Page 1779 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 18 October 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
day-to-day water system. I will therefore vote against the motion as before, but for that reason, let it be understood.
I think there are also civil liberties arguments, and our committee will also address those. I repeat that I voted yes on the question of urgency because I believe it is a matter of urgency for the people of Queanbeyan and Canberra that that matter be resolved. I am trying to act as impartially and objectively as possible. I am no way departing from my Residents Rally colleagues, as you will see when I vote later. I do not dissent from my previous vote on the matter, but I would not want that vote to be misinterpreted or misunderstood.
I am not voting in some simple-minded way against fluoride, a naturally occurring substance with proven value in some respects at certain safe levels of delivery. I am voting - and I want to stress this - as a member of the Social Policy Committee who wishes it to be known that I am in no way prejudging the issue of what that committee will decide is the very best thing to do for Canberrans, for New South Welshpersons, and for Australians in connection with fluoride.
I respect the cautious comments made this morning on the ABC by the chairman of the committee, Mr Bill Wood. He was in a difficult position, as anyone is when faced with an interviewer. The tenor of his remarks is to say to the people of Canberra and of the nation that he will be trying to be as objective as possible on such a complex issue. He refrained from referring to other members of the committee except by a passing reference which was not identified.
He will be voting today to keep fluoride in the water. I respect his right to vote that way and I do not determine from Bill's vote that he will or will not conclude to recommend the same by the middle of next year. I respect Bill, his chairmanship and his determination to be as objective as possible. Similarly, in voting today for what I now regard as an immediate status quo, I am not saying what will be the conclusions of that committee next year. That remains to be seen. We are looking for the most excellent support of scientific evidence around the country and, if necessary, elsewhere. Similarly, I wish to promise that I will join him in a profound determination to be as objective as possible on all the issues before us. We will, I know, seek the best possible and the most competent advice obtainable both from within and, if necessary, from outside Australia, and I refer again to Scandinavia and Holland.
It is too important a matter to do otherwise and I would particularly hope - I lay this before the Assembly and ask for support in this matter - that we appoint to the Social Policy Committee at least one impartial public servant with expertise in scientific method. I do not mean a chemist necessarily but at least one person who, above all, is there to help us in these difficult technical matters.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .