Comment: Holes in original fluoride referendum move

Rob Kent

I agree with Garth George that as you go through life you soon learn, from experience, how to differentiate between those with intelligence and those without. One of the dead giveaways I have noticed is the tendency for those less well-endowed in the brains department to jump to conclusions, and become highly vocal, without having investigated the facts first.

Click for video

There is a very simple explanation, Mr George, once you know all the facts, as to why the original vote of a council committee to commit the council to a binding referendum on the fluoride issue, was correctly challenged by six concerned councillors (including one who had voted in favour in that committee decision) and re-debated by the full council with the outcome we now all know.

Firstly the committee arguably did not have the delegated authority to make the decision it did to commit the council to holding a referendum. The extent of its delegated authority is to make recommendations on policy matters for debate and approval by full council. Secondly, the motion was carried at that committee meeting only by the casting vote of the chairwoman, Cr Ruakawa-Tait, giving her two votes to everyone else's one vote. Cr Ruakawa-Tait is on the board of the DHB who were actively pushing the council into fluoridating the public water supplies. The fact that a member of the DHB used a casting vote to decide on an issue being promoted by the DHB, instead of to maintain the status quo in the event of a tied vote, would have had lawyers rubbing their hands with glee. That decision would have been challenged and overturned by any first-year law student.

Once the matter was brought before the full council for debate a number of other matters, not known at the time of the committee meeting, were revealed, such as the fact that the cost of installing plant was going to be in excess of $1 million, and on-going operating costs were likely to be in the vicinity of $200,000 per year.

It was also revealed that legal challenges are occurring all over the place on this issue. One of the councils Mr George referred to is facing a legal bill of $300,000 because of challenges to its decisions, which are about to head back to court.

Another issue not revealed at the committee meeting was that even if council went ahead with a binding referendum costing ratepayers $100,000 the council does not have, the council - and individual councillors - could still be held legally liable for any potential harm to public health that resulted from a decision that they had avoided making by "passing the buck" to the public. That again would have had lawyers opening the champagne in celebration of their good fortune.

The decision made by responsible councillors had nothing to do with whether or not to put fluoride in the public water supply. It was a simple decision, based on common sense, not to needlessly line lawyers' pockets with ratepayers' funds that the council does not have to waste.

Even the Local Government Conference in Nelson has had the sense to try to put an end to this nonsense of councils all over the country needlessly wasting ratepayers' funds fighting the same legal battle over this issue several times over. That conference remit has said quite clearly, and I believe sensibly, if you want us to put fluoride in the water then you, Government, take responsibility for that decision and legislate accordingly, and we will get on with doing our jobs.

I applaud DHB members Crs Ruakawa-Tait, and Charles Sturt for having the intestinal fortitude to refuse to bow to intense pressure from the DHB and make the very responsible decision on behalf of ratepayers that they did.

Mayor Chadwick has said it for all of us the matter has been the subjectof intense lobbying and fair, spirited debate. The decision has been made. It's time to move on.

Rob Kent is a Rotorua District Councillor.