Page 1960 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 24 October 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
There have been a number of comments from the Government to other speakers about the fluoride Bill, as it is called, and some supposed suggestion that this is something that was rushed through. Let me set the matter straight by indicating the truth. In this Assembly there has been one Bill that was passed in one day. Another Bill took two days. Two more Bills took five days and only one Bill took longer than 30 days. That was the fluoride Bill. That is the only Bill in this Assembly that has had that period of time to allow debate and consultation. All the others were briefer; so brief as to be only one day.
Mr Whalan: What about the LA(MS) Bill?
MR STEVENSON: The LA(MS) Bill has not been passed.
Mr Whalan: Yes, but that is - - -
MR STEVENSON: I said "Bills that have been passed". And this is something that unfortunately was not mentioned in the media, specifically the Canberra Times, which, unfortunately, successfully convinced the people of Canberra that something was wrong in this matter. It stated that the matter was rushed, and that is absolutely not okay and shows total irresponsibility on the part of the Canberra Times. There are many people in Canberra who have been unwittingly convinced that this Assembly did something wrong in the matter.
The only thing that this Assembly did wrong in the matter was when they passed the Bill to force fluoridation down the throats of the citizens of Canberra. What should have happened was that fluoride should have been turned off as an administrative function as it was turned on. So let us have some consultative government, let us have open debate, and let us have a forward legislative program immediately.
MR KAINE (Leader of the Opposition) (4.07): I think that there are few members of the Assembly who would not agree that this is a matter of public importance. It is a matter of public importance principally, Mr Speaker, because this Government has made much of the fact that it is an open, consultative, caring government. If it had not made that claim it would not be being subjected to this debate today. Very few governments claim that; this one does. Having made that claim, and making it constantly, they have to stand up to the test of whether their claim is a valid one. And that is why the debate is taking place today.
I was interested in the defence put up by the Deputy Chief Minister; an interesting talk and humorous, but it really did not attack the question of whether the Government is being open and consultative or whether it is not. It was an entertaining few minutes, contributing little to the debate on this matter. He asserted that, far from the Government not offering consultation, the opposition failed to take advantage of consultation. Of course, his proposition is absurd.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .