Page 1626 - Week 08 - Thursday, 28 September 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Yet they have had a month to prepare it, a month at least. In fact, they have had longer; they have had more than six months because this matter was in our policy and this press release went out to the media during our campaign. Labor members have produced absolutely no reasoning whatever; all they come up with are emotive and attacking terms. They had the opportunity to present this debate to the public over the last month and they had the opportunity to come in here and debate it appropriately with evidence. Instead, they have gone away and used their froth and bubble tactics and then used their influence with their own members in the Federal Parliament to come out and get it.
I must say I am delighted to support Dr Kinloch's motion, but not to support the amendment because I believe that now that we have the situation as it should be, the status quo with nature, it is quite appropriate that this matter can be looked into and the evidence that is available to us can be brought to light. I have no fear at all that, if the evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of returning fluoride to the water, Dr Kinloch will approach his own party and go through our procedures for changing our policy. If our party is prepared to change its policy, then he will be prepared to change his stance and the Rally in turn will be prepared to change its stance. So the methodology does exist. However, we had the mandate to implement our policies and we have had the guts to do it. We will continue to do that with all our policies. I hope that the Labor Party emulates that with some of its policies.
MR DUBY (12.53): Mr Speaker, I wish to speak against this motion. I think it is fairly obvious from what we have seen today and the last couple of days that people in this Assembly have made up their minds on the issue of fluoridation. There have been more inquiries into fluoridation than Dr Kinloch has had hot dinners, and the simple fact is that having another one, investigating all the facts, as this motion proposes, is simply nothing more than a waste of time. In the time that this motion was on the floor of the house, members have had ample time to look into the facts of fluoridation. There have been, as I said, numerous documented inquiries, and reports have been published many, many times.
Our having a detailed examination of the issues is not going to shed any further light on the issue whatsoever. The real test of what will happen will be some six or so years down the track. We will know then if we have made a mistake in turning the water off. There will be a lot of rotten teeth in town. We have made our decision; we shall stick with it. I think that to have a further inquiry now is absolutely foolhardy and a waste of time. Accordingly I oppose the motion.
Question put:
That the amendment (Mr Whalan's) be agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .