Court ruling clears path for water fluoridation

Photo/File

A High Court decision has cleared the way for the fluoridation of Waverley and Patea water supplies.

Yesterday Justice Rodney Hansen rejected a bid by anti-fluoride group New Health New Zealand to challenge South Taranaki District Council's (STDC) decision to add the chemical to water supplies in both towns.

Craig Stevenson, STDC chief executive, said the decision had not surprised him because on the evidence the council and its legal team had prepared, the council was "quietly confident".

"But obviously we're delighted with the outcome," Mr Stevenson said.

He said the decision cleared the way for council to introduce fluoride to both Patea and Waverley water supplies in the 2014-15 financial year.

"Council ran a very robust consultation process and put together thousands of pages of information on this subject. Obviously the court has accepted that."

Waverley and Patea would join Hawera as towns in the district to have their water fluoridated. Hawera residents have been drinking fluoridated water since 1964.

"We have absolutely no doubt this decision will not end the debate about fluoridation but I think it's a decision the local authority sector will read with a great deal of interest," Mr Stevenson said.

In its legal challenge New Health said STDC had no legal power to add fluoride and its decision, made in December 2012, breached the right of anyone to refuse medical assistance.

But in his judgment, Justice Hansen said he accepted the council's argument that fluoridation increased the amount of fluoride available for consumption which in turn decreased the incidence and severity of dental decay across the population who drank that water.

"The poor dental health of children in Waverley and Patea was the subject of detailed submissions before me," he said.

"In my opinion, the objective of improving the dental health of New Zealanders, particularly children, is unarguably sufficiently important to justify curtailment of the right to refuse. The end is unquestionably justified."

New Health challenged the council's decision on the grounds: that it had no legal power to do so; if there was power, its exercise by the council was a breach of the right to refuse medical treatment; and in making its decision, the council failed to take into account relevant considerations.

But Justice Hansen's ruling rejected all grounds of challenge.

"I have concluded that there is implied power to fluoridate in the Local Government Act 2002, as there had been in [other] legislation. The Health Act confirms that fluoride may be added to drinking water in accordance with drinking water standards issued under that act."

Justice Hansen said the power to fluoridate drinking water was not a regulatory function, and did not need express authority.

"Nor does a decision to fluoridate require the consent of the Minister of Health under the Medicines Act, as water is not a food for the purpose of that act."

The judge said fluoridation of water was not medical treatment and he saw no distinction between other public health measures.