Page 567 - Week 02 - Thursday, 21 February 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
full, understand it, ask any questions about it, expand on the references, and so on. So there should be time, but it does not take six months to do that.
Why should there be a decision made on whether or not Canberrans will continue to be compelled to take sodium silico-fluoride every time they have a glass of water unless it is filtered, as this one is? We have a situation where parties in Australia and in this Assembly say, "We stand up for the people. We represent the individual. We represent the right of families to look after themselves". Why is it different in this case? Why are people being forced to take what has been listed by the World Health Organisation as a rodenticide - a rat poison - an insecticide, a bacteriacide, a fungicide, and a herbicide? The reason it is used as all these things is that it is one of the most effective killing agents known to man. Even if it worked, which it does not, as people will see if they read this report in full, people should not be compelled to take fluoride.
I have mentioned before in this house the book by the Australian Consumers Association, Your Health Rights. This could well be looked upon as being a peak body in Australia in determining the rights of every Australian when it comes to health. The book was endorsed by Dr Neal Blewett, the Federal Minister for Community Services and Health at the time. I think we should look at what it says:
Doctors are experts but they are not infallible; ... doctors may disagree with each other over the best treatment for particular problems. The final decision is ours ...
That the final decision is ours is not so in the case of compulsory drugging. I do not say "medication", because I think one would normally look at a medication as something that was of some use to people. Fluoride certainly is a drug, as has been acknowledged by the World Health Organisation, the Food and Drug Administration and any dictionary you care to look at. Your Health Rights goes on to say:
We need not ... submit to their treatments unless we so choose.
... ... ...
It is up to all of us to stand up for what we regard as our rights.
... it is our right to live our life free from unwanted bodily interference.
Why are these words not heeded by the members of the Alliance and why is the debate on this matter not brought on in reasonable time?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .