Page 2038 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 25 October 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
ageing in Canberra. I believed what I said then and I believe what I say now, that the needs of the ageing in Canberra are not to be medicated with a substance that has not been suggested will do their teeth any good at all.
If they so choose, if they want the freedom of choice, they have a right not to take this medication in their drinking water. Equally, they are a disadvantaged group as well. We look at social justice here, a subject about which members of the Labor Party in this Assembly speak long and loud. They stand up and say, "Social justice, social justice, social justice". So let us see it in action today, and not just a political negation of this factor, but let us look at the social justice.
Do we have a situation where it means anything more than political statements? We will soon see whether that is the case or not. Low income earners in general are also placed in the situation that, if they do not wish to drink water that is fluoridated, they may not have the money to buy a filter, to buy a valid, suitable water filtration unit, to remove the fluoride. If we do not approve this motion today, they will be put to an injustice. We also have people who are already ill, for whatever reason. Obviously ill people are particularly susceptible to anything that may be a problem.
When I talk about something possibly being a problem, I suggest that the terms of reference that put the matter of fluoride to the Social Policy Committee acknowledge that there may be a health problem caused by fluoride. This is not an astounding revelation. We have all read them; we know what they say. We are going to look at the potential harm that this might cause, and that is as it should be. What we acknowledge by that is that there may be harm. Some people do not particularly know whether there is harm or not; others feel there is harm. Nevertheless, in the inquiry we are going to look at those matters. That acknowledges there might be harm. So people who are uncertain may not want to be subjected to potential harm, particularly the people who are already sick, and they should be allowed to drink water without sodium fluoride in it.
I have spoken before in this Assembly on freedom of choice. I read out the documentation from the Choice handbook by the Australian Consumers Association talking about freedom of choice. It was endorsed by the Federal Health Minister, Dr Neal Blewett. He endorsed that we should not "submit to their [doctors'] treatments unless we so choose". I agree with the endorsement by Dr Neal Blewett that we should not have to submit. Unless we allow people the wherewithal to remove fluoride from their water supply, we will give them no choice in the matter. They will have no freedom of choice. The Government will have taken that away from them.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .