Page 654 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 20 May 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
ELECTRICITY AND WATER (AMENDMENT) BILL 1992
Debate resumed.
MRS CARNELL (3.17): Before lunch, I was talking about the basic guidelines that the NHMRC working group adopted when they looked at the issue of fluoridation of water. The working group looked at a number of issues. It looked at claims in the Diesendorf letter that the main historical studies engaged in scientific fraud and that they had misused data. It found that there was no evidence of fraud or misleading representations of this data. It also evaluated the analysis of time trends in dental caries rates, to which Mr Stevenson alluded in his speech. This was also alluded to in the Diesendorf letter. After studying the issue in depth, the working group found that the analysis of time trend data presented in the Diesendorf letter was inadequate and concluded that the time trend data was consistent with there being a continued beneficial effect of reducing dental caries amongst primary school children within the contemporary Australian context.
The NHMRC put forward a very, very long and, I think, in-depth report. It would be more worthwhile for members to read the major conclusions of this document, rather than for me to waste time here. They should also look at the review of evidence which the NHMRC working party went to great lengths to make a very readable document.
I will talk very briefly about the final recommendations of the NHMRC report on the effectiveness of water fluoridation. The first is that we should maintain the recommended level of fluoridation of reticulated water supplies at one part per million, subject to climatic variation. There are some problems in tropical areas. They also suggested - I think this is really important - that communities with a reticulated water supply that is not currently fluoridated should fluoridate it. So, they did not just suggest that we maintain our level at one part per million; they also suggested that communities that currently do not place fluoride in their water do so, at one part per million.
The working party went on to recommend on a number of other issues, one of which it is important for me to conclude with here. I think it is exceptionally important that we do not perceive, as has been said by some members, that this is the end of the matter. I believe that putting fluoride back at one part per million will take that issue off the agenda. But this is a public health issue, and such issues should be continually assessed and reassessed. I think it is important over the next few years - possibly in five years' time or maybe even before - for us to look at exactly what is happening with fluoride in the ACT population, particularly amongst adults about whom the amount of data is substantially less than is the case amongst children. This should be an ongoing assessment project. We have to look at what is happening now and in the future.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .