An anti-fluoridation protest on the steps of the Hastings District Council offices last month. Photo / Paul Taylor
An activist group has lost an urgent legal bid to stop Hastings District Council adding fluoride to its urban water supply.
The Fluoride Action Network (FAN) applied for an injunction in the High Court last month, seeking to stall the council’s decision to reintroduce fluoride in the water supply for Hastings, Flaxmere, Havelock North, Bridge Pa and Pakipaki.
The application for judicial review of the council’s decision was dismissed on Friday morning by Justice Dale La Hood.
Hastings water was fluoridated from the 1950s until the fatal Havelock North water contamination crisis in 2016, when the system for adding fluoride was used to introduce chloride instead.
No other Hawke’s Bay areas have fluoride in their drinking water.
In July 2022, the Director General of Health directed 14 councils to add fluoride to some or all of their water supplies under a provision of the Health Act. Hastings District Council was one of them.
In 2023, a separate High Court judgment found that the Director-General’s direction did not give specific consideration to the New Zealand Bill of Rights. That matter is still being considered in the courts and is due to be heard by the Court of Appeal in June 2025.
In the meantime, that judgment did not cancel the Director-General’s direction to fluoridate, and fluoride was reintroduced in Hastings last month.
The move was opposed by the FAN, also known as Fluoride Free New Zealand and NZ Doctors Speaking Out with Science (NZDSOS).
In essence, their case was that it was unlawful for the council to fluoridate the water prior to the other case concerning the Bill of Rights being determined.
Justice La Hood said that Hastings had fluoridated its water supply since 1954.
Fluoridation was put to a referendum twice, in 1990 and 2013, with the 2013 referendum resulting in 63.5 per cent voting in favour of fluoridation.
Fluoridation was only interrupted by the 2016 Havelock North campylobacter outbreak that required the supply to be chlorinated. The council has since completed a $100 million upgrade to its water infrastructure.
“At no stage has the council revisited its long-standing approach to fluoridate its water supply,” Justice La Hood said.
He said that, in substance, the council was in the same position as the local authorities that fluoridated their drinking water but were not subject to the Director of Health’s direction. These included the large population cities of Auckland, Hamilton, Wellington and Dunedin.
“Requiring the [Hastings] council to cease fluoridation would be at odds with the continuing fluoridation across large parts of the country, and contrary to the long-standing approach for the Hastings urban water supply,” Justice La Hood said.
“Moreover, the council’s evidence is that now it has its infrastructure in place, it has no practical reason not to comply with the (Director-General’s) direction.
“The council also considers there is a risk of causing uncertainty and confusion within the Hastings community, given the publicity surrounding the council’s decision to recommence fluoridation.”
The judge said FAN had failed to establish that the council’s decision to comply with the director-general’s direction was unlawful.
He therefore dismissed the application for a judicial review.
Ric Stevens spent many years working for the former New Zealand Press Association news agency, including as a political reporter at Parliament, before holding senior positions at various daily newspapers. He joined NZME’s Open Justice team in 2022 and is based in Hawke’s Bay.
The Waipā campus in Rotorua is 'the only facility of its kind in the Southern Hemisphere'.