Page 2040 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 25 October 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Yesterday the Canberra Chronicle released the result of a survey it conducted. In all, 888 people responded to the survey, and 64 per cent of those people did not want fluoride. It could have been 80 per cent, it could have been 40 per cent, it could have been 30 per cent. Does it matter? The fact of the matter is there are people out there - and I suggest it is a very large population and more than a large majority, but that can be debated - who when they have a drink of water do not want to take in the chemical, sodium fluoride.
I suggest to the house that we, the 17 members here who are responsible in a lot of cases for people's welfare, and certainly in this issue because we pass the Bills, give the people of Canberra the right to choose. We should give them the opportunity to not be unfairly treated here, particularly those people who would come within the sphere of social justice, the disadvantaged, the elderly and so on. They should have this right.
I have talked about fluoride long and hard recently, and did not necessarily want to get up today and do it again. It has been suggested to me that it might not be politically expedient to do that, that some people might be sick of hearing about it, and I would agree with that because I am fairly sick of talking about it myself. But I feel strongly about things, I believe that we should have justice, I believe that we should look at both sides of the scale. If we are going to say that we should fluoridate, we should also say that those people who do not want that should have the right to say no. We forced it upon them, we should give them the wherewithal by supplying filters to those people who ask, and give them the opportunity not to take in sodium fluoride.
DR KINLOCH (11.35): Mr Speaker, I would like to ask Mr Berry a question in relation to this matter. I would be curious to know whether the cost of a filter would be recoverable from Medicare. The question of filters is a matter of individual conscience, is it not? I wish to be most careful about this. I wonder whether organisations such as St Vincent de Paul, the Smith Family and the Salvation Army might be willing to consider requests for support from people in conditions of poverty who felt strongly that this was affecting their health.
I think one has got to put one's own position on the line here. If, and I want to say this personally, any member of the Society of Friends who was needy, who absolutely could not afford the filter and whose doctor indicated that there was a health problem related to the water came to me and asked whether I could help him financially to buy such a filter, I would undertake to do so. I would undertake to do so, however, not knowing whether such a filter is efficient or inefficient or useful or not useful, but I would not want anyone who felt this way to feel without help.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .