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

2040 Target And Lower Standards: “Swimmable” Rivers Five Times More Likely To Make You Sick

Forest & Bird has condemned the government’s new water quality standards, warning New Zealanders that they lock in current levels of water pollution and allow for a 5-fold increase in the chance of getting sick from swimming in a river.

“Despite an explicit assurance from Minister Smith that the new water standards would provide for human and ecosystem health, he has failed to deliver on either of these things,” says Forest & Bird CEO Kevin Hague. More>>

ALSO:

 
 

Immigration: Clampdown On Rogue Employers Good First Step

The Human Trafficking Research Coalition is pleased at the new clampdown on rouge employers who exploit migrants announced by Minister Woodhouse this morning, and believes this is a step in the right direction. More>>

ALSO:

Mayor: 750 New Social And Affordable Homes For Wellington (Over A Decade)

The next stage of Wellington’s Housing Upgrade Programme will see at least 750 new units of social and affordable housing built over the next decade, Mayor Justin Lester has announced. More>>

ALSO:

22/2: Christchurch Quake Memorial Unveiled

A city, a region, a nation and an international community impacted by the Canterbury Earthquakes will come together to mark the sixth anniversary of the deadly quake and dedicate Oi Manawa Canterbury Earthquake National Memorial. More>>

ALSO:


November Quakes:

Gordon Campbell: On The Mana-Maori Party Deal

If the self-interest involved wasn’t so blatant, the electorate deal between the Maori Party and Hone Harawira would be kind of poignant. It’s a bit like seeing the remaining members of Guns’n’Roses or the Eagles back on the road touring the nostalgia circuit… playing all the old hits of Maori unity and kaupapa Maori politics. More>>

ALSO:

Private Provision: First Social Bond To Focus On Mental Health

New Zealand’s first social bond will help around 1700 people with mental illness into work, Finance Minister Steven Joyce and Social Investment Minister Amy Adams say. More>>

ALSO:

Immigration: Short Reprieve For Nine Indian Students

A temporary hold on deportations of nine Indian students is a step in the right direction but the Government urgently needs to implement safeguards to stop further injustices to more international students, the Green Party says. More>>

EARLIER:


Megaupload Case: High Court Rules Dotcom, Co-Accused Eligible For Extradion

Internet entrepreneur Kim Dotcom and his three co-accused are eligible for extradition to the United States, New Zealand's High Court ruled... Justice Murray Gilbert upheld a decision by the District Court that there were grounds for Dotcom, Mathias Ortmann, Bram van der Kolk and Finn Batato to be extradited. More>>

ALSO:

PREVIOUSLY:

Port Hills Fire: Midday Update, Monday 20 February

• 9 homes destroyed
• 2 homes with partial damage. Damage includes things like cracked windows, heat damage.
• 3 properties with damage to other external structures e.g sheds or outbuildings More>>

ALSO:

Get More From Scoop

 

LATEST HEADLINES

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Politics
Search Scoop  
 
 
Powered by Vodafone
NZ independent news