Page 2833 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 14 August 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR STEVENSON: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Are we having a cognate debate or is it specifically and only on the amendment? If it is, I will speak on that and come back to the rest later.
MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: Not on the amendment.
MR STEVENSON: I am sorry; I missed that.
MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: We were certainly having a cognate debate in the in-principle stage; but I thought we were dealing with the amendments now, Mr Stevenson.
MR STEVENSON: Yes. The remarkable statement that Dr Francis Bull made was:
Keep fluoridation from going to a referendum.
When one looks at the results around Australia when fluoride has been put to a referendum, one can understand why they want to keep it from going to a referendum. In 1970 in Portland we had 86 per cent against fluoridation; in Pallamallawa in 1988 it was 98 per cent. In between those two referendums there were various referendums held, ranging from 64 per cent up to 80 per cent and 90 per cent against compulsory drugging of the society. Soon, in the northern New South Wales area, there will be some referendums - - -
Mr Berry: I take a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I admire you for your flexible approach to debate in the place, but I wish he would stick to the issue. I know that they are having a bit of trouble getting something drafted.
MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: I uphold your point of order, Mr Berry. You are not sticking to the point, Mr Stevenson. We are talking about an amendment.
MR STEVENSON: Recently, in Dunedin in New Zealand the level of fluoride was reduced from one part per million to 0.85 parts per million. We find that there is a trend for people who think that there is some benefit from fluoridation, erroneously, to at least acknowledge the fact that there has been a great and a grave increase in the level of fluoride being ingested by people in our societies, and it needs to be reduced.
MR DUBY (5.11): The amendment that I believe we are talking to is the amendment moved by Dr Kinloch to reduce the level of fluoridation by one-half. Just to clarify the issue for members, there has been a lot of debate on this matter. Indeed, I think there has actually been, dare I say it, a small degree of filibustering this afternoon by people who are trying to extend the debate for a period.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .