Page 2826 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 14 August 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Berry was accused of being last night; however, those facts I have seen with my own eyes. Therefore, I am inclined to believe that there is no reason for the level of fluoride in the water to be changed. Accordingly, despite the standing committee's report, I will be voting with my two colleagues, Mr Kaine and Mr Humphries, and the Labor Party over the road in relation to this issue.
In relation to personal anecdotal experience, I do not think that is irrelevant. We, as reasonably mature, hopefully, members of the community coming here to this Assembly, should bring our experience in life to our deliberations. That is the reason, I suppose, why I was always very keen to see things such as the move-on laws come into effect - because of my experience in the courts. That, to me, was just commonsense, from what I saw. Similarly with this. From what I have seen of people in Canberra - not only dentists I have spoken to, but people in the community who have lived here and who have brought up their children here - I can see no real reason for this to change. That is not to say that I would necessarily agree with Professor Stephen of the University of Glasgow Dental School, whose comment appears at page 27 of the committee's report. He said:
Thus, after 201 days' legal debate and at a cost of between 600,000 to 1,000,000 pounds, it has been proven that fluoride at a level of 1 ppm in the domestic water supply is a safe, effective, caries-inhibiting agent and the only disease it seems capable of producing is hysteria in the minds of misguided anti-fluoridationists.
I think that is a rather classic quote. I do not know whether I would go quite that far. It may well be that there is some point in relation to what the anti-fluoridationists are saying. But when one weighs in the balance what is best for the community, from the evidence that I have had before me and the studies that I have done - I have done a fair bit of reading in relation to this - as well as my personal experience, I am satisfied that there is no really valid reason put up at this time to drop the fluoride from one part per million down to approximately 0.5.
MR HUMPHRIES (4.46): I indicated last night that I was unconvinced about the change in the level of fluoride, and that is the case today after the debate last night. I indicate again what I said last night: I cannot see the scientific basis for reducing it by half a part per million. In a sense, most people in this place would agree that that is a position which is not their ideal position. I think Mr Stevenson and Mr Prowse would both argue that half a part per million is half a part per million too much. By the same token, many others in the chamber would argue that half a part per million is too little by the same amount. So, there is very much an element of compromise being exercised here to achieve that particular outcome, and I reject it because I see no basis for it.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .