H. F. Akers

Water fluoridation in Queensland, why not? Timing, circumstance, and the nature of 'The fluoridation of public water supplies Act (1963)'

This paper argues that the reasons for Queenslands low levels of fluoridation lie not so much in its political culture but more specifically in the nature of state legislation governing fluoridation.

Australian opinions on water fluoridation: do Queenslanders believe differently?

AIM To test whether residents of Queensland differ from residents elsewhere in Australia with respect to support for water fluoridation. METHODS Questionnaire data were obtained from an Australia-wide sample of 517 adults. The study occurred in 2008, shortly after the state government mandated fluoridation across Queensland. RESULTS There were no significant differences in fluoridation support or in beliefs regarding the benefits and harms of fluoridation between Queensland and non-Queensland residents. However, respondents from Queensland were more resistant to changing their minds regarding their fluoridation stance, more distrusting of public health officials, and more supportive of decisions to introduce fluoridation being made by the people via a referendum. After controlling for potentially confounding variables, Queenslanders demonstrated significantly more support for water fluoridation than non-Queenslanders. CONCLUSIONS Perceived Queensland characteristics, which political scientists have used to explain aberrant political behavior or public policy, were not relevant to the longstanding pre-2009 disparity in water fluoridation coverage between Queensland and the rest of Australia. The findings of this investigation do not support the assumption that Queenslanders are more opposed to fluoridation than residents elsewhere in Australia.

Fluoridation advocacy in Queensland: a long and winding road

BACKGROUND By 1977, all Australian states and mainland territories, with the exception of Queensland, had widely implemented adjusted water fluoridation. This disparity in public health policy persisted until 2008. METHODS This study analyses the sociopolitical and socioeconomic backgrounds that underpinned the repeal of the Fluoridation of Public Water Supplies Act (1963) and its replacement with the Water Fluoridation Act (2008). The authors used a literature review and historic method. References are in the public domain. RESULTS The devolution, without funding, of a discretionary local authority power to fluoridate contributed to the perennial low fluoridation status in Queensland. A window of opportunity for fluoridation advocates opened between 2003 and 2008. Now that 87% of Queenslanders have access to optimally fluoridated water, Queensland premier Anna Bligh has largely delivered on a promise made in 2007 to fluoridate water supplies across the state. CONCLUSIONS The implementation of adjusted water fluoridation requires not only political stability and resolve, but also centralised authority. The last of these factors must embrace the decision, the funding and the indemnity. State control over water-related infrastructure and water treatment enhances prospects for fluoridation. The roles of opinion polls, internal advisers and departmental figures are also confirmed. Political repercussions were minimal.