Page 2229 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 6 June 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
made by Dr Kinloch, who supported the removal of fluoride from the water, opposed the reference to the Social Policy Committee, then when everybody in the community, as I said earlier, screamed blue murder at what he had done, came back to this Assembly and moved that the issue be referred to the committee. That is the sort of thing that we have come to expect from Dr Kinloch, who says one thing and eventually does something else. It is a pity he is not here to listen to this because I am sure that he would become agitated - as agitated as and perhaps even more agitated than - - -
Mr Humphries: I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. I refer to standing order 61. I am prepared to tolerate a certain digression, but so far Mr Berry has not even come to the substance of the motion and he is now 15 minutes into his remarks.
MR SPEAKER: Your objection is supported, Mr Humphries. Please get to the point, Mr Berry.
MR BERRY: Mr Speaker, it is very important at this point to focus on the need for this Bill and to finish studying its effects. We have a position now where the Government opposite, hopefully having sorted out all of its differences, however difficult that might have been, wishes to keep the matter going for a bit longer, so we can continue to study it because the committee has not finished with it.
I think this piece of legislation and all those on the same subject which preceded it form part of an historic clutch of pieces of legislation which will probably form the centre of any debate about the first days of this Assembly. The reason why it will do so is that it brought this place into ridicule - absolutely dragged it down to the bottom. It is interesting that most of the members who participated in that debacle now form the Government and are signatories to the accord, if you like, although I do not think that the accord has hit the deck yet.
We were ridiculed because the Bill was faulty - in spite of all of the efforts of the senior counsel in the Assembly, now the Attorney-General. One cannot help coming to the conclusion that there is some doubt about the ability of the Assembly to pass decent legislation. Of course, in all of this, the people of Queanbeyan were amazed that they had never been consulted, because under New South Wales law they had to have a supply of fluoride in their water. None of this had been considered by the people opposite.
Anyway, Mr Speaker, here we are today, some months down the track, extending the Bill and, most importantly, again focusing on the debacle which was generated by the members opposite. Those members opposite who are most concerned and fidgety about this are the ones who were at the centre of the debacle which pulled the Assembly down. I am quite happy at any time to draw attention to the disgraceful
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .