Fluoride referendum to be re-debated

The fluoride referendum is not quite a done deal.

A binding referendum on the contentious fluoride debate isn't a done deal yet.

Rotorua district councillors will re-debate a recent decision to hold a binding public referendum letting the community decide if fluoride should be introduced to the district's water supplies.

Last week district councillors voted 6-5 to go ahead with the referendum.

But councillor Glenys Searancke and five other councillors - Mike McVicker, Peter Bentley, Charles Sturt, Mark Gould and Rob Kent - have signed a "notice of motion" allowing the matter to be re-debated at a council meeting next Thursday.

Absent from last week's committee meeting were councillors Janet Wepa and Trevor Maxwell.

Councillor Karen Hunt abstained from voting with committee chairwoman Merepeka Raukawa-Tait making the casting vote to go ahead with a binding referendum.

The council's Strategy and Partnerships Group manager Jean-Paul Gaston said at the meeting staff preferred the use of a binding public referendum saying it gave the public a real say on the issue and it would be "the most likely option to survive a potential legal challenge".

Councillors had to decide how they would tackle public consultation for the controversial subject and were given three options - to hold a binding or non-binding public referendum, or decide if consultation should be undertaken under the umbrella of the Local Government Act's special consultative procedure by producing a "statement of proposal" for community discussion.

The cost of a referendum would be between $80,000 and $100,000, while the cost of alternative public consultation would be between $25,000 and $50,000.

Mrs Searancke said she introduced the notice of motion for two reasons.

"I wanted every councillor to vote on the matter ... and I think it's ridiculous having to pay $100,000 for a referendum when we have nothing in the budget to cover those costs."

She said if a referendum was to go ahead she would prefer it to be held during the 2016 local body elections.

Mr Sturt agreed, saying it was only fair letting councillors Wepa and Maxwell have their say and that a referendum would be better at election time.

"It's [a referendum] an abject waste of money, especially after we have just put 60 people out of work," he said.

Councillor Peter Bentley said he did not favour a referendum at all saying if any decision was to be made about fluoride he would prefer councillors to make that decision.

"The council was voted on to make decisions on behalf of its constituents - we are abdicating our responsibility for that decision to ratepayers.

"Once we're given all the facts, let us make the decision.

"Education is the answer - not fluoride. But if we are going to a referendum it should be done at election time," Mr Bentley said.