Page 1782 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 18 October 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
passed legislation that affected the people. Of course, in hindsight we know that those practices were dangerous and that there probably were alternative methods for removing TB and other similar afflictions from the general population. I think we are in much the same position today. Once again, I will refer to the words of Dr Kinloch as they have stuck in my mind - "a return to the level playing field". As a matter of fact, I think Mr Kaine, in discussions today or prior to today, has used that expression, "a return to the level playing field".
Well, if a "level playing field" is a situation where a substance is being added to the water, that is clearly not consistent. We should have a situation where the material is not in the water, the way God intended it to be. That is a level playing field.
Mr Kaine: Which includes fluoride.
MR DUBY: At levels that the good Lord intended. I have no objections to that. One of the speakers today said, "I have no objections to fluoride being added to the water until the committee decides what is going to be done". Well, I would not have any objections either if I had water purifiers on my taps. So I suppose the thing has to be looked at in that regard.
It is clearly nonsense to suggest that people are being disadvantaged by having the fluoride removed from the water for the short amount of time it is going to take for this committee to make its recommendations. When the committee does make its recommendations, I, like every other member of this Assembly, will accept them. I think a six-month timespan is being looked at. I do not see why it has got to take that long, to be honest, but we have been advised by folk that harm will not be done to people's teeth. There will not be an increase in caries or dental decay because of a six-month lapse in the addition of fluoride to the water and, of course, in that interim, there are other provisions available for people to be able to ingest the substance. I do not need to go into them but there are fluoride tablets available and the Government is supposed to be looking at whether it is feasible and practicable to provide fluoride washes or tablets for that portion of the population who require them.
There are commercially available preparations and, of course, there is the old stand-by of a capful of fluoride toothpaste every morning. So, all in all, I think this motion today can only be described as political grandstanding of the worst order. For any logical, reasoned debate, the situation that currently exists, where the fluoride has been removed and the committee is going to sensibly examine the situation to determine whether it should be permanently out of the water or replaced at a different level in a matter of months, poses no problems. Therefore, I join with the other enlightened members of the house in opposing this motion.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .