Page 571 - Week 02 - Thursday, 21 February 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR PROWSE (12.06): I do not intend to debate whether fluoride is a highly toxic cumulative poison - because we know it is - or the efficiency of the dental effect of fluoride, because the argument has been debated by dental scientists who disagree. I am in no position to debate that. However, I would like to state at this stage that I am proud to be a member of the Liberal Party because it is the only party in this house that stands up for and has the basic philosophy of freedom of choice. That is part of Liberal Party doctrine. I applaud those members in the community who follow this Liberal Party doctrine. It is something for us all to look for in a democracy. Also part of the Liberal Party doctrine is the philosophy of individual responsibility - individual responsibility for one's health and one's actions.
Ms Follett: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker - - -
MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: What is the point of order, Ms Follett?
Ms Follett: Relevance, basically.
MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes. Would you make the comments relevant, Mr Prowse.
MR PROWSE: Yes. I totally reject the interjection on the basis - - -
Mr Connolly: It is not for you to reject a point of order.
MR PROWSE: If you will allow me my chance to refute your statement, that is what the fluoride issue is all about. It is about freedom of choice and individual responsibility. That is the point that I wish to debate at this time. Individual responsibility and freedom of choice is the Liberal philosophy and any Liberal member who goes against that philosophy is not a true Liberal.
Some will say that the delay in this debate will prevent an early split in the Liberal Alliance because there are varying points of view. I would refute that point of view that some will say that, because I am sure that a matter of conscience will be called for on this side of the house. Fluoride should not be a political debate; it is a debate on the health of the population. I am sure that whenever this debate comes to fruition we will see sanity reign supreme.
MR HUMPHRIES (Minister for Health, Education and the Arts) (12.08), in reply: In concluding this debate I want to correct some quite misleading and false statements made by Mr Stevenson, in particular. Mr Stevenson suggested that the passage of this Bill, which has the effect of extending the addition of fluoride to the water supply until 31 August this year, is an effective way of delaying debate until 31 August. He asked why we are not able to debate this before 31 August.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .