Page 2045 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 25 October 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I think it is acknowledged that I have researched the area a great deal - not because I take opinion, because I do not take opinion. What I take is evidence, and that is what I talk about and in this house that is what I have presented - evidence. In the social policy inquiry into fluoridation, once again I will be listening to evidence. I will be asking questions of all people presenting evidence on both sides.
If I feel that something is not fairly presented on either side, make no mistake, I will ask questions. I have done it in the past and I will do it again. One would think that in committees that are called in this Assembly it is not a bad thing to have people who are well versed in both sides of an argument. When you look at a balance of opinion on this committee, I think we understand that the Chief Minister has already made a statement that means that the Labor Party agrees with fluoridation regardless. What was that statement? It was, "We will put it back in the water at the next election". That is not saying, "We will look at it in committee", or, "We will hold a referendum for the people to have a say". All it says is, "We are committed to fluoridation and we will put it back in the water". I suggest that is a fairly strong viewpoint, and perhaps the best thing to do is indeed look at it.
The other question is that of individual rights. I suggest that that is not necessarily something that takes six months or a year, or however long the committee will need to sit. I suggest that the case of individual rights should be decided fairly easily. I would think it is very well covered within the policy of the Liberal Party and has been for many decades; it is very well covered within the policy of the Labor Party who indicate that they are champions of the people; and it is well indicated in the policy of the Residents Rally party. In the case of the No Self Government Party and myself, I think equally it is understood that we stood for the people because they did not want self-government initially.
I feel strongly about this matter. I feel that people should have rights and that those rights should be enacted by this Assembly. If I stand in this Assembly and make a point that I believe in, that viewpoint should not be attacked. It should not be suggested that there are other reasons for my introducing it, that I am prolonging debate or casting aspersions on the Social Policy Committee or for any other reason. I do so because I believe the people should have the right and the freedom of choice.
Question resolved in the negative.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING AND TEMPORARY ORDERS
Motion (by Ms Follett) agreed to:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .