Election Questions 3

Comments

3 responses to “Election Questions 3”

1. 

   Simon

   July 1, 2024

   Hi Tim,
   I like a lot of your talk so far until I found your readily bowing to pressure from govt. I am dissapointed that you seen bound to accept the adding of flouride to our water. I encourage some further research and leaning on the side of safety.

   https://nzdsos.com/2024/06/26/mandatory-fluoridation-chemicals-in-our-water/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weekly-posts

   Reply
   1. 

      Dr Tim Maltby

      July 8, 2024

      Council has to obey the law

      Reply
   2. 

      Dr Tim Maltby

      July 8, 2024

      Jim Smith TePapa candidate has some good legal thoughts on fluoride

      https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61560075833870

      We need a range of good people on council – Jim is a lawyer so he has the legal side

      I have been approached about my stance on fluoridation of our water.
      My consistent stance to date has been to put on a lawyer’s hat and point to section 11 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (“NZBORA”) and saying this constitutes a form of forced medication and therefore should not be an option. Notwithstanding the Supreme Court ruling which previously ruled that councils are permitted to fluoridate and that doing so is a justifiable limit on that right (NEW HEALTH NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED v SOUTH TARANAKI DISTRICT COUNCIL [2018] NZSC 59).
      The merits, or not, of adding fluoride to our water is not a rabbit hole that I have any interest in going down. I trained in law, not medicine.
      But I did start doing a bit of due diligence on the legislation, namely the Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Act 2021, that has lead to the direction by the Director General of Health to councils to fluoridate.
      Frankly, I was horrified with what I found.
      So now my stance has strengthened. It is no longer about fluoridation or NZBORA protections, these are now symptomatic of a wider and more serious constitutional issue. It is now about the authority given by the previous Parliamentary law makers who passed such erroneous and authoritarian legislation that took away the autonomy of local councils to make local decisions that suit their individual circumstances. This is classic Nanny State telling us that we are not capable and that the State knows what is best for us.
      To not comply with these directions potentially leaves councils with the risk of a $200,000 fine for non-compliance and another $10,000 der day for continued non-compliance. The only provision for consultation between local councils and the Director General of Health is limited to costs and timeframes, nothing else.
      It should be noted that the Courts have found the Director General of Health at the time (Dr Ashley Bloomfield) erred by not taking section 11 of NZBORA into account when making the direction. However, the direction still stands while this review process takes place.
      I am delighted however that other councils, such as Rotorua Lakes Council and Horowhenua District Council, have signalled that they are putting their plans for fluoridation on hold until such time that this issue has been settled. I fully endorse this stance and Tauranga City Council should follow suit to also push back.
      I suspect that the new coalition government have no appetite for this level of centralised control that was common at the time the legislation had passed in 2021 (and we have seen those previous actors who were responsible for that, vanish into the political wilderness). This new coalition government seems quite happy to stay in their own lane. I also suspect a bit of pushing back will provide the motivation to the current government to repeal or amend this inappropriate piece of legislation, and the issue of forced fluoridation will follow into the wilderness also.

      Reply