Page 1487 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 27 September 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Canberra some 25 years ago and, Mr Deputy Speaker and members of this Assembly, there is no way in the world that anyone in this day and age would support such a process. It was quite wrong to have unilateral action like that taken to add a substance to the water supply without due community consultation and without an adequate airing of views.
But, Mr Deputy Speaker, I submit that 25 years down the track it is just not open to us to repeat that error. Two wrongs do not make a right. After 25 years of fluoridated water, there are definitely two views within the community as to its efficacy. Quite clearly there is a view held by Mr Prowse and other members, that fluoride is not efficacious and should be removed. There are also substantial numbers of people in the community - I put it to you that it is probably about 50 per cent - who think fluoride in the water is quite a good thing. Speaking for myself, a person who grew up in Canberra with the benefit of fluoridated water, I can say that I have very good teeth and that my dentist attributes that to fluoride in the water. I think that view is quite commonly held.
But the basis of Mr Berry's argument, and it is an argument that the Government supports totally, is that the community has every right to expect to be consulted. We do not send this matter to a policy committee for the benefit of politicians. We send it there for the benefit of the community who are affected by the decision that we make on this matter. We send it to the policy committee to give the community a chance to air their views and a chance to hear informed debate on the matter. There has not been a great deal of public debate on it so far.
Mr Deputy Speaker, there is a term in union matters called custom and practice, which holds very great sway. I believe that fluoride, by virtue of the custom and practice of the past 25 years, has a place in our community life, and that it is appreciated by very many members of the community. I ask the people whose views on this matter I respect, whose views on the removal of fluoride I think are genuinely held, to extend to the community that same degree of respect to enable them to have a chance to have their say, to hear the debate, in advance of an irrevocable decision being made.
MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The time for the debate has expired.
Question put:
That the motion (Mr Berry's) be agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .