Page 1506 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 27 September 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
As things stand now, if someone is adversely affected by the ingestion of fluoride that person is required to take quite expensive measures to remove fluoride from the water which is necessary for one's daily life. Many people who are in this situation are socially disadvantaged. They have great difficulty in affording the not insubstantial number of dollars required to supply these filtering mechanisms to remove the fluoride from the drinking water that applies to them and their family. I think that situation is simply not good enough. If people want to have this stuff - fluoride - in their water they should have the right to do so. They should not be forcing others who do not to be in the same boat as themselves. That is what this whole debate should be about, not the pros and cons of fluoride, whether it is good for you or bad for you, but about the right of the individual to determine his own destiny.
I will be supporting the Bill to remove fluoride from the water. I would urge the Minister to make sure that the appropriate mechanisms are there within the health system so that those who wish to have fluoride for themselves and their families can get it free of charge, no questions asked.
DR KINLOCH (11.49): The members of the Residents Rally do not come to this subject in unseemly haste. This was an issue for the Residents Rally in January and February. Indeed, we had discussions about it at that time. At that time I had many of the concerns that have been raised here today, for example, by Mr Humphries, Mr Berry and Mr Wood, and there was a division of opinion in the Rally. I think that was early on and based on insufficiently well informed opinion. Some of us set about trying to do something about that. I had the opportunity to consult a former colleague, Dr Ben Selinger, at the ANU. In particular I wanted to know about the effectiveness and accuracy or otherwise of the work of Dr Mark Diesendorf. I mean, we are all lay people, are we not? I was certainly assured by Dr Selinger, whom I much respect, about Dr Diesendorf's work and about some of the serious questions that can be raised about putting fluoride in the water in a compulsory way.
That is not to say there are not areas of dispute. Of course there are, and we have heard some of them today. I much endorse Mr Duby's comments this morning, not only in connection with freedom of choice, about which I wish to speak, but also about offering an alternative. When there is a danger or a potential danger or a difference of opinion, or when some people do not wish to be compulsorily medicated, then there has to be some alternative offered, which he has rightly suggested.
I also much respected the Chief Minister's comments, which should be heard most carefully. Having heard those, and although taking the same view in many ways about them, I want to come to somewhat different conclusions. I agree that on such a matter as putting a potentially toxic
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .