Page 1781 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 18 October 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
As Mr Humphries and Dr Kinloch talked about the status of politicians, may I repeat something the Chief Minister told me about the other day. A certain Italian senator once said to the people, "Please don't tell my mother I am a member of parliament. She thinks I'm a piano player in a brothel". So, all I would like to say is that I would like to see this matter sent to a committee before it is taken out because I would like to see both sides of the question and have them explained to me. Then I can vote on it, knowing that I know all about fluoride, whether it is good or whether it is bad. So I support Mr Kaine's Bill, the effect of which is that this be sent to a committee and fluoride be left in the water until we have the facts.
MR DUBY (11.17): I think the question at issue here in this debate has been ably pointed out by Dr Kinloch in his speech. The fact of the matter is that we have to look at why, in heaven's name, we have a committee inquiring into whether fluoride should go into the water or not, in the first place.
The reason why we have that committee is that there are many eminent scientific persons who have expressed doubt as to whether fluoride is safe for ingestion. Now, with that thought in mind, to me it is eminently sensible that, if we are going to have a committee looking at whether something is safe or whether it is not safe, the logical thing to do is not to allow that particular practice to be pursued until the committee has decided one way or the other.
If a substance is not safe, it should not be allowed to go into the water; fluoride should not be there. What happens if in six months' time the committee comes down and says, "My goodness gracious, look at the dreadful mistake we have made. This stuff is shocking. It should never have been allowed in the first place."? Imagine how the members who vote for this Bill today are going to feel, to think that they will have affected the health of the citizens of Canberra.
A lot has been made about the fact that the NHMRC is currently doing a review of fluoride and that we should simply slavishly follow the opinions put out by that eminent body. I feel the suggestion has even been made that we should not be inquiring into this matter at all and that we should just simply adopt their recommendations.
It might be worth while remembering that, 20 or 30 years ago, bodies like the NHMRC were telling people that compulsory X-rays were quite acceptable and that governments throughout this nation were legislating to have people who refused to have compulsory X-rays taken fined and taken to court for these matters when they said, "We think there is a bit of doubt about it and it may be injurious to our health".
Did people listen in those days? No, they did not. They did exactly the sort of thing that is happening now. They
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .