Simmonds Penny; Dean JacquiPENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise to take a short call on the Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Bill which National supports. So while oral healthcare in New Zealand has certainly improved over the last 40 or 50 years we do still have very high rates of preventable tooth decay. Moving the decision-making process from local councils to the Ministry of Health is recognising that this is a health-related issue. However the National Party strongly believes that local communities must have a voice in this decision making and it does look a little bit like another decision being taken away from the local community as this Government is very prone to do—think tertiary education think DHBs think water think local authorities and if people haven't seen a trend here yet they should be opening their eyes. So the National Party very strongly would want the requirement for the Director-General of Health to properly consult with local health officials to ensure that that local voice is not lost. We know that more than 12 percent of children under the age of 14 in New Zealand have teeth removed because of decay or abscess or infection and that's more than 100000 children. So that's a lot of little people going through the pain and anxiety of having teeth removed. At the same time we know that children living in areas with fluoridated water will have a 40 percent lower lifetime incidence of tooth decay. So it does seem somewhat irresponsible of us not to ensure that all children are in that situation. I'm fairly regularly at the Southern DHB dental services with our youngest daughter who because of her disability has to have her dental services through the DHB. I see firsthand the very sad consequences of young—and often very very young—children with very major dental issues. So with only half of our total population currently receiving fluoridated water there's certainly potential for us to get some really significant public health gains. My colleague Matt Doocey talked a little bit about the cost benefit of this. I note that having water fluoridated over 20 years is likely to save the Government around $600 million in savings through reduced need for dental treatment and this will be versus the cost of extending the fluoridation at $144 million over that same 20-year period. I would think that local government might want to have a talk to the Government about why they're doing the spending and Government's doing the saving. There's been quite a lot of science gathered around fluoridation and we believe that the science is clear cut. I was brought up in a rural area without fluoridated water. Our water was bore water and my mother was fastidious about lining me and my siblings up for the fluoride tablets every night. I see that there's been over 60 years of data on it now so she was clearly at the forefront of that science. It's important to remember that this bill will not mandate the use of fluoridation but it does place the decision-making power in the hands of the director-general. Therefore as Dr Reti has said we would want to ensure that that local voice is still there by requiring the director-general to work in conjunction with local health officials. The bill was introduced in 2016 and has been scrutinised extensively by the previous Health Committee. I now look forward on the Health Committee to having an input over this next part of its journey. In no small part the anti-fluoridation groups have contributed to this very drawn-out time frame but the consensus is very strongly in favour of fluoridation and therefore the National Party supports this bill at the second reading. Thank you Madam Speaker. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break and the House will resume at 7 o'clock this evening.Sitting suspended from 5.59 p.m. to 7.00 p.m.