Rudman's city: Decision on fluoridation kick in teeth for young

Just a month ago, I was celebrating as great news for the kids of Onehunga the decision of the local community board to support the fluoridation of the local water supply.

My cheers were premature.

Last Thursday, Auckland City councillors voted 10-9, with one abstention, to overrule the locals and abandon the project.

The one on the fence was mayor Christine Fletcher. She neatly epitomises the muddled motives of some of those who failed to vote in favour.

Before, during and after the debate the mayor was keen to say how supportive she is of this well-proven, tooth-saving, public health measure.

She couldn't vote for it, though, because a council-funded survey had shown that most respondents were opposed.

That the local Maungakiekie Community Board and the city's works committee had both found it possible, despite the referendum results, to support fluoridation failed to sway the mayor or the 10 opposing councillors: Gray Bartlett, Victoria Carter, Barbara Goodman, David Hay, Catherine Harland, Maire Leadbeater, Jon Olsen, Noelene Raffills, Faye Storer and Jan Welch.

If ever there was a simple, safe and easily quantifiable public health measure it is surely the putting of a few drops of fluoride into the nation's drinking water. Unfortunately, both here and abroad, a handful of obsessives are waging war against the water "poisoners."

Following local government amalgamation in 1989, Onehunga entered the new expanded Auckland City with its very own unfluoridated water supply.

The rest of the city's supply was fluoridated water from the regional dams in the Hunuas and Waitakeres and a group of Onehunga parents and dental professionals wanted the local kids to enjoy the chance of better teeth.

Last July, the proponents pleaded with the council to add the chemical to Onehunga's water supplies. Councillors ducked the issue by voting to spend $45,000 on public consultation.

The big mistake here was to go for a half-pie referendum. I say half-pie because the supporting documentation to assist the voters was totally unbalanced.

The pro-material, prepared by Auckland Healthcare, was calm and uncontroversial.

The opposition statement was a scaremongering rave from something called the New Zealand Pure Water Association.

It opens by claiming that the fluoride in Auckland water is a mix of dirty contaminated water and a toxic radioactive waste product. Then it warms up.

Only a third of the ballot papers were returned, the result being a 62 to 33 per cent victory to the opponents.

The polling instructions had stated that the vote would not be binding, but that was always going to be a weak argument for a politician to fall back on. The die seemed cast.

Then a remarkable thing happened. First the community board took a brave and informed stand and despite the referendum, voted 5-2 to join the rest of the city in enjoying the benefits of fluoridated water. That was just a month ago.

On March 7, the city council's works committee took its lead from the local committee and followed suit.

Last Thursday, one expected that the full council would agree.

But instead, it lost sight of the real issue and agonised over such side issues as the flawed referendum.

Some, the mayor included, refused to vote for a measure they believe in - fluoridation - because they felt it undemocratic to go against the results of the non-binding, poorly supported referendum.

Mrs Fletcher even mused aloud at the meeting about holding another referendum at the time of the October local body elections. She got little support, which is not surprising.

Where would such a referendum start and end?

If you let the people of Onehunga vote on fluoride, why not the people of Ponsonby and Mission Bay, too?

Why such a simple public health measure should be deemed a candidate for a referendum at all is beyond me. We don't have polls to decide whether or not to vaccinate or to decide whether food preparers in sandwich bars should wash their hands regularly. We accept expert advice.

Mrs Fletcher and the other non-supporters should have done just that last Thursday.

By ignoring it, they have guaranteed that Onehunga kids will suffer more tooth decay and disease than their mates in other parts of the city.