Page 1546 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 27 September 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
issue? The poor people cannot afford to stop drinking this water; they cannot afford to get purified water. If this Bill is not passed, will the Government offer to the poor people of our community - the people who are being socially affected by this - a free purifier? That is the alternative. If the Government wants to put this poison in the water, those who are affected by it should be given the opportunity to drink water that is not poisoned. That is the point.
The ethical point, of course, is that this is mass medication against the will of the people. This is medicine; it is a drug; it is recognised as a drug world-wide; it is against our democratic rights to be medicated against our will without consultation with a doctor. Some people react to the antibiotics that are prescribed; some people react to a number of things. There are people reacting to fluoride and the Government should not dose them with this drug if they have not had a personal examination by a doctor.
The point is that we have a number of issues - legal conscription, et cetera. The pollution is another. The water waste from our area goes into the Murrumbidgee system. Some of the fluoride gets taken out through personal ingestion by members of the public and stored in their bones but the rest of it goes into the Murrumbidgee through the flushing of toilets and so on. It is a highly toxic poison. If only people would understand that.
So the issue is: does it fix teeth? Who cares? The point is that it is poisoning the people and we have to look at that. This toxin was introduced into the water; it was introduced into the water without asking the people. That is where we are at. We want to ask the people. (Extension of time granted)
Fluoride was put into the water without consultation. Let us have a referendum on the issue. All this talk of getting into a debate with the public is a load of rubbish. How in the heck is that debate going to occur? As the president of the Pure Water Association, I have been debating this for two years. I have been on TV over the last two years; I have been in the papers; we have had the debate with the public. Now is the time. If the Government wants to put fluoride back in the water once it is taken out, it should have a referendum; that is the right way to do something like this. It cannot medicate the people without asking every single one of them, and that is the point.
You cannot just have a committee. I am appalled by the fact that the Labor Party is again hiding behind this committee system. For goodness' sake, it is about time you stood up and took some decisions, as a government should. The point is that you can go to a committee later. You can take the fluoride out. It was put in without asking the people. Let us show that we have got some strength in this
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .