Gordon Campbell | Parliament TV | Parliament Today | News Video | Crime | Employers | Housing | Immigration | Legal | Local Govt. | Maori | Welfare | Unions | Youth | Search

 


Judgment: New Health NZ Inc v Sth Taranaki District Council

[Full judgment: New_Health_v_Taranaki.pdf]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY
CIV-2013-443-107
[2014] NZHC 395


BETWEEN NEW HEALTH NEW ZEALAND INC
Plaintiff
AND SOUTH TARANAKI DISTRICT COUNCIL
Defendant


Introduction

[1] In 1945 in Grand Rapids, Michigan, fluoride was added to public drinking water supplies for the first time. Its purpose was to promote dental health by reducing the incidence of tooth decay. The use of fluoride by this means spread rapidly, including to New Zealand. Water fluoridation occurred for the first time in Hastings in 1954. Currently 48 per cent of the New Zealand population live in communities with water fluoridation programmes.

[2] On 10 December 2012, the South Taranaki District Council (the Council) decided by a vote of 10 to 3 to add fluoride to the water supplies of Patea and Waverley, both small towns in South Taranaki. The plaintiff (New Health), an organisation with the stated aim of advancing and protecting the best interests and health freedom of consumers, challenges the decision. It does so on the grounds that:

(a) The Council does not have the legal power to add fluoride to its water supply for therapeutic purposes;

(b) Adding fluoride for therapeutic purposes constitutes a breach of the right to refuse to undergo medical treatment contained in s 11 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA) and the breach:

(i) Has not been prescribed by law; and

(ii) Is an unjustified and disproportionate limitation on the right in s 11.

(c) In deciding to add fluoride to the water supplies, the Council failed to take into account a number of mandatory relevant considerations.


[3] New Health seeks declarations that the decision to add fluoride to the Patea and Waverley water supplies is ultra vires and in breach of the NZBORA and an order quashing the decision.

[4] The Council maintains its actions were lawful and did not involve any breach of the NZBORA. The Attorney-General was granted leave to intervene and to be heard on the questions of whether fluoridation of a public water supply is medical treatment for the purpose of s 11 of NZBORA and, if so, whether it limits the right of any person under s 11 of NZBORA.

[5] It is important to make it clear at the outset that this judgment is not required to pronounce on the merits of fluoridation. The issues I am required to address concern the power of a local body to fluoridate drinking water supply. That is a legal question which does not require me to canvass or express a view on the arguments for and against fluoridation. [...]

Summary and conclusions

[116] New Health has challenged the Council’s decision to fluoridate the drinking water of Patea and Waverley on the grounds that:

(a) There was no legal power to do so.

(b) If there was power, its exercise by the Council was a breach of the right to refuse medical treatment in s 11 of NZBORA.

(c) In making the decision, the Council failed to take into account relevant considerations.

[117] I have rejected all grounds of challenge. I have concluded that there is implied power to fluoridate in the LGA 2002, as there had been in the antecedent legislation, the Municipal Corporations Act 1954 and the LGA 1974. The Health Act confirms that fluoride may be added to drinking water in accordance with drinking water standards issued under that Act. The power to fluoridate drinking water is not a regulatory function; it does not require 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.

[118] I have concluded that the fluoridation of water is not medical treatment for the purpose of s 11 of NZBORA. While I accept that fluoridation has a therapeutic purpose, I conclude that the means by which the purpose is effected does not constitute medical treatment. I am of the view that medical treatment is confined to direct interference with the body or state of mind of an individual and does not extend to public health interventions delivered to the inhabitants of a particular locality or the population at large. I see no material distinction between fluoridation and other established public health measures such as chlorination of water or the addition of iodine to salt.

[119] In the event that, contrary to my view, fluoridation does engage the right to refuse medical treatment, I discuss whether in terms of s 5 of NZBORA the power to fluoridate is a justified curtailment of the right to refuse medical treatment. I conclude that it is. The evidence relied on by the Council shows that the advantages of fluoridation significantly outweigh the mild fluorosis which is an accepted outcome of fluoridation.

[120] Finally, I examine whether the Council failed to take into account relevant considerations in reaching its decision. I am of the view that the Council was not required to take into account the controversial factual issues relied on by New Health. There is, nevertheless, a plenitude of evidence to show that the Council carefully considered the detailed submissions presented and reached its decision after anxious consideration of the evidence and careful deliberation.

Result

[121] New Health’s application to review the Council’s decision fails.

[Full judgment: New_Health_v_Taranaki.pdf]

© Scoop Media

 
 
 
 
 
Parliament Headlines | Politics Headlines | Regional Headlines

Gordon Campbell:
On Anne Tolley’s
Callous Folly

Years ago, I remember someone in the Heath Ministry telling me off the record that regulatory oversight in this country largely consisted in ‘waiting for something to turn green or fall off somebody’ before the authorities would swing into action...

Last week’s conflict between Social Development Minister Anne Tolley and District Court judge Carolyn Henwood illustrated quite a few of the flaws in the system. More>>

 

Members’ Bills: Greens' Domestic Violence And Loans Bills Pulled From Ballot

Jan Logie’s Domestic Violence-Victims' Protection Bill introduces workplace protections for victims of domestic violence, including allowing victims to request paid domestic violence leave for up to 10 days... Gareth Hughes’ Bill allows Kiwis with student loans to defer their student loan repayments into a first home savings scheme. More>>

ALSO:

IPCA: Police Did Not 'Deliberately' Use Pepper Spray On 10-Year-Old

"When spraying the man, the officer did not properly consider the necessity of using pepper spray in a confined space, the likelihood that it would affect the other innocent passengers or the fact that he was using a more powerful spray." More>>

ALSO:

Donor Bill Passes: Full Income Compensation For Live Organ Donors

Unanimous cross-party support for the Compensation for Live Organ Donors Bill represents a critical step in reducing the burgeoning waiting list for kidney donations, according to Kidney Health New Zealand chief executive Max Reid. More>>

ALSO:

Earthquake Response: Emergency Legislation Prepared

Three new Bills have been drafted in the wake of the magnitude 7.8 earthquake on November 14 to ensure the government can enable affected communities to respond quickly and efficiently. More>>

ALSO:

Housing MPs: New Building(s) For Parliament

A new building will be erected on Parliament grounds to house Members of Parliament and their staff who currently work in leased accommodation in Bowen House. The plan has cross-Party support, apart from NZ First, said Parliament’s Speaker, Rt Hon David Carter. More>>

ALSO:

Get More From Scoop

 

LATEST HEADLINES

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Politics
Search Scoop  
 
 
Powered by Vodafone
NZ independent news