Page 1510 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 27 September 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I am not happy about adding things to anything, but I still think that we should listen to both sides of the story from experts, not from people like me, who do not know a lot about it. I really would like to see the matter go to a committee so that people could appear before that committee and give us the benefit of their knowledge and then the decision could be made. If the decision is then made to take fluoride out of the water, I will fully support that.
MR JENSEN (12.02): Minister Berry, I would suggest, summed up this issue quite well when he used the word "may" during his speech in relation to the effects of fluoride. However, what is not in doubt about this whole matter is that fluoride is a poison and that there are people in our community who are sensitive to this substance, whenever and wherever they ingest it.
Another key factor in the debate was stated by the Chief Minister when she said - and I will try to quote correctly - "a view commonly held that fluoride reduces tooth decay". I think the key words in this particular statement are "commonly held". The evidence, in fact, on both sides of the argument is conflicting and the debate today clearly shows how conflicting the issue is.
However, it seems to me that, when there are any doubts about a public health matter, we should err on the side of public safety. The Rally supports the concept of fluoride being made available as a free service to those who wish to use it. However, we do not support, as our policy clearly says, the idea that it should be forced on those people who do not wish to use it or do not have to use it. Let me close my remarks by saying that on public health issues, when there is doubt, don't, or in this case, when there is doubt, take it out.
MR COLLAERY (12.04): Mr Deputy Speaker, let me give just a few anecdotes, because I notice that Mr Wood said a number of anecdotal things without reference really to all of the prepared documentation on the subject. Before I cast a few anecdotes, I say that I personally support Mr Prowse's Bill on this matter. The Rally, as you now note, is united on this subject, and it was on the agenda in the Rally's original documentation a number of months ago.
Mr Deputy Speaker, for five years my four children grew up in France, in a non-fluoridated, non-milk-pasteurised zone. They have too many teeth and are all healthy, and I have been paying through the teeth to get their extra teeth out since they came back to Australia. I remain personally unconvinced that fluoride has done anything for them. It may well be that the nuclear reactor we lived near has done something for their teeth, but the fact is that the Rally supports the removal of the substance because, as my colleague Dr Kinloch said, we oppose it on scientific and in-principle grounds.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .