Mr DEAN ( Windermere ) - Madam President, I have a relatively short contribution. This is an issue, and the member for Mersey has already referred to it, where up until now the State had been paying this and now all of a sudden it is the people who use it who will be paying for it, including the pensioners. I think that the cost has been referred to and whilst the cost is minimal, the fact is that if we continue to erode the money and the concessions that pensioners get we impact on their lifestyles. That is the result of all of this and it is a form of cost shifting. It is cost shifting. That is exactly what it is.

Mrs Rattray-Wagner - Through you, Madam President - you don't agree that it's user pays?

Mr DEAN - The user should pay for some things and there are some things users should not have to pay for and I query whether or not the user should pay here because it is an interesting debate because there are many people out there who are forced to use fluoride water who say that they do not want it, do not like it -

Mrs Rattray-Wagner - They can put in a tank.

Mr DEAN - and they see it as a poison and I will refer to that in a moment.

Mr Parkinson - And yet they use fluoride toothpaste.

Mr DEAN - That is right, and I was going to refer to that as well.

It is, as some people have said to me, the thin edge of the wedge again. It is gradually moving into and taking away the concessions that people have had over a period of time and I know very well that is the track that the Government want to go down. I think that we need to be very careful. I think we in this House need to be conscious of these things and need to look after our pensioners who are doing it very tough. Two to three dollars to us is probably nothing. However, to a person who simply lives day to day, from pension to pension, and as I said in this House recently, where people have wood fires, where they pick out the amount of wood they can use during a week to get themselves through to the next pension day, it is pretty awful and that is what happens with some of our pensioners. I have been into those houses where that is occurring.

Some people do not like fluoride in their water. They see it as a poison. I wish to refer to an article and some of you have probably read it, in the Examiner of 23 June 2009, not that long ago, where the heading was 'MP death threats over fluoride plan'. Some of you would have read this. I will read from the article:

'Melbourne - Police have taken the unusual step of patrolling a Victorian Government minister's house after a row over fluoride in drinking water erupted in death threats and a bomb threat.

Anti-fluoride extremists have threatened to kill state Labor MP Lisa Neville "slowly" and blow up water treatment plants because the regional city of Geelong is to add fluoride to its water.'

It goes on and on. But it goes to show that there are some people out there who do not agree with it.

Mr Parkinson - What was the outcome?

Mr DEAN - I will read on and tell you what the outcome is. Police are investigating it. Barwon Water are involved in it whom I recently visited. They carry out great infrastructure and are a great organisation. It continues:

'… anti-fluoride lobby group says it's not responsible.

In the latest incident, a death threat was scrawled on a Barwon Water bottle left on the front veranda of Ms Neville's Geelong home.

The message read: "Thanks for the poison bitch ready to kill you slowly." Ms Neville said she and her 12-year-old son were shaken when they found the bottle after returning home on Saturday night.

The local member for Bellarine contacted police who are examining security at her home.

She said that police would regularly drive past her home.'

That was the result - whether there have been any arrests or not I do not know.

Mr Parkinson - Did they get their fluoride or not?

Mr DEAN - I did not check with Barwon Water but I understand that they proceeded down that track and fluoridation is occurring. But I did not follow it through.

Mr Parkinson - The murder did not take place?

Mr DEAN - No. Fluoride is a poison. I think that we need to understand that. I wonder at times with the amount of poisons that we are subjected to, the amount of poisons that we consume, I often wonder what the cumulative effect of all of that poison is on our system.

Mr Wilkinson - You have just got to look in the mirror every morning.

Mr DEAN - I do not know if it affects aging too much, it may well do. What is the cumulative impact of all of these poisons. We know, or it appears, that cancers are more rife now than ever before. I am not sure if that is right or not.

Mrs Rattray-Wagner - Through you Madam President - don't you think that the cancer diagnosis is just more prevalent because there is a higher level of identifying those diseases.

Mr DEAN - You took the words right out of my mouth. That is exactly what I was going to say. It is a good point that the member makes.

Madam PRESIDENT - I have allowed this debate to move into the health issues because clause seven does talk about maximums and minimum concentrations of fluoride but I do remind members this is about whether or not the fluoridation process will be transferred into the relevant water authorities and committee change structures et cetera. We are getting a bit into a health debate and I do caution you to stay within the maximum/minimums, not whether it is good or bad for us because that is not the debate.

Mr DEAN - I appreciate the President's comments and I am trying to connect this with should the Government continue paying for this. I am putting up an argument to try to support the position of some of those people who have contacted me in relation to it. I am trying to keep that connection if I possibly can.

Mr Wilkinson - If the fluoride was not there some people could not get their teeth into it some would argue.

Members laughing.

Mr DEAN - People take fluoride by other means. Does it have to be in water? So should they have to pay for something they do not want and they do not see as being necessary. When fluoridation was first brought in it was not used so much in toothpaste and other things as it is now. That is where those people are coming from. I simply raise the issue because the matter has been raised with me. It is not to say that I support their position and their view. I do not necessarily do that, but I thought it was important to raise it. I am not too sure that I will support the bill at the end of the debate, but I do know that the Treasurer is a very persuasive person and he may well be able to convince me that I should support this bill.