Engagementworks
Phone: +64 22 198 5043
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Our Services
    • Audit & Review Services
    • Community engagement checklist
    • Significance & Engagement Resource Kit
    • Resources and Links
  • Buy Community Engagement Basics Online
  • Community Engagement Basics Online
    • Introduction
    • Session 1
    • Session 2
    • Session 3
    • Session 4
    • Session 5
    • Session 6
    • Session 7
    • Session 8
    • Session 9
    • Bonuses
  • Our Training >
    • Short Courses >
      • Governance & leadership (LS-010)
      • Engagement overview (LS-020)
      • Social media for leaders (LS-030)
      • Preparing an engagement strategy (PS-010)
      • Preparing an engagement plan (PS-020)
      • How to use the engagement toolbox (PS-030)
      • How to use engagement planning templates (PS-040)
      • Understanding & planning internal engagement (PS-050)
      • Understanding & using online engagement tools & social media (PS-060)
      • Engagement tips & tricks (PS-070)
      • Engagement case studies (PS-080)
      • Dealing with engagement conflict (PS-090)
    • Practitioner Workshop Series >
      • Community Engagement 101
      • Community Engagement Basics (Local Government)
    • Governance Workshop
    • Training Photo Gallery
  • Our Free Stuff
  • Our Blog
  • Case Studies >
    • Invercargill City's Caravan
    • Sport Bay of Plenty's GO4it Programme
    • Wellington region local government reform
    • Newcastle's fig trees
    • Sport Waitakere's 8M8s
  • Our Newsletters
  • Contact Us

Let communities decide about fluoride

4/8/2014

0 Comments

 
Picture
This time each year New Zealand’s 78 local councils are engaged in annual or long-term plan discussions with their communities. These discussions are intended to focus on ratifying council plans, priorities and related expenditure that shape the size of the taxes levied on ratepayers as rates and other targeted costs for specific council services.

While the purpose and nature of these discussions is known to most contributors, councils often receive submissions that have nothing to do with matters relating to the annual plan. A classic example of such a matter is whether or not fluoride should be added to potable water delivered through a council’s water supply infrastructure.

For a small number of New Zealanders this is an extremely contentious matter. However many others are comfortable with the dental health benefits associated with fluoride and with the assurances provided by the Medical Officer of Health and other reputable agencies.

That said, the anti-fluoride movement has enjoyed some successes in recent years, forcing the removal of added fluoride from drinking water in several towns and cities. These decisions to support the anti-fluoride movement were made by councillors, sometimes with little reference to medical science and often with little discussion with the wider affected community. Hamilton City’s decision to remove fluoride from that city’s drinking water is a good example, where a subsequent referendum on this matter showed that there was overwhelming support for fluoride to be included.

Annual plan submissions are usually the entry point for influencing council decisions on fluoride, probably because for many people this is the only channel they see as being available to express concern about what a council does. But that’s not the best way of handling matters like this, the related costs can be high for a council’s bureaucracy, and the anti-fluoriders have probably figured that they can grind councils down by continually using the annual plan channel.

Some councillors are feeling exposed and there is a growing mood that fluoridisation of drinking water is a decision that should be made by the Ministry of Health, rather than by individual councils.

I think that is the wrong way of looking at this particular issue. Left to the council annual plan submissions process, this matter will reappear annually. That is just silly.

Any decision about fluoridisation needs to be made once, whether that’s on a national or local basis, and decoupled from annual council planning.

It’s an issue that should be taken to affected communities and their opinions sought. Community members should consider the evidence provided by scientists, medical experts and those who believe that adding fluoride to drinking water is a risky, toxic practice. Affected communities should be given the authority to make that decision, to be endorsed by councillors. That discussion could also include a timeframe for revisiting the decision made, if the affected community believed that to be necessary.

Councillors are supposed to be representative of their community’s views and should not be put into positions where they can be bullied by interest groups. Being representative does not prevent councillors delegating decision making to communities on certain matters, particularly those involving high levels of emotion, as long as a robust, inclusive process is used.

The Ministry of Health could take charge of this matter, but ultimately this is a decision that affects individual communities, and what better way is there for those communities to determine their desired future than through their council.
0 Comments



Leave a Reply.

    Picture

    Authors

    Brett & Don share their thoughts. Engagement isn't always the only thing that excites them!

    Archives

    December 2015
    November 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    May 2015
    March 2015
    January 2015
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    April 2014
    February 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013

    Categories

    All
    Advice
    Ideas
    Opinion
    Tools

    RSS Feed

Picture
Engagementworks
© 2023