A battle between health officials and local councils is heating up, as one government party seeks to change the rules. The Bulletin’s Stewart Sowman-Lund explains.
To receive The Bulletin in full each weekday, sign up here.
NZ First wades into fluoridated waters
New Zealand First has launched a member’s bill that would return power to councils to decide whether or not to add fluoride to local drinking water. Stuff’s Karanama Ruru has the key details here, reporting that party leader Winston Peters said that public health measures should be decided with “transparency, debate, and local voices, not by overreaching Wellington-based bureaucrats”. Councils would have to hold a binding referendum before deciding whether or not to fluoridate. “The only people who would oppose this bill are those who oppose democracy” said Peters.
As a member’s bill, this isn’t government policy – it will need to be drawn out and debated and there’s no suggestion it will receive support from any other party in parliament. However, as we’ll get into below, it’s actually a rather topical issue (and it has little to do with the science, with a 2024 review of the current health settings in New Zealand reaffirming that community water fluoridation was a “safe and effective public health intervention”).
No change on the cards
As noted above, should this bill be drawn for debate in the current parliament, it won’t necessarily gain support from the other two parties in the coalition. The new health minister, Simeon Brown, told reporters yesterday that the existing legislation on fluoridation won’t change, while finance minister Nicola Willis said the science around fluoride was settled. “I want my kids teeth being in good nic, and I want that for every New Zealand child.” The Ministry of Health, too, has defended the existing health measures. A spokesperson told 1News there had been more than 60 years of research into fluoridation and experts endorsed it as a safe public health measure.
It seems unlikely, therefore, that the existing law is going to change anytime soon – though it’s worth remembering New Zealand First has argued for amending the rules on the basis of freedom of choice and not because of any health risks, even if some corners will be pushing that angle.
The councils holding out
The reason Winston Peters’ push to change the law is topical is because some councils – or, at least, some councillors – have been publicly expressing their discomfort with mandatory fluoridation. The Rotorua Daily Post reported last week that a local councillor had called for the directive to fluoridate water be halted until an independent public inquiry could be carried out. The Ministry of Health’s head dentist faced public opposition and heckles of “misinformation” during a council workshop on Monday, the Daily Post reported today, and the council said it was considering providing a fluoride-free water source alongside fulfilling the requirement to fluoridate its eastern and central water supplies.
In Whangārei, things have already reached boiling point. The Local Democracy service reported that the city faces a whopping $5 million slap over the knuckles – to be covered by ratepayers – should it not proceed with fluoridation after councillors voted late last year against it. The director-general of health has threatened to directly intervene and effectively turn on the fluoride tap herself should the council not follow the national directive. Both councils have until the end of March to decide what course of action to take.
These are relatively isolated situations and the vast majority of councils have followed health directives thus far (the full list is here, showing some councils have a longer runway to act). Nevertheless, it’s clear Winston Peters is answering a call being made by certain communities.
How we ended up here
It was in 2022 when then-director general of health Ashley Bloomfield ordered 14 local authorities that were not already fluoridating their water supply to do so. It was the first time a national approach to fluoridation had been established, taking decision-making away from individual councils. The High Court later determined that Bloomfield had not fully considered Bill of Rights implications when issuing each directive, reported Stuff at the time. That debate is set to be reignited in the Court of Appeal later this year, with the health ministry maintaining that the directives issued to local councils amounted to a “justified limitation” on the Bill of Rights. As such, the directives remain in place at this point.
And so, we have a government party trying to change the law, a forthcoming court decision and two councils considering how or if they will abide by the rules. In short, this issue is far from settled.