Page 1622 - Week 08 - Thursday, 28 September 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR BERRY: Well, I will tell you what I was doing for a month. Part of what I was doing was trying to summon some good sense from the opposition parties about referring this matter to a committee before the decision was made so that all of the evidence could come out in the open and so that the public of Canberra could hear the debate and know what was happening in their Assembly. But, no, Residents Rally members decided that they would do without the public consultation process and the Liberals decided to do without the public consultation process as well.
I must say that the irony of this morning's press is amusing at least, when we see the most senior Liberal person in the ACT critical of Liberal Party members in this place because of the lack of public consultation on this issue. I think that all of the members of this Assembly who opposed that public consultation not once, not twice, but three times yesterday, you will all recall, ought to be ashamed of themselves. Of course now the people of Canberra are a wake-up to this.
I think what we need to do to bring some sense back into the debate, to ensure that some rational consideration comes back into the debate, is to consider closely the issue which has been raised by my colleague Mr Whalan in moving the amendment to the motion. I think that, if that amendment is supported, then we are truly back to a level playing field; we are back to the status quo where we should have stayed. Then we can properly and rationally consider this issue instead of having the hypocrisy that has been demonstrated in this whole debate. I call on members of the Assembly to demonstrate a bit of good sense on the issue and support the amendment.
MS MAHER (12.38): Mr Speaker, while there is any doubt about any harmful side effects from the intake of any substance, you should not have it. So why not turn off fluoride until it can be proved that it is safe?
MR STEVENSON (12.39): Mr Speaker, now that the people of Canberra, after a quarter of a century, are no longer being medicated by the drug fluoride every time they turn their taps on, I welcome an inquiry. The inquiry will look at the effect of fluoride on public health and mass medication and civil liberties. This will be the first such inquiry in Australia. There have been two inquiries in Australia, but they certainly did not look at those matters. The first was in Tasmania in 1968 and the second was in 1979-80 in Victoria, the Victorian study being the senior study. Unfortunately, the evidence would show that the decision by those inquiries was predetermined - - -
Mr Berry: Did they not agree with you?
MR STEVENSON: What they did not agree with, Wayne, was the evidence presented. Let me give you an example, which you would not look at although I tried for days to get you to look at it. The first evidence that was rather vital was
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .