Thursday, 18 June 2026

 Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (12:18): (1368) My question is for the Minister for Health. There are currently many small regional Victorian communities that do not have access to fluoridated water supplies. Many residents in these towns are not even aware that this is the case. Last year the Victorian Oral Health Alliance bid for a modest investment of $4.5 million a year for four years to introduce fluoridation infrastructure in three high-needs catchments annually, including in western Victoria. This proven public health measure could save Victoria a billion dollars over 25 years, reducing preventable hospitalisations and improving lifelong oral health. Despite this, not a cent of funding was provided for new water fluoridation in this year’s budget. Why not?

 Harriet SHING (Eastern Victoria – Minister for Ambulance Services, Minister for Health, Minister for Water) (12:19): Thank you, Dr Mansfield, for that question. It is actually to a combination of two portfolios, both of which I hold. On that basis I can provide you with some assistance. We all know the importance of fluoride in water. We know that it has an enormously positive range of benefits, particularly for oral health and therefore for a range of other matters to which oral and periodontal health are absolutely essential. When we deliver fluoride to water systems, they do actually need to be integrated. When we are talking about those systems which sit adjacent to those connected areas, fluoride will not be part of the delivery of that water as a matter of course. We do have a range of processes around assisting communities to make decisions about whether they want to have reticulated water supplies, whereupon there is a conversation that can be had about fluoridation. We work really closely across water corporations around whether there is an opportunity, for example, in those newer communities, to access connected and reticulated water supplies. I am very happy to provide some further information to you on the way in which fluoridation occurs and how those decisions are taken.

Again, when we look to provide that access, it also then, particularly in communities where connection is required to those supplies, may require – as we move into a sewer system and to connected, reticulated, potable water – or involve costs to users. This is where, again, there are a range of considerations that apply. But just to be really clear, we stand by the importance of fluoride in water. I am very happy to talk to any specific examples or instances that you might have about where and how that can be better delivered.

I also want to perhaps take this opportunity – and I have no doubt that this is a view that you will share – to say there is no room for the peddling of mis- and disinformation about the impact and the positive benefits of fluoride in water. I know that on some occasions, certain people are tempted to go down rabbit holes in claiming that fluoride in water does not deliver health benefits or in fact has a range of risks attached to it. It is important that I take this opportunity to say that, categorically, that is not true. Fluoride delivers enormous positive health benefits. It presents a whole lot of avoided costs but also avoids a lot of pain and discomfort, particularly for people living in areas that are remote or rural and particularly for people from lower socio-economic backgrounds who might then find access to dental care prohibitive or difficult. Smile Squad is also one of the areas where we are continuing to talk about improvement and access to fluoride and to better oral and dental hygiene. I am very happy to get you some further information around access to fluoride and how that is being delivered within existing envelopes.

 Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (12:22): Thank you, Minister, for that response. You talked about the importance, in your response, of working with communities about what their preferences were around things like fluoridation. You said there are specific examples you would be happy to look at. For example, communities in the Northern Grampians shire have been advocating for water fluoridation. I have spoken to a dentist there who can tell the difference between someone who comes from Stawell or Ararat by looking in their mouth, because people in Stawell do not have fluoridated water. In May last year, the council there voted in favour of a motion calling for the Victorian health minister to provide fluoridated water supplies for St Arnaud and Stawell as an important measure to significantly improve the oral health of these communities. That is the community saying they want fluoridated water, and the council have said it, yet they have received no funding for this in the past two budgets. Why not?

 Harriet SHING (Eastern Victoria – Minister for Ambulance Services, Minister for Health, Minister for Water) (12:23): Thanks, Dr Mansfield. Again, this is something that happens in partnerships, often with councils, who might make votes along the lines of the ones that you have referred to here, and water corporations. Again, this can often have a cost component to it. There can be an endorsement of support around fluoridation and access to fluoridated water. We will make sure, again, that we have water corporations and catchment management authorities working alongside local councils. In the matter that you have raised specifically in that motion that went through late last year, I think you said, let us get some further information, and I can have a conversation with you about that. Again, it does come down to a range of considerations, including what that end-user impact looks like. There could be a number of different components. The end impact results in better dental outcomes, absolutely. I just want to make sure, though, that I have got a better understanding for you of any cost impacts and the way in which there might have been a community conversation about what that looks like in delivering fluoridated water to those communities.