Page 2044 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 25 October 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It has been said by the Chief Minister that I sought to prolong the debate. I do not seek to prolong the debate. I seek justice for the people of Canberra. The Chief Minister rolls her eyes. Let us have it on the record that, when I talk about justice and about the people of Canberra not being forced to take fluoride in their water, you think it is a valid subject for eye-rolling by the Chief Minister of Canberra. Let the people of Canberra who do not want fluoride, or the others, I suggest, make up their own minds about that attitude of yours.
Ms Follett: That is what I am asking, Dennis.
MR STEVENSON: You also said that I cast aspersions on the committee by moving the motion. There is no logic in that statement. I do not do that; I do not pre-empt what the committee will have to say. All I said was that people who do not want fluoride in their water supply should have the right to so choose. What has that got to do with casting aspersions on the committee? I note you do not answer the question, Chief Minister, because there are no valid answers to that question.
I am not saying that the committee will not do its job. I believe the committee will do its job and do it well, but what I am saying once again is that people should have the right to make their own minds up about this matter. Mr Humphries said that he feels I should withdraw the motion. Why? I represent the people of Canberra and, if I feel that their rights are not being looked at, I will not withdraw anything. I will stand for those rights again and again and again. If that is seen as being persistent, as Mr Whalan mentioned, then so will I persist.
Mr Humphries said that it disturbs him that I would debate the matter in public with the medical profession and the dental profession representatives, the presidents. I think it reasonable to assume that they can put their case well. I think you also understand that I will put another viewpoint. What is that viewpoint? Is that my viewpoint specifically? No. What I talk about is simply evidence similar to that which will be presented to the committee. It will not be various opinions that I may have on any subject. It will be evidence which, unfortunately, Canberrans have not at this time had an opportunity to look at.
I certainly feel it important that all committees be unbiased, though on just about every committee that we have had and that we will ever have in the Assembly where there was a party political statement beforehand it may have been assumed by some people that the party would maintain their policy and do accordingly, regardless of the findings of the committee, regardless of what was presented to the committee. I do not take that view. I think when we are in committee we can put aside the earlier information we had that may not be relevant at that time and look at what is presented to the inquiry.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .