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .