Local Govt | National News Video | Parliament Headlines | Politics Headlines | Search

 

New Health v South Taranaki District Council

COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

27 SEPTEMBER 2016

MEDIA RELEASE

NEW HEALTH NEW ZEALAND INC v SOUTH TARANAKI DISTRICT COUNCIL (CA159/2014)

NEW HEALTH NEW ZEALAND INC v ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE MINISTER OF HEALTH (CA615/2014)

NEW HEALTH NEW ZEALAND INC v ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE MINISTER OF HEALTH (CA529/2015)

[2016] NZCA 462

PRESS SUMMARY

This summary is provided to assist in the understanding of the Court’s judgment. It does not comprise part of the reasons for that judgment. The full judgment with reasons is the only authoritative document. The full text of the judgment and reasons can be found at www.courtsofnz.govt.nz.

The Court of Appeal has today released a judgment dismissing three appeals brought by New Health New Zealand Inc (New Health) relating to the fluoridation of public water supplies.

The principal appeal related to a proposal by the South Taranaki District Council to add fluoride to the water supplies in Patea and Waverley. New Health argued that Rodney Hansen J had been wrong to find in the High Court that the Council had lawful authority to fluoridate the water supplies and that the proposal did not infringe s 11 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. Section 11 guarantees the right of persons to refuse to undergo “medical treatment”. New Health argued that fluoridation of water amounts to medical treatment under s 11.



The Court of Appeal disagreed. Justice Randerson, delivering the reasons for the Court, emphasised that the Court was concerned with the lawfulness of the process of fluoridation. The merits of fluoridation were at issue only in a secondary sense as part of New Health’s argument under the Bill of Rights Act.

The Court ruled that the power for local councils to add fluoride to the water supply was found in the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) and the Health Act 1956. Fluoridation had been occurring in some parts of New Zealand since 1954 under previous legislation, and Parliament must have intended this to continue when it chose not to prohibit fluoridation when passing the LGA. This conclusion was further supported by the New Zealand Water Standards permitting fluoride in drinking water up to the level of 1.5 parts per million.

The Court also ruled that fluoridation did not breach the right to refuse medical treatment. For the purposes of s 11, “medical treatment” meant treatment received in a direct therapeutic relationship (such as from a doctor or other health professional), rather than broader public health measures. The Court of Appeal also found that, even if fluoridation had breached the right to refuse medical treatment, the breach was justifiable given the importance of its objective (reducing tooth decay), and because it was within the range of reasonable measures available to Parliament to address the problem.

While there was room for differences of scientific opinion, there was a sufficient basis in the evidence presented to support the High Court’s conclusion that the significant advantages of fluoridation outweigh the only acknowledged drawback, the increased incidence of fluorosis (mottling of teeth).

The second and third appeals were closely related to each other. New Health had argued in the High Court that fluoride compounds added to the water supply were medicines for the purposes of the Medicines Act 1981. Collins J in the High Court disagreed, ruling that fluorides were not medicines. However, he also recommended the Ministry of Health consider passing a regulation under the Health Act to put the matter beyond doubt. In due course, and with some urgency, the Ministry of Health passed a regulation declaring fluoride was not a medicine. In the meantime New Health appealed against the decision of Collins J that fluorides were not medicines. It then challenged the Ministry’s decision to pass the regulation, arguing this was designed to prevent them exercising their right of appeal.

The Court of Appeal ruled that the regulation was properly made. There was nothing improper in passing regulations to achieve legal certainty. The fact that this had the effect of impairing New Health’s right of appeal did not mean the regulation was invalid. In turn, this meant the appeal against the decision of Collins J was effectively moot (pointless).

Judgment: NewHealthvSthTaranaki.pdf

© Scoop Media

 
 
 
Parliament Headlines | Politics Headlines | Regional Headlines

SCOOP COVERAGE: CHRISTCHURCH MOSQUES TERROR ATTACK


Gordon Campbell: On Reforming Parliament’s Toxic Culture

It would be nice to think Parliament was a forum where rationality ruled – and where policies are raised and evaluated in terms of their contribution to the greater good. Obviously, it isn’t like that... More>>

Historic Assualt Allegation: Parliamentary Service Staff Member Stood Down
Rt Hon Trevor Mallard said today: “I do not want to cut across any employment or possible police investigations, but I am satisfied that the Parliamentary Service has removed a threat to the safety of women working in the Parliamentary complex." More>>


 

Fatal 2018 Crash: Police Officer Should Not Have Engaged In Pursuit

The Independent Police Conduct Authority has found that a Police officer should not have tried to stop or pursue a car thought to contain young people in Palmerston North on 28 May 2018. More>>

ALSO:

New Poverty Targets: Goals Overlook 174000 Children In Worst Poverty

Child Poverty Action Group is pleased to see the Government set ambitious 10-year targets for child poverty reduction, but we are disappointed not to see a target set for improving thousands of young lives where the worst of poverty is found. More>>

ALSO:

Study: Guidelines Needed To Avoid Risks In Government AI

New Zealand is a world leader in government algorithm use – but measures are needed to guard against their dangers. This is the conclusion of a New Zealand Law Foundation-funded report from the University of Otago’s Artificial Intelligence and Law in New Zealand Project. More>>

ALSO:

Pike River: Families Welcome Opening Of Drift

The group representing 29 of the Pike River Families - the Pike River Family Reference Group - has welcomed the unsealing of the mine at a private family event this morning... More>>

ALSO:

Auckland Harbour Bridge: New Design For Walking And Cycling Crossing

The NZ Transport Agency has released plans for its preferred option for a shared path over the Auckland Harbour Bridge which will transform walking and cycling not only across the harbour, but throughout the city. The Transport Agency says its preferred ... More>>

ALSO:

Wellington:

Shaw First Reading Speech: Climate Change Response Bill

Madam Speaker, today we begin the task of amending the Climate Change Response Act [2002], to fulfil the commitment that we have made, as a country, to limit global warming to no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. More>>

ALSO:

Housing: More Unsold Kiwibuild Houses Bought By Govt

The Crown underwrite for unsold Kiwibuild homes has been triggered for a second time. Now lack of sales in Mike Greer's development in Canterbury and Auckland means the government has had to buy back seven more homes. More>>

ALSO:

 
 
 
 
 

LATEST HEADLINES

  • PARLIAMENT
  • POLITICS
  • REGIONAL
 
 

InfoPages News Channels