Page 2834 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 14 August 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The issues as to whether fluoride should or should not be added to the water have been dealt with at length by many speakers. There is no doubt in my mind that fluoride is an effective anti-caries mechanism. However, I do accept that, since fluoride was first introduced into the system in the early 1960s, there has been a substantial increase in the level of fluoride ingestion in the population at large. I think this is probably the argument that would stick in the minds of lay people more than the detailed work that has been done by members of the committee.
When fluoride was first introduced in 1964, water generally was not fluoridated in the country. There was no fluoride in toothpastes, mouthwashes, et cetera. Indeed, much of the liquid intake of the population, whether in the form of soft drinks or beer, for that matter - particularly if you happen to drink XXXX beer from Brisbane which is unfluoridated - simply did not have fluoride added to it as a consequence of not having fluoride added to the water system.
So, whilst the level of one part per million may well have been appropriate in 1964 - I am not an expert, but I am prepared to accept that that may well have been an appropriate level - it is clear to anyone who cares to look at the facts that fluoride ingestion in the community at large now greatly exceeds that anticipated when fluoride was originally added to the water in the early 1960s.
Therefore, I think it is an eminently sensible suggestion that the committee has made - that, now that we have additional sources of fluoride ingestion in the community as a whole, the addition of fluoride should be reduced to a more acceptable level of one-half of that of the early 1960s, in other words, 0.5 parts per million. The committee spent many, many hundreds and hundreds of man, woman or person hours - whatever the phrase may be - in examining these issues and it is clear, in my view, that that sensible suggestion of the committee should be adopted.
That brings me to what I think is the major point of this debate. It appears clear to me, Mr Deputy Speaker, that it is the wish of the majority of the members of this Assembly that the fluoride level within our water system be reduced. What has come out of this whole debate is what I think was a quite smart move on the part of Mr Berry. He intimated that for some technical reason, which I think, frankly, is not a very appropriate reason - it has been a good try and has been a great put-on, I think - it does not matter what the Assembly wishes; that ACTEW cannot meet those needs and, for various reasons, even if we were to introduce this one-half level, ACTEW would then be liable to prosecution under the current legislation.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .