Page 1617 - Week 08 - Thursday, 28 September 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
newspaper. The point is quite properly drawn in relation to the public stand which the Residents Rally party consistently has taken in demanding consultation. That was graphically described as baiting in this very sort of thin-skinned approach that the Residents Rally party has to politics. They like to throw the mud at other people, but when they are questioned on their motives, on their approach to things, they all of a sudden get very sensitive.
When the public reaction reached the crescendo that it did today, they all of a sudden rushed into this place like the wimps that they are, seeking to change the decision which was made yesterday when they twice refused to give the people of Canberra - let me remind you once again, they twice refused; good old Hector, you twice voted against it - the opportunity to be consulted on this. Then they expect us to give them some credibility today. Michael Moore voted twice against it yesterday, then he comes into the chamber today and seeks to have exactly the same provision raised on a matter which is dear to his heart - prostitution. It highlights the inconsistency.
I think I mentioned the level playing field argument, Hector. This is one that I find quite intriguing. Let us destroy it, clear the field, demolish the whole thing and then you have got your level playing field. For a pacifist, I would have thought that you might have adopted a different approach altogether. Indeed I urge you to reconsider your position. I have no doubt that, given your open mind on these sorts of matters, you will be prepared to reconsider your position.
You will not be prostituting your policy on fluoride. In fact, you will be pursuing the interests of that because you will have the opportunity to put forward all this magnificent information which Mr Collaery claimed on ABC radio today - none of which was produced during the debate yesterday, I might say, Mr Speaker - all this wonderful information upon which you made your decision as a party grouping within the closed circles of your political party. You made your decision in that context.
Mr Collaery told the public of Canberra via ABC radio today that that involved consideration of an enormous amount of scientific material. But how much did Mr Collaery contribute to yesterday's debate? He contributed not one piece of evidence at all. He came into this chamber and all he could do was laugh and joke as his contribution to the policy on fluoride. He made no significant contribution whatsoever.
Mr Moore: I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker.
MR WHALAN: Could we stop the clock please, Mr Speaker, while this point of order is heard? This is just a tactic to deny me time to speak.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .