Ashley Bloomfield's fluoridation orders unlawful High Court rules

The High Court has made a preliminary ruling that Ashley Bloomfield, the former Director-General of Health, acted unlawfully in his directive to add fluoride to the drinking water of 14 local councils.

Christchurch-based advocacy group New Health New Zealand initiated a judicial review challenging the directives issued by Bloomfield.

Last year, the Christchurch City Council said adding fluoride to Christchurch’s drinking water supply would be complex and costly, with initial estimates putting the capital outlay required at more than $60 million.

A key contention was that Bloomfield failed to adequately consider the Bill of Rights Act in his decision-making.

This aspect of the argument was isolated from the broader case and addressed separately by the courts.

The controversy began on July 27, 2022, when Bloomfield issued a letter to the councils, instructing them to fluoridate their water supplies.

Previously, local councils could make that decision for themselves.

The court had to address whether, when a discretionary decision had the potential to restrict a fundamental right in the Bill of Rights Act, the decision-maker must, in a procedural sense, address the restriction and consider whether it is demonstrably justified.

Bloomfield justified his directive by citing scientific evidence supporting the effectiveness of fluoride in reducing dental decay, emphasising its role as a safe and effective public health measure.

But the High Court found that Bloomfield did not adequately consider the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in his decision.

Reacting to the ruling, a spokesperson from Fluoride Free New Zealand criticised the mandate, arguing that there is no justification for imposing mandatory medical treatment for a non-transmissible disease that can be prevented through personal responsibility.

“This makes the inappropriate back-door mandatory fluoridation of New Zealand far less likely to succeed.

“Fluoride Free New Zealand said the ruling by the judge that New Health New Zealand and the Ministry of Health try to reach agreement on the outcome, or the judge will make the ruling, makes suspension of the directives highly likely.”