Page 1549 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 27 September 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR BERRY: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is, of course, an important issue which should, as I have moved, be referred to the standing committee in its in-principle form. Of course, the Labor Party's position is clear on this matter. We do not have a position in relation to fluoride except that, because it is a matter of public interest, it ought to go to an appropriate standing committee for in-depth consideration. That has been the issue that has been avoided by the opposition throughout this debate. It is important that public attention is focused on the failure of the opposition parties to deliver appropriate consultation on this issue of public importance.
The Residents Rally, which, as has been correctly pointed out by my ministerial colleague Mr Whalan, has long relied on consultation and repeats it over and over again. But it appears that, when it has adopted a policy, it seems to think that it can throw consultation out of the window. That is what it has done in this case - thrown consultation out of the window and ignored the people who elected its members.
The Liberal Party does not have as strong a commitment to consultation as that claimed by the Residents Rally, and I would therefore expect that the Residents Rally would have at least participated in a process which related to consultation. None of them are taking much notice at the moment because they would not want to hear this sort of information - it would be embarrassing for them. They need to be told over and over again, because they seem to be slow learners, that when you are elected on a policy of consultation you are expected to stand up to that electoral commitment.
We have heard this morning a lot of evidence from both sides. In the first place, we heard Mr Humphries very eloquently put the pro case. I think Mr Humphries traversed the whole range of issues that are relevant to the matter and presented it in such a way that it would convince some. Just a little while ago, Mr Prowse, who is very obviously emotionally committed to a no-fluoride outcome, emotionally pursued the case and argued long and strong about the relevant demerits of fluoride. I would have to say, after having listened to it, that I would not have been convinced either way, notwithstanding the eloquence of both cases, because this is not the sort of place where you sit down and argue such a technical case. If you attempt to do that sort of thing and you seek to do it with the intention of delivering a properly considered policy, then you are deluding yourself. This is not the place to deliver properly considered outcomes of such a technical nature.
Other issues were thrown in to cloud the matter. One was that of civil liberties, which came in from Dr Kinloch. Dr Kinloch pursued that with his usual sincerity, but I must say that at the end of it I was no more convinced about the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .