Page 638 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 20 May 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Whilst I am not perhaps as eloquent a singer as Mr Moore, the Assembly did take it out, put it in and take it out again. So, this is an opportunity for 90 per cent of the people of Canberra, once and for all, to say, "We have elected you to restore sanity into this place". One of the first examples is what this Assembly did last night over bicycle helmets.
I must also acknowledge my personal involvement in the fluoride debate. I note with happiness that the president of the ACT branch of the Australian Dental Association, Dr Carmelo Bonanno, is in the Assembly, and quite rightly so. Dr Bonanno also happens to be my family dentist. I had asked him the very simple question, "Why is it that my wife and I have a face full of fillings, whereas our children do not?".
Mr Kaine: He is not allowed to answer it, though.
MR DE DOMENICO: No, but what he suggested to me was that coming from an unfluoridated water supply, as my wife and I did, means that we had a very much higher chance of getting dental caries than our children, who have lived in Canberra virtually all of their lives. That was a very compelling argument, might I say.
I then read a bit more widely on the issue, though, not wanting to believe just one particular dentist. I also noted that the Australian Dental Association happened to agree with Dr Bonanno, as did the Australian Medical Association, as did the Pharmacy Guild and, lo and behold, as did the National Health and Medical Research Council. There were a few professors from Boston, Massachusetts, and Tanganyika and all sorts of places who happened to disagree. But, as my colleague quite eloquently put before, the majority of well-respected, well-known medical, pharmaceutical and chemical bodies around this earth believe that the best thing we can do for the future of the care of our own teeth and our children's teeth is to retain the addition of fluoride to the water supply in the proportion of one part per million.
Like Mr Humphries and most of the other previous speakers, I believe that Mr Stevenson said something very sane when he said, "The final decision is ours". Let me assure Mr Stevenson that as far as the Liberal Party is concerned - - -
Mr Stevenson: I referred to the people, not the politicians.
MR DE DOMENICO: The people, Mr Stevenson. Let me assure you, Mr Stevenson, that the people today will speak. The Liberal Party, in unison with the other major party in this room, will today, I am sure, speak on behalf of the majority of people in the ACT by restoring fluoride to its correct level, one part per million.
MRS CARNELL (12.28), in reply: It is with great pleasure that I finish this debate, a debate that has been going on in this Assembly for far too long. First of all, I would like to address a couple of the comments that were made earlier by Ms Szuty. She made the comment that further informed debate was necessary before we should increase the level of fluoride from 0.5 parts per million back to one part per million. I think that we have to put this in historical context. Everybody, every public health body in Australia, every parliament in Australia, is concerned about public health issues and is concerned about their responsibility in adding anything to a water supply. That is really the ultimate in public health proposals or public health issues.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .