Page 1493 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 27 September 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
this Bill has been presented without due consideration for all of its ramifications.
Mr Prowse: We have the numbers in Queanbeyan; we are right.
MR BERRY: The numbers might be okay, Mr Prowse, but the issues have to be considered as well. The people - the people outside of this house - who are serviced by these water supplies have to be considered as well, and that is the reason for this debate.
While the ACT has no legally binding responsibility to supply fluoridated water to the surrounding New South Wales councils, they may have trouble with their own State Government's legislation. We heard on the radio the other morning a dentist from New South Wales who talked about the difference between the children in Queanbeyan who had fluoridated water and those outside of the city area who did not. It is all right to say that that is not a scientifically based study, but the fact of the matter is that there is a lot of division amongst the population about the benefits of fluoride, and it is proper for this place to provide proper access to those people to hear the debate in full - not just one side of it, but both sides of the argument.
That is really what those who rubbish the Labor Government's position on this matter are saying. They do not want the people to hear; they do not want the people to have public information on this issue; they do not want them to hear both sides of the story. What the Labor Government is about is making sure that people in the ACT and the surrounding areas hear both sides of the debate. What is being attempted here is to cut the debate off and make sure that people do not know what number crunchers in this place are up to.
The argument has been put forward that, if people want to fluoridate their children's teeth, there are fluoride toothpastes, fluoride tablets and visits to a dentist where a dentist will administer a concentrated solution of fluoride as necessary. That may well be a valid argument.
Mr Prowse: It is.
MR BERRY: It may well be.
Mr Prowse: It is.
MR BERRY: But I am not sure, Mr Prowse, that the rest of Canberra's population will accept your promise that it is the case. The fact of the matter is that they want to hear from an expert group, and I think the National Health and Medical Research Council would provide that sort of a view in relation to fluoride. I respect your views on the matter as well, but I think that you must accept that the people of the ACT are entitled to hear both sides of the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .