Page 2227 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 6 June 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR BERRY: Well, I have never said that before, but if I say it again you can pull me up.
MR SPEAKER: Order! Mr Berry, please get to the point. It is late in the day.
MR BERRY: Well, it is late, but it is important, Mr Speaker, that these issues are canvassed for those interested in the history of these issues. I understand why Mr Jensen gets a bit toey about these matters. He will probably come into focus a little bit further and become a little more toey a little later on in the speech, but I cannot promise anything.
I should add at this point that the Labor Party had no position in relation to fluoride, but the party which, after some time in the Assembly, revealed that they were not only against fluoride in the water but were prepared to put the issue before all other issues that might be important to the community participated in bringing the whole of the Assembly into disrepute in the very early days. It is the sort of disrepute that we have found it quite difficult to live down, particularly in the light of more recent events which have again brought discredit to this Assembly and to the legislative responsibilities of the Assembly. I refer to recent reports about the antics of the Minister for Finance and Urban Services, Mr Duby.
MR SPEAKER: Order! Mr Berry, do we have to tolerate this? This is not relevant. Please debate the issue before the house.
MR BERRY: Well, Mr Speaker, distasteful as it might be for some, it is a relevant issue.
MR SPEAKER: Please discuss the Water Supply (Chemical Treatment) (Amendment) Bill, Mr Berry.
MR BERRY: Indeed, Mr Speaker. We have talked enough about the party with the use-by date, but a Liberal Minister has put forward this Bill, and it is important that the Liberal Party's position in relation to the legislation is raised in the debate. Liberal members have had some trouble on the issue because they could not agree amongst themselves, but I would have to say that it is not a new phenomenon.
Mr Collaery: That is gross hypocrisy. We have stuck to an honourable arrangement regarding your divisions on this subject.
MR BERRY: We will get to the honour of the Residents Rally later. First they had a conscience vote and then they agreed on a referral. Then their party later on determined a policy on the issue, which led to later events which preceded this legislation which is now before the house. It is interesting now that this matter is to be voted on, and it raises the question whether they will abide by their party policy or use the same lame, old excuse that is used
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .