Page 1778 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 18 October 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
DR KINLOCH (11.06): Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, I welcome the reference to Edmund Burke, that splendid Irishman from long ago and one of the greatest parliamentary speakers of all time. One obvious overall question on every issue in this Assembly is a simple one: What is in the best interests of the citizens of the ACT? It is that theme which is contained within our daily prayer at the beginning of each of our sessions: "for the true welfare of the people of the Australian Capital Territory".
A related and subsidiary question, no less important, is: what is in the best interests of the nation at large? What Canberra does, other people observe - and that includes, of course, our friends and neighbours in New South Wales, especially our friends across the border in Queanbeyan. These days, as we would all surely agree, there is an even larger question about what is best for the earth at large; that is, the environment at large. An ultimate question, indeed the final question of conscience - to come back to Edmund Burke, and we have not discussed this before - is: what is our spiritual or, if you prefer, our rational and intellectual and conscience-filled duty? That last question would be too much to debate here. That is a matter for each individual member.
Given those questions, the matter of fluoride is very complex and, I believe, deserving of much more time than we have had to give it. The question is, of course, at one level, a matter of dental health. There is very little real doubt about the efficacy of fluoride, howsoever delivered, in cutting down on dental caries. I recognise, as most of us do, the advances made in the past 30 years as a result of the application of fluoride, whether in a city such as Brisbane where it is done one way - that is, by various direct applications of fluoride to the teeth, supported by other health measures - or in a city like Canberra where it is done in another way, including fluoridation of the water supply.
At yet another level, it is a greater question of public health on other issues not necessarily related to teeth. Here, I think, we will need to look at the Scandinavian evidence, the evidence from Holland and other countries. I am not sure that dental science alone can help us answer those questions and, at the level of the nation, the earth and our environment, there are scientific questions about the effect of chemical substances, not merely in municipal water supplies but in our river and lake systems, our world ecosystem.
All those questions need to be addressed. I believe that, where there are such serious questions, the substance under investigation should be suspended from operation while necessary evidence is examined. Consider in the past, for example, such substances as lead, asbestos and chemical pesticides. For that reason, and for that reason alone, I will continue to argue that there should be a cessation, for the moment, in the delivery of fluoride through the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .