Page 1772 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 18 October 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Let us have a look at the track record of fluoride in Canberra. The suggestion in certain media outlets was that debate was not allowed; that the people who were affected by this matter were not given the opportunity to discuss it. But let us have a look at the truth and let me take you back 25 years ago to just before fluoride was forced into the water supply in Canberra. There was debate and there were calls for the matter to be put to referendum. Instead of the matter being put to the people of Canberra, instead of it being allowed to be put to referendum, Doug Anthony made an administrative decision through the week-end to introduce fluoride to the water supply of Canberra. That is how it got here.
The people were not given the chance to talk about the matter. The ACT Pure Water Association, I am well aware, has been trying to have this matter brought before the people who are concerned by it for approximately two years, with fairly scant result in the media, unfortunately.
Then we had a Bill presented in the house by Mr Prowse. The presentation speech was read at that time by Mr Prowse and then the matter lay on the table for one month. During the time that that matter lay on the table for a month there were great attempts to get this matter fully reported in the media. At that time it was discussed with various members. Information, books, et cetera, were given to all members in this Assembly on the matter of fluoride. There was great discussion. The Australian Dental Association hired a lobbyist or a lobbying company for, I believe, some tens of thousands of dollars, and they went to work lobbying various members in this Assembly and people elsewhere.
The people who were concerned about the truth of the matter coming out also invited people up from Melbourne and they had the opportunity to speak to members of this Assembly. Some took that opportunity and others did not. After a month, when there was plenty of time to discuss the matter, it was brought up in this Assembly. It was debated all day. The members of the Labor Party made the suggestion, which was not correct, that there had been no allowance for public debate. There had been allowance; unfortunately, the public were not necessarily given the opportunity to have the debate they wanted.
I think it is atrocious that this Bill should be forced through in this manner. It is absolutely not okay that debate not be allowed because, as you are well aware, there are people who wish to debate the matter.
DR KINLOCH (10.46): I voted yes on the matter of the urgency because I believe that the people of Canberra regard this as an urgent matter. That does not presuppose any particular judgment. I just believe that it is a crucial matter for the Territory.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .