Page 636 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 20 May 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
That is evidence, clear and uncontradicted from any reputable source, that fluoride in our water supply at one part per million is the best thing for the health of our teeth, and particularly our children's teeth. I am not prepared to compromise on that matter. I think the evidence is overwhelming and it is clear. Let us stop beating around the bush about this matter and do the right thing about this important matter of public health.
The fact is, Madam Speaker, that the Social Policy Committee which reported on this matter in the old Assembly was a committee of politicians. It was a committee of people who, with the best intentions - - -
Mr De Domenico: Former politicians.
MR HUMPHRIES: Some of them are now former politicians. Most of them are now former politicians. But the fact is that the people who looked at that question and decided that it should go to 0.5 parts per million were politicians. They were not experts in the area, and the fact of life - - -
Mr Connolly: Politicians in the Liberal Party.
MR HUMPHRIES: I am glad that you raised that, Mr Connolly; I will come back to that. The fact of life, Madam Speaker, is that that committee had no sound basis for recommending to this Assembly that we go to 0.5 parts per million and that report, I think, is justifiably rejected today by this Assembly. The evidence is not in accordance with the recommendation. The evidence is in accordance with what I have just quoted from the NHMRC report.
Mr Stevenson said that people repeatedly have voted no to fluoridation. The fact of life is, Madam Speaker, that in the First Assembly they elected a number of members, including Mr Stevenson, who made no reference to the fluoridation of water when they stood for election in 1989, who subsequently used their election on other platforms to vote out the fluoridation of water in the ACT, and who claimed to have a mandate to do so. The fact is that almost all of the members of the old Assembly who supported that position have not been returned to the Assembly. That is not coincidental, Madam Speaker. It is directly related, in my view, to the fact that the electorate was not prepared to put up with the sort of nonsense that we saw from people who said that they thought fluoride was the cause of all sorts of bizarre and diverse diseases and illnesses in people.
Mr Connolly has made reference to divisions within the Liberal Party about this matter. It is quite true that on the first occasion on which this matter came before the Assembly the Liberal Party allowed a conscience vote, and two members supported the retention of fluoride and two supported its removal. I might point out that the two who supported the retention of fluoride are still here, and the two who did not are not; but that is another matter.
Let me say, however, that it is not true to say that there are not any divisions in the Labor Party about this matter. Let me remind you that the Social Policy Committee which recommended 0.5 parts per million was chaired by Mr Wood and I am told - he might correct me if I am wrong - that the report was unanimous. So, apparently, there is at least one member of the Labor Party who has some difference of view about what the appropriate level should be.
Mr Wood: You would want to read the words I said at the time, too.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .