Page 2721 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 13 August 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
its report and recommendations. We did have a small version of it; but, since that point in time, I obtained a copy and read it in detail. Nothing in that report has really changed my view.
I wonder how many other members have read this report in detail and also the Social Policy Committee's report. I am quite sure that some have not spent the amount of time studying this subject that I certainly have spent on it, and I am sure that all of my colleagues who were members of the Social Policy Committee have spent a similar amount of time.
There is no doubt that times have changed since the 1960s, and I do support the retention of fluoride in the water supply; but the level must be reduced. There is no doubt that fluoride is now more readily available in many more forms than it was in 1964 and I would like to just briefly remind members of a few of those additional sources: Soft drinks; ready to drink fruit juices - which were almost non-existent in 1964; tea, processed foods, vegetables, toothpastes, some medications, teething gels, soups, sauces, pastas; and so the list goes on.
I would like to remind members of a statement Mr Wood made when, as committee chairman, he handed down the report on 12 February. It is certainly a statement that I agree with.
Mr Moore: It is a shame he is not in the house at the minute.
MRS NOLAN: He is not in the house, and that is unfortunate. His comment was:
I took the view that was presented to us that it is, nevertheless, sensible to keep any additive at the lowest level that will achieve maximum effect. That really is the basis of my decision to support fluoridation at half a part per million. We do not need to put in any more. We are now getting more fluoride into our system. Why do we need to put more fluoride into the water than we really need?
I think that very much sums up what we are talking about here this evening. It is unfortunate that Mr Wood now cannot support those words, having said them on only 12 February this year.
There is one other point I think it is important to make at this point in time and it relates to one of the other capital cities of Australia. I think most of us are aware - or, if we are not, all of us should be aware - that there is one capital city in Australia that has always added less than one part per million to the water supply, and that is Darwin. It has only ever added 0.7 parts per million to the water supply, and I understand that Darwin
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .