O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I am very pleased to take call after the Hon Annette King who has just taken her seat and the Associate Minister Peter Dunne of course. As the Hon Annette King pointed out the Health Committee members are not afraid of tackling the tough issues. In fact we seem to have made a habit of it in the last few years of attracting pretty much all of them. I think if we get one more sort of issue—and I will not mention what that might be—it will become sort of like a bingo session.Can I say I am pleased to take a call on this Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Bill and to acknowledge the Minister or Ministers who are responsible for this. I know the Hon Peter Dunne is primarily leading this but also in cooperation with the Minister of Health Dr Jonathan Coleman. I think this is a very important bill and I say to Associate Minister Peter Dunne who is here in the House my thanks for bringing it. I think I am personally looking forward to having it in the select committee and by the sounds of early indications—granted we are three speeches in—we should have the numbers.This is an important piece of legislation. I think one of the things I want to stress right from the outset—and I think it probably will affect the way the committee addresses things but I do not want to presume what we as a group will have as a discussion—is that this is not about first and foremost fluoridation itself. This is not an argument around the merits of fluoridation or otherwise. This is a discussion about where the jurisdiction lies to have it put it into the water. Is it done by councils where is sits currently or is it done by the district health boards (DHBs)? I say that particularly to those who are interested in the debate and those who continue the debate around the efficacy of fluoride because again this is not about whether fluoride is good or bad in the water; it is about who makes the decisions.I think quite rightly this is being dealt with now or is being proposed to be dealt with as a health issue. I think it is right and proper that this should sit within DHBs and that they consider the issue rather than councils. As I understand things just over 50 percent of New Zealand has fluoride in the water—just over 50 percent. Yet it is something like—sorry I will have to look at my notes briefly; I think it is 40 percent—40 percent of young people in New Zealand who have issues around tooth decay. And actually it is a no-brainer to use a rather colloquial term that fluoride is a sensible health intervention to try to reduce the incidence of tooth decay. I think the member Annette King rightly pointed out that there are a whole lot of issues that one can look at around the use of sugary drinks and so forth but actually as a single country-wide intervention fluoride in the water makes sense.I am slightly biased in so far as during my upbringing my parents gave me a little—there were these little pills. I have forgotten what they were called but—Stuart Nash: Fluoride tablets.SIMON O'CONNOR: They were fluoride tablets. I was trying to think of the brand though Mr Nash. They were in a little white tube with a green top and every morning with the Weet-Bix two of them were brought out. I absolutely hated them. However here I am at 40 years of age and I have great teeth—great teeth—with no fillings and I certainly link that to said fluoride tablets so thanks Mum. But look it is a no-brainer on the science and I want to be very clear about that.I know on controversial issues I have always gone out in public so people can judge how I run the select committee according to well the process. But to be very clear on where I personally stand the science of the efficacy of fluoride in water is abundantly clear. It does not matter if it is from the Royal Society of New Zealand to Sir Peter Gluckman—and in fact I think it would be really good to have Sir Peter come in and brief us—through to the health organisations.I know there are some vocal people out there who say from a pseudo-science perspective that it is a bad thing. The science is clear and if we are to relook at fluoride again we might as well start looking at whether the Earth is flat or round or we should start arguing again whether there is gravity. The case for fluoride is abundantly clear and I am very happy to go on the record about that.I think this bill is an important step forward. As I noted it is about health first and foremost so I think it rightly sits in the domain of the DHBs. We will certainly be welcoming those who wish to submit but I am signalling too in my own mind-set as one member of the committee that this is about the jurisdiction of who allocates fluoride to the water. It is not about the efficacy of fluoride itself. I commend this first reading and look forward to it coming to the Health Committee.