Page 1793 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 18 October 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Duby: WHO?
MR BERRY: The World Health Organisation. It and others argue that it is not enough to rely on regular dosing by parents with fluoride tablets. Of course, there are others in the community who argue that we should not have fluoride at all. But the fact is that there needs to be a debate about that and a disclosure of all of the facts that are relevant to the fluoride debate. But, most importantly, the lower socioeconomic groups are the most likely to lapse in the maintenance of treatment where topical application is recommended. I think it is important to repeat that the Labor Government's position is that the Bill should never have been passed into law without the disclosure which I have talked about before.
The National Health and Medical Research Council, which the Chief Minister mentioned earlier, has indicated that it would examine the claims of Dr Diesendorf and make a new report. With indecent haste, as has already been said, this Assembly moved to head off any proper disclosure of the issues as they would affect the people of the ACT.
There are other chemicals that are accepted as additives to food and water in the interests of public health. I refer in particular to iodine. It has long been recognised that the addition of iodine is a remedy for goitre problems. Then some people would argue that chlorine should be the next on the list. Chlorine is a well-known toxic product, but it has been seen to be the most economical way of providing potable water for the people of the world. I suggest that, if there were an alternative which could provide purer water for the people of the world, then that would be used; but right now there is not one. People who talk about the removal of chlorine are just plain kidding themselves.
Basically, what it boils down to is that public health authorities and governments are in a position to ensure that public health is safeguarded. If dental caries is at a high level in any area, then the public health system has a duty to ensure that all measures are taken to combat tooth decay. If that involves acceptance of fluoride as an appropriate measure, then that should be the case. But it will be a decision that is made on the basis of proper disclosure and a decision by the body politic which is in place. It will not be made on the basis of rhetoric and asides.
I mention one that was used in the debate by the leader of the Residents Rally party. He went on to say, "We do not know that the Health Commission" - the ACT Health Commission he was referring to - "has in the past examined claims for compensation for fluorosis, for injuries to residents, and we expect that, when the debate is properly presented by the Minister for Health, he will detail any incidents where the ACT Health Commission has ever settled
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .