van Velden BrookeBROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in support of the Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Bill at its third reading. And it's my pleasure to rise on behalf of ACT today because it's the first time I've spoken on this particular bill. David Seymour did do our previous speech in the second reading but it has had a remarkable time in Parliament—taking years to get to this place. And I note that it's taken three terms to finally get to the third reading because this bill was introduced all the way back in 2016. So this is not a new idea. Fluoridating our water supply across New Zealand is not a new idea and it was raised previously under the Associate Minister of Health Peter Dunne under the National Government while National's Minister of Health Jonathan Coleman was in charge at that time. So it is my pleasure to rise on behalf of this bill today.But as introduced the bill was a little bit different to what we have currently before us. As introduced it enabled the DHBs rather than the local authorities to decide whether community water should be fluoridated. And at the time when I was reading through the Hansard on what happened back down in 2016 they stated that it would be of a benefit to 1.4 million New Zealanders who don't currently have fluoridated water supplied to their homes. Peter Dunne at the time said the single most important initiative to improving dental health particularly child dental health would be putting in place a scheme like they suggested under this bill to remove that power from the local authorities.I do want to point to a few of the benefits—if you'll let me Mr Speaker—about fluoride because when I was sitting on the Health Committee to look into the inquiry we did hear from a lot of people who weren't convinced about the science based on fluoride rather than what the particular aspect of this was. And I do want to make the point very clear that the science is settled on fluoride and the benefit to dental health. Many people do not realise that we have naturally occurring fluoride in water supplies. New Zealand however has a lower amount of naturally occurring fluoride than in other countries. So we have around 0.2 parts per million of fluoride that naturally occurs in our water supplies. It's not much—it's a very very small amount. But if we look at what happens on average around the world there are actually countries where you have 10 parts per million. So you look at how big that difference is: 0.2 versus 10 parts per million and the World Health Organization suggests and recommends that we increase the number of those parts per million in our water supply because it does have a benefit to dental health.In 2014 the Chief Science Advisor said there was compelling evidence that it provides better benefits for dental health. In particular a report into fluoridation in areas of New Zealand versus areas without fluoridation back in 2014 showed that there was a 48 percent reduction in hospital emissions for the treatment of tooth decay in people aged zero to four. So our youngest most vulnerable people who can't brush their teeth for themselves or are just getting used to brushing their teeth for themselves have a reduction of 48 percent if they're able to have fluoride in water reticulated services. And it's also gone on to show that 40 percent—that is how different your chances of having a lifetime incident of tooth decay decrease by if you have fluoride in your water supply. So the science is settled. Fluoride is good for your teeth and it's good for long-term health not just for small infants but over the course of your life.The regulatory impact statement at the time the bill was introduced showed those downstream consequences. Children with poorer teeth health are more likely to experience dental pain and as a consequence miss schooling which leads to long-term deprivation. We know that in 2013 when they looked at the evidence of fluoride 40 percent of all five-year-old children in this country had already experienced dental decay; it is one of the leading causes of avoidable hospitalisation. The Ministry of Health commissioned a report that was referenced in that regulatory impact statement that said that fluoridating water across New Zealand would actually lead to cost savings of $600 million over the course of the next 20 years and that was versus a cost of around $144 million so it is clear that the benefits of fluoridation throughout New Zealand were to the benefit of all New Zealanders.But this bill in particular is slightly different to the one that they were referencing back then and that's because it wants to now change the person in charge of this to the Director-General of Health rather than through the DHBs. And I take the point that it is a very serious reform that the Government is hoping to achieve by removing the DHBs and so this is a change that needed to be done because you can't possibly have the DHBs in charge of fluoridation in New Zealand if they don't exist. So I can see the dilemma that the Government is therein. We could talk to whether that reform would be a good thing or it would be implemented properly another day but I do need to make the point that my colleague Elizabeth Kerekere has made already today which is that it is a lot of power for one person to hold over local communities.We do acknowledge that the Health Committee did make a change that went through that also ensured that the Director-General of Health must consult with the Director of Public Health which is a good thing because it is a lot of power to have. And I know that there will be reservations across New Zealand for putting that power in place but I also want to note that while there are a lot of benefits for fluoride in the water reducing a lot of dental decay in New Zealand we can't pretend that this will solve the whole problem. We also need to point to a very salient issue which is simply personal responsibility. This bill won't do everything to reduce dental decay in New Zealand. It will do a lot but we do need more parental responsibility that people are looking after their children giving them the care that they need looking after their tooth health because that helps give children the best start to life. We see that through the hospitalisations that can be decreased. So this is not going to solve all of the problems—it will solve a lot of it but there's still a lot more that we can do in general.So in conclusion there is 60 years of evidence that fluoride in water is good for dental health. And while we do have reservations that the Director-General of Health has been put in charge of this particular piece of legislation on balance we must support this law because fluoride is the right thing to do. This is about the health of our children this is about making sure that they have the best start to life possible and we must ensure that people who are currently suffering do actually have the ability to have fluoride in their water to stop ongoing hospitalisations and stop a whole other generation of children missing school and having their teeth pulled out in horrible circumstances because their parents couldn't do the right thing by them. Thank you Mr Speaker.