Page 2041 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 25 October 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
As a member of the Social Policy Committee - I speak, I hope, for all of us - I would want it to be clear that we must be as objective as possible on this matter of fluoride. We have a report due on 31 May. Until that report is put forward and this Assembly has accepted it and possibly voted on it, I would not want to enter into any further discussion about whether it is good, bad or indifferent or whatever. I believe it is a matter about which we should all be seen to be objective. I do not propose to vote yes or no on this motion. I will leave the chamber if there is a vote.
MR COLLAERY (11.38): The Residents Rally opposes the motion. The motion to an extent prejudges the issue, and on that issue the Rally opposes the motion.
Ms Follett: What about Dr Kinloch?
MR COLLAERY: Dr Kinloch has taken a position of conscience in view of his relationship with the Society of Friends, and I am sure the Chief Minister would withdraw her interjection if she understood that was the basis upon which he adopts his attitude.
MR STEFANIAK (11.39): Whilst I can understand Mr Stevenson putting up this motion, I think really it is an inappropriate time for him to put it up because at this stage we have reached the situation where fluoride has gone back into the water. The Bill passed by this Assembly has been deferred until 30 June next year, pending the outcome of what is to be a very extensive inquiry by the Social Policy Committee in relation to the issue that has been placed before it. Mr Stevenson's motion may or may not be more applicable somewhere further down the track, after the committee has looked at all the issues and made its recommendations and those issues and recommendations have been discussed by the Assembly. I do not think, and my party does not think, it is an appropriate motion at this point in time.
MS MAHER (11.40): I agree with Mr Collaery and Mr Stefaniak. We will not be going along with this motion. Also, I think it is a bad time to put up this motion. There is to be an inquiry by the Social Policy Committee and, if in six months' time that inquiry recommends that the fluoride be taken out of the water, all the filters which had been purchased would become obsolete and therefore it would be a waste of money to the ACT.
MR JENSEN (11.41): I rise to speak very briefly on the issue raised by Mr Stevenson. While I support the concerns by those in the community who may have some worries about the health issue in relation to fluoride being put back into the water, and the fact they may not be in a position to be able to purchase the necessary equipment to assist in improving their health because of the problems associated with the fluoride in the water, I seem to recall that during the debate last week on this issue Mr Berry offered
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .