Page 1486 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 27 September 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The second is that in the last few weeks, I, like other members of this Assembly, no doubt, have been looking at the scientific evidence to which the Minister referred, and there is a huge amount of it. It is extremely complex, and not being a scientist, I found it very difficult to make much of it. It seems to me that referring matters of this kind to a committee consisting of politicians is not a sensible way of dealing with this. Whether this Bill is passed today or not, I certainly would support the idea of studies being done - a study in particular in the ACT being done - by properly qualified people into the effect - - -
Mr Berry: Of those involved in medical research?
MR HUMPHRIES: I do not disagree with what you are saying, Mr Berry, as you will hear when the debate ensues, but the point I make is that I do not believe that we are going to profit from having politicians looking, for two months or whatever, over the evidence on this sort of subject. I think the evidence is already clear, incidentally, but that I will reserve for debate. I do not think it is profitable to go down this track, and we will not be supporting the suspension of standing orders.
MR STEVENSON (10.41): We hear about medical matters and political matters. Mr Berry suggests that the prevention of the addition of fluoride to the water supply of the citizens of Canberra is an emotional matter and it should be looked at from a medical point of view. When, in 1964, fluoride was added to the water supply of Canberra, it was a political decision. The suggestions that the will of the people should have something to do with it, that democracy should have something to do with it, that the people had not had the opportunity to hear, that conditions and bully tactics were imposed, were all used at the time of the introduction of fluoridation in Canberra.
Jim Killen suggested that the matter should be put to referendum, but it was the National Party's Doug Anthony who, during a weekend, made an administrative decision to force mass medication on the people of Canberra. It is our duty, as political representatives of the people of Canberra, to make sure that that will is no longer imposed on the people.
MS FOLLETT (Chief Minister) (10.43): I rise to support the move of my colleague Mr Berry to have this matter referred to the Standing Committee on Social Policy. In doing so, Mr Deputy Speaker, I should say at the outset that I have the greatest respect for the genuinely held views of people like Mr Prowse who would seek to remove fluoride from our water supply in Canberra. It is not out of any disrespect for that view that I would seek to have a process of community consultation.
We have heard also from Mr Stevenson the manner in which fluoride was first introduced to our water supply in
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .