Page 1539 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 27 September 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MS FOLLETT: Mr Deputy Speaker, I leave people to draw their own conclusions on those matters, but I do think that it is worth drawing attention to the attitude of both of those gentlemen on this important matter and to the attitude of the combined forces, other than the Government, in this Assembly who purport to be the alternative government, who purport to be interested in a collegiate style of government, a committee style of government, and yet who propose here today to take a course of action - without any community consultation whatsoever, without even a full debate in this Assembly - that will have an effect on the health of every person in the ACT.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I put it to you that, regardless of your views on fluoride, you must regard the way in which this decision is being taken today as reprehensible. I think that when it comes to people's views on fluoride, you will not find a hardline view amongst the Government ranks. If you check our policy on the matter, and I am sure you have checked our party policy, you will find we do not have a policy on fluoride, hence we are free to examine the matter on its merits.
Mr Moore: So, now you are trying to cover up your own inadequacies.
MS FOLLETT: I have no intention of covering up. As I say, I think it is very remiss of the non-Government members of this Assembly to try to paint this as an "us and them" situation where they are clearly going to have a win on the numbers - might is right - and in some way insinuate from that that the Government has been opposed to them. As I said, my party has no policy on fluoride. We are open to debate on the issue as, I suggest, are the vast majority of Canberra citizens.
All that I am seeking today is an opportunity for those citizens to be involved in a sensible debate, to have the opportunity to study the evidence for and against the inclusion of fluoride in the water supply. I do not believe that it does this Assembly any credit whatsoever to push through this Bill with undue haste, without adequate opportunities for community consultation and simply on the notion that might is right. As I said before, I do not agree with the way in which fluoride was introduced to the water supply in the first place. Nobody would. It was done, in my view, without an adequate, open and consistent assessment of all of the issues at the time. But 25 years later, when we have now a debate again on whether fluoride should be included in the water supply, my colleagues opposite propose to do exactly the same thing - to treat the public like idiots.
I do not know whether Dr Kinloch is basing his scepticism about the public's intelligence on his experiences at the ANU or not, but I do not share his scepticism. I believe that the public deserves the right to debate this issue at length and in an informed and open way without
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .