Page 1613 - Week 08 - Thursday, 28 September 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
if they have them, of the anti-fluoridationists. I must assume that is the real purpose of it.
Is Ms Maher going to change her opinion tomorrow? Are Mr Stevenson, Mrs Nolan, or Dr Kinloch? Am I, as the fifth member of that committee, going to change my opinion? I have read quite an amount of scientific evidence. I have been satisfied with that scientific evidence. The National Health and Medical Research Council is a most reputable body; it has made its assessments and I have accepted that. It was said many times yesterday that this is an emotional issue. Indeed it is, and the mere fact that it is an emotional issue is going to make it so much more difficult for those five people to change any mind. We will be sitting down, we will hear mountains of evidence, but where do we get the objectivity?
If it goes to a committee - and no-one will deny that we need to further explore these issues; indeed, I think we need to explore them so that the weight of evidence does come through - perhaps we should have some sort of impartial committee if that is possible, perhaps from the Labor Party. Mr Wood or Mr Berry might go on the committee; Mr Humphries or Mr Kaine from the Liberals; Dr Kinloch I would be satisfied with from the Rally, or Mr Moore. Who from the others - Mr Duby, Ms Maher? I think we ought to go beyond the Social Policy Committee and try to find people who may bend their views as the weight of the scientific evidence becomes apparent.
Those names I read out would, on yesterday's vote, give a two to two vote. That is why I picked those names. But I do not think that simply referring it to the Social Policy Committee is going to see this go the way it ought to go. I value what happens in that Social Policy Committee, and I do not want to see a divisive issue like this disturbing the good work that that committee has been undertaking.
Mr Jensen: You wanted it to go there yesterday, did you not?
MR WOOD: Yes, ahead of time.
Mr Jensen: But you were not worried about divisiveness yesterday?
MR WOOD: The divisiveness came when people voted yesterday. You did not understand what went on yesterday. That is when the divisiveness came, when we got a vote of four to one. Dr Kinloch says that he wants neutral ground, neutral circumstances. The word "neutral" was used. Mr Stevenson, Dr Kinloch, Ms Maher, do you see that it is neutral ground as we go into this matter?
Ms Maher: No.
MR WOOD: I cannot see that it does. I agree with you, Ms Maher, and thank you for your point. It is not neutral
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .