Page 1495 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 27 September 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
sides is the better. We were unable to agree on that evidence which we saw as ambiguous. We have no party policy on that. As a result, there is no Liberal Party line in this debate and my colleagues and I will be voting as we see fit.
My view is as follows: I am satisfied by the evidence that has been put before me that fluoride should continue to be added to the water supply of Canberra. I am very much afraid of what will happen to the next generation of Canberrans if we do not continue with the fluoridation of the water supply.
The evidence is very clear, to my way of thinking. Fluoride was originally added to water supplies some years ago - I think, first in the United States when it was observed that areas where there was a natural occurrence of fluoride in the water supply had higher levels of tooth preservation than areas where it did not occur. Many studies were done in the United States, where it was found that the addition of fluoride to the water supplies in areas low in naturally occurring fluoride produced benefits similar to those in areas where it occurred naturally in high quantities.
Canberra's own fluoridation began, as the Minister indicated, in 1964 and I think he might have referred to a survey by Dr Lloyd Carr, published in 1976, which was conducted in 1974, showing that there had been a 71 per cent reduction in caries levels in children aged five and a 51 per cent reduction in children aged 10 which he attributed to the introduction of fluoride.
I mentioned before that there was a multiplicity of evidence, a great volume of it, and it was in some cases contradictory. There is a welter of reports and studies. I have been directed to a paper which lists some 95 studies conducted in 20 countries, all of which purport to show that there has been a significant decrease in caries as a result of the introduction of fluoride in these places. Those studies are there. I understand they are disputed by some, and that is all well and good. I will come to speak about that in a minute.
There are other studies cited by people such as Mr Stevenson and Mr Prowse that allegedly point in different directions. It seems to me that it is very difficult, as I said on the motion to suspend standing orders, for us as politicians to stand in this place, or sit on a committee, and attempt to wade through very technical data about the scientific position to determine whether or not there is really a very clear trend in that evidence in favour of or against fluoride. As a result, I decided to do something else. I decided that, rather than try to read these reports and analyse them myself, I would try to identify referees.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .