Bishop ChrisCHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you very much Mr Speaker. This bill has had a—I was going to say tortuous" journey but it actually hasn't; it's just a long journey to the third reading. I remember the discussion starting around fluoride soon after I became an MP in 2014 and I think it would be fair to say and Mr Speaker you will remember—SPEAKER: Soon after I became an MP in the 1980s but anyway.CHRIS BISHOP: I became an MP in 2014 but I was going to say sir that you will remember for a long time it was an issue that people didn't really want to touch because it was seen as a kind of hot-button red flag issue—you know not so much the third rail but something that was best left alone. In 2014 the last National Government under then associate health Minister Peter Dunne introduced legislation and it was sent to the select committee in December 2016 almost five years ago. The select committee report back was actually in May 2017 which is four and a half years ago and it sat on the Order Paper for the entirety of the last Parliament. That always surprised me because although we had a minority Labour Government that relied on the Greens and New Zealand First for support there was a clear majority in the Parliament to pass the legislation between Labour and National. There was a clear majority and I always used to sit there and look at the Order Paper and think: why is the Government not advancing this quite sensible piece of legislation that will make a difference to oral health of young people? It just never happened and I don't really understand why. Maybe the Government was afraid that if they put the bill up National would kind of do a backflip and decide not to support it. And I see the former Minister of Health is nodding vehemently at me which I frankly don't understand because you know National supported the legislation as a sensible—in fact we introduced it so it'd be a pretty strange thing for National having introduced the legislation to then turn around and not support it. Maybe he just couldn't get the numbers with the Greens and New Zealand First. I mean the Greens have historically been hostile to fluoride I know so it'll be intriguing to see which way they vote on the third reading of this legislation. But anyway we are where we are and it was interesting to hear the Associate Minister of Health in charge of the bill note that she wanted to do two things when she came into Parliament. One was folate which again was a very vexed issue going back to the last Government—in fact the first term of the last Government back in 2008 2009 and I think it even extended into 2010. Well that's been ticked off. And the second issue that she identified was fluoride. So clearly Ayesha Verrall the associate Minister has got the Midas touch because she's sort of come into Parliament as a new MP and as someone who has done what very few people have done before her which is become an MP and become a Minister contemporaneously. In fact I think I think I'm right in saying that she would have been sworn in as a member of the Executive Council even before she was sworn in as an MP. The last person to do that I think was Steven Joyce before that; so very unusual to do that. And within the space of just over a year she's ticked them off. So job done! Ayesha Verrall can now leave Parliament and hand it over to somebody else. So job done but we'll wait and see what happens next.Look fluoridation is something that I think any reasonable person when they look at the science and the evidence should support. It's interesting that we are debating this legislation on a day in which there are large protests at Parliament on the forecourt in relation to—it's hard to summarise exactly what the protests are about on the forecourt but I think it'd be fair to say that science and the science of vaccination is part and parcel of those protests. I just want to send the message I suppose that to be guided by science is fundamentally important in relation to COVID-19 but it's equally as important when it comes to things like fluoridation and public health and in that regard the science of fluoridation is very clear. If you read the evidence that went before the Health Committee in the last Parliament as I have done and the evidence in the departmental disclosure statement that the Government has put on the table now for four or five years it is very clear that the benefits of fluoridation are manifest and it makes a difference. That is why when you compare the water supplies in New Zealand that are fluoridated in comparison to the water supplies that are unfluoridated you can see the difference that fluoridation makes. Now sir you and I will both know that the area of Pētone in Lower Hutt—it is going to be interesting to see what happens to Pito-one which is where I live which is one of the unfluoridated parts—Pētone and Korokoro. In fact I think I'm right in saying—and I'm sure that Mr Speaker will correct me if I'm wrong—it's the only unfluoridated water supply in the Lower Hutt area. Historically in Pētone fluoridation has been a real hot-button issue. In fact it's been very controversial and so it will be intriguing to see what happens once this bill passes into law with Pētone.My sense—and again Mr Speaker I'm sure will correct me if I'm wrong. My sense is actually that we're 20 years on from the big debate—SPEAKER: The hippies can't afford the houses any more.CHRIS BISHOP: Ha ha! The Speaker said to me "The hippies can't afford the houses any more." Having recently got a Government valuation on my house in Pētone I suspect that's right. And my sense is that actually Mr Speaker's right. Times have moved on. The deep battles of the 1990s and the early 2000s in Pētone will probably not happen any more. But it will be intriguing. I'm sure Max Stewart will write me various furious emails about it and other things. I think that what's happened in Pētone and what I suspect is going to happen in Pētone I think actually also reflects quite a shift in public sentiment in relation to fluoridation generally which is that there is now more of an appreciation about the clear benefits of it. I will admit that the libertarian in me says I don't like the idea of the Government kind of mass medicating on a mass scale through compulsion that the libertarian in me finds that you know a bit of an affront but on the other hand the benefits of doing so are clear. And the other thing is that in the end you are making decisions in particular for young people when it comes to oral health decisions that they largely can't make for themselves. So there is a clear community benefit and that is ultimately why we are supporting the bill.Now there was a bit of back and forth around the powers of the director-general. I agree with the comments of my colleague Dr Reti in regards to Supplementary Order Paper 79 that he put up. In the end National wants to see more water supplies fluoridated. That will be I am sure the effect of this bill—to take it away from local councils which sometimes struggle to grapple with the complexities of the issues and the science behind it and frankly it's not really their core job either. Their core job is parks rubbish collection—again a very vexed issue at the moment in Lower Hutt. But the fundamentals. Their job is not really to deal with things like fluoridation. And so I think having it taken off their hands is a sensible move probably overdue and we look forward to the bill passing into law. Thank you Sir."