Henry Atkinson: No. I was present when Sir Henry Bolte, who opened the new [Dental Hospital] building, was talking about the fluoridation question. There was a difference of opinion. And Bolte asked what our qualifications were and pointed out that he [Amies] was medically qualified, while I was dentally qualified [which he thought less of]. He didn’t want fluoridation.

John Harcourt: He said he was perfectly happy with his dentures, and he didn’t see why others weren’t also! (laughter)

Henry Atkinson: He [Bolte] didn’t want to spend any money and he didn’t like dentists or the Dental Hospital.

Gerry Dalitz: To be fair to Arthur Amies, and I’ve had a lot of personal experience with him, he was never against fluoridation, he wanted a scientific approach to it. And of course it wasn’t available, though paper upon paper was written from a statistical point of view. But no-one could say why fluoridation worked. He actually wanted what you’re all talking about today, a more scientific approach to the question. Then he would have gone along with it absolutely.

So be fair. I know he got a lot of flack. There was a distortion because a number of fluoridation opponents wanted to make names for themselves and sought to override the Dental College and he reacted this way.

I’d also add another comment about Arthur Amies. Without his help opening legal and other doors for me, nothing would have happened in my thesis work writing in the forensic area. He was very instrumental and so was Dr Bowden at the Coroner’s Court.

Henry Atkinson: I would raise another point about Sir Arthur. The number one item in his anti-fluoridation argument was, in lights and big letters, “mass medication”. He would stand up and wave his arms and say, “It’s mass medication”. Phil Sutton was a [dentist and a] statistician and there was a third person within the team, Paul Pincus.[61] He didn’t come in very often. He was the basic research worker to whom they referred if they wanted any information on enamel. That’s how their team worked.

I knew Arthur very well and attended many, many meetings with him on fluoridation, both political and apolitical. And he was dyed in the wool anti-fluoridation, no doubt about it.

Gerry Dalitz: I would say at a personal level, he wasn’t.

Ann Westmore: How was the decision to fluoridate Melbourne’s water supply made then? You had influential people on both sides of the debate. What convinced the Government?

Henry Atkinson: It was a long campaign. I put a proposal to the Dental Hospital in 1958 that it should start campaigning for fluoridation because Dr Laurie Williams[62] in the Dental Association was very keen to introduce it. My suggestion was turned down flat by the Hospital, on the advice of Sir Arthur who said it wasn’t within the Hospital’s constitution to support anything like that.

Before Tony was appointed, the Association was working up its fluoridation proposal. Then when Tony came in 1963, he got very interested in this project from the statistical point of view through the Hospital. He and I went to meetings in Sydney, Canberra, Melbourne and Tasmania. Tony did all the work, he collected all the statistics, and knew all the facts.

Then the Royal Commissioner[63] came over here to the Dental School to interview others. We appeared before him, and the Australian Dental Association got behind the campaign in a big way. I think politically, members of the Association had some influence, Tony did, various local government councilors did, and Peter [Reade] did. I think we all helped give it a final push.

Maurice White: I think the turning point was the result of a Ministerial Advisory Committee[64]. I came up from Portland [to attend it].

Henry Atkinson: You’ve reminded me, Tony and I managed to get, with the support of a few other people, the Dental Hospital Council to come out and support fluoridation. That was made public and that was one of the turning points.

Garry Pearson: This [the Association’s advocacy of fluoridation] is actually something that’s been continuous to my knowledge right from those early days. It continues today with a joint deputation from the Hospital, School and the ADA to visit Ted Baillieu and the Liberals’ Health Services Committee in order to have a discussion with them about the benefits of fluoridation. So that’s still happening now.

Hector Orams: There are some regional areas that are still strongly resistant, I think. Geelong, for example, and I’m not sure about Ballarat and Bendigo. I think the National Party may be opposed to it.

Witness to the History of Australian Medicine