Reti Shane; Dean JacquiDr SHANE RETI (Deputy Leader—National): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to see this bill back in the House and can I first make the comment that National accepts the science of fluoridation and has no questions in that area. But if I can just talk we had a brief history of oral health leading up to this point. In fact it's a brief history leading up to two weeks ago because then what happened despite the investments and commitments we heard about in oral health Budget 2021 outlaid another broken promise in failing to deliver 20 mobile dental vans and an increase in the emergency dental grant. So that also actually needs to sit into the oral history. With all the great things we're wanting to do let's remember the campaign 2020 promise by the Prime Minister that there would be 20 mobile dental vans and an increase in the emergency dental grant. That is also the reality of the oral history that we need to tell here. Having said that let's come back to this bill. I recall that when it came into the Health Committee it would have been at the beginning of 2017. As I recall I think we split into subcommittees to hear this bill. There were a number of submissions: 1107 submissions and 208 written supplementary submissions. We heard 145 submitters. The majority it's fair to say were opposed to the bill. They were mostly opposed to the science rather than to the process that was being put forward here which was a process that was requested by Local Government New Zealand fundamentally saying Look we manage the municipal water supplies and the injection sides and we're being asked to make a decision on what is a health matter and we don't feel like we have the competence in the health domain and yet it falls to us." and that was a very reasonable argument to make. It did fall to them and so they were saying "Let's put this decision making and responsibilities and the liabilities for getting it right and getting it wrong back where it belongs—back with health." So the submitters weren't arguing that process. They were mostly arguing the science of fluoridation which as I say we've taken a position on and are supportive of. A number of health organisations presented as well and I think the key point around Local Government New Zealand—and it's in the departmental report—is that those who supported the intent of the bill including Local Government New Zealand and most local government organisations agreed that local authorities should no longer be the decision makers about water fluoridation. We had a number of submitters there who fell into two groups. There were those who said the decision making should move off local government some said it should move to local DHBs and others said that it should move to central government so that discussion was held within the select committee. The officials reporting back to the departmental report have summarised their decision as follows. The Government considered a range of options for increasing access to fluoridated water supplies including giving decision-making power to the Director-General of Health. It was decided that giving decision-making powers about fluoridation to DHBs represents a significant advance on current arrangements and fits well with DHBs' statutory objectives and responsibilities. So that was where officials landed and where they guided the committee to the report that then came back to the House. Where we're landing with this is that one we support the science of fluoridation and two—remembering it was a National bill that came to the House first of all proposing in response to Local Government New Zealand that the decision making around fluoridation move to DHBs—we agree that fluoridation should move from local authorities. We understand the Supplementary Order Paper that is going back to select committee requesting a move to central government. Our position will be that depending on what comes out of select committee we'll be seeking an amendment to that Supplementary Order Paper to make sure that there is still a local voice in some shape or form. This has got a little bit more complicated because it would have been relatively easy to pass this back to DHBs and have their views contributing to this discussion futureproofing that in what we see as the failed experiment of a health restructure. How we word that is something that we're working on. We're hopeful that maybe through the select process it might be a recommendation from the select committee but what I'm signalling here is an interest from the National Party in having a local view on this recognising that central government will then make their decision. We'd still like to think that we can capture in some shape or form a local view and that will be either through the select committee process or will be an amendment in our hands to the Supplementary Order Paper. So having said that I think we've outlined our position: broad support—it was our bill that came in initially—for fluoridation. We understand that central government will have the decision making. We're looking to get the best of both where there's still the ability for a local view without toppling that process and that desire to have fluoridation as widespread as possible in New Zealand municipal water supplies. So having set down some principles and then our direction of travel we're encouraging this bill to progress its way through the House. Thank you. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the motion be agreed to."