A battle between health officials and local councils is heating up, as one government party seeks to change the rules. The Bulletin’s Stewart Sowman-Lund explains.

NZ First wades into fluoridated waters

New Zealand First has launched a member’s bill that would return power to councils to decide whether or not to add fluoride to local drinking water. Stuff’s Karanama Ruru has the key details here, reporting that party leader Winston Peters said that public health measures should be decided with “transparency, debate, and local voices, not by overreaching Wellington-based bureaucrats”. Councils would have to hold a binding referendum before deciding whether or not to fluoridate. “The only people who would oppose this bill are those who oppose democracy” said Peters.

As a member’s bill, this isn’t government policy – it will need to be drawn out and debated and there’s no suggestion it will receive support from any other party in parliament. However, as we’ll get into below, it’s actually a rather topical issue (and it has little to do with the science, with a 2024 review of the current health settings in New Zealand reaffirming that community water fluoridation was a “safe and effective public health intervention”).

No change on the cards

As noted above, should this bill be drawn for debate in the current parliament, it won’t necessarily gain support from the other two parties in the coalition. The new health minister, Simeon Brown, told reporters yesterday that the existing legislation on fluoridation won’t change, while finance minister Nicola Willis said the science around fluoride was settled. “I want my kids teeth being in good nic, and I want that for every New Zealand child.” The Ministry of Health, too, has defended the existing health measures. A spokesperson told 1News there had been more than 60 years of research into fluoridation and experts endorsed it as a safe public health measure.

It seems unlikely, therefore, that the existing law is going to change anytime soon – though it’s worth remembering New Zealand First has argued for amending the rules on the basis of freedom of choice and not because of any health risks, even if some corners will be pushing that angle.

The councils holding out

The reason Winston Peters’ push to change the law is topical is because some councils – or, at least, some councillors – have been publicly expressing their discomfort with mandatory fluoridation. The Rotorua Daily Post reported last week that a local councillor had called for the directive to fluoridate water be halted until an independent public inquiry could be carried out. The Ministry of Health’s head dentist faced public opposition and heckles of “misinformation” during a council workshop on Monday, the Daily Post reported today, and the council said it was considering providing a fluoride-free water source alongside fulfilling the requirement to fluoridate its eastern and central water supplies.

In Whangārei, things have already reached boiling point. The Local Democracy service reported that the city faces a whopping $5 million slap over the knuckles – to be covered by ratepayers – should it not proceed with fluoridation after councillors voted late last year against it. The director-general of health has threatened to directly intervene and effectively turn on the fluoride tap herself should the council not follow the national directive. Both councils have until the end of March to decide what course of action to take.

These are relatively isolated situations and the vast majority of councils have followed health directives thus far (the full list is here, showing some councils have a longer runway to act). Nevertheless, it’s clear Winston Peters is answering a call being made by certain communities.

How we ended up here

It was in 2022 when then-director general of health Ashley Bloomfield ordered 14 local authorities that were not already fluoridating their water supply to do so. It was the first time a national approach to fluoridation had been established, taking decision-making away from individual councils. The High Court later determined that Bloomfield had not fully considered Bill of Rights implications when issuing each directive, reported Stuff at the time. That debate is set to be reignited in the Court of Appeal later this year, with the health ministry maintaining that the directives issued to local councils amounted to a “justified limitation” on the Bill of Rights. As such, the directives remain in place at this point.

And so, we have a government party trying to change the law, a forthcoming court decision and two councils considering how or if they will abide by the rules. In short, this issue is far from settled.

As support for the coalition dips, the PM and his soon-to-be-deputy have engaged in a public war of words. Stewart Sowman-Lund has the details in today’s edition of The Bulletin.

To receive The Bulletin in full each weekday, sign up here.

Support slips

If there was ever a political honeymoon, or even a wedding reception, the fun is well and truly over for the coalition government. A pair of new polls released yesterday, including one for TVNZ, showed the Labour Party would be back in government were an election held today. That’s on top of another recent poll – from corporate pollsters Talbot Mills – showing exactly the same thing. The 1News Verian poll, reported by TVNZ political editor Maiki Sherman, showed National was down three points to 34% while Labour was up four points to 33%. Despite still being nose ahead, National would not be able to form a government with the support of Act (9%) and New Zealand First (5%) – the left bloc of Labour, the Greens (10%) and Te Pāti Māori (4%) would have a whisker thin majority of 61 seats. Meanwhile, a new Taxpayers Union-Curia poll showed a similar result – National 0.6% ahead of Labour but, again, unable to form a government.

Notably, neither poll showed any sort of Labour red wave – National was actually ahead in both. But as Jenna Lynch observed on ThreeNews, the numbers for National aren’t anywhere near where the party would like them to be at this time of the political cycle.

Not feeling the love

It may be Valentine’s Day on Friday, but as the Herald’s Thomas Coughlan wrote (paywalled), the polls show Christopher Luxon and the coalition aren’t feeling the love from the voters. As Coughlan pointed out, it could be a sign of worse things to come, even if the message from the government has consistently been that things are on the up. A net 16% of those polled for the the Taxpayers’ Union-Curia poll believe the country is on the wrong track. The Verian poll reported that 50% thought the government was on the wrong track, compared to 39% who believe things were heading in the right direction. “Why that matters is the right track/wrong track is often treated as a leading indicator of a government’s party vote performance,” explained Coughlan. “If it is negative and trending negative, there’s a good chance the government’s popularity will continue to wane.”

‘Political sideshows’

If poor polling was stressful enough, the coalition is facing another perception issue: in-fighting. The prime minister has been pulled into what he has labelled “political sideshows” from his soon-to-be-deputy prime minister. The most serious of these involved a letter Act leader David Seymour sent in support of Philip Polkinghorne, prior to the eye surgeon being charged with murder and before Seymour became a minister. Christopher Luxon told reporters that sending the letter was “ill-advised” but there hadn’t been a breach of the cabinet manual. However, in extraordinary interview with RNZ’s Checkpoint, Seymour retaliated. “What’s ill-advised is commenting when you don’t know all the facts and criticising a local MP for doing their work, which is standing up for their constituents,” Seymour told host Lisa Owen. “He’s [Luxon] entitled to say that, but I would say that before criticising a local MP for doing their job you should know all the facts.”

Politik’s Richard Harman (paywalled) said the remarks underscored a tricky situation for the prime minister: does he risk imploding the coalition or continue allowing misbehaving MPs from parties outside National to get away with, well, “ill-advised” actions? As RNZ’s Jo Moir said moments ago on Morning Report, the prime minister can’t exactly “fire” his coalition partners (NZ First leader Winston Peters has also been involved in recent distractions, notably a public dispute with the Cook Islands PM). The situation involving Seymour, wrote Harman, also appeared to confirm speculation among some government MPs that there was a “growing animosity” between the Act leader and Luxon, quoting one Labour veteran who bluntly said: “Seymour has just told Luxon publicly to get f..ked.” National has reportedly gone so far as to indicate at the Boundaries Commission that it would be prepared to see Seymour’s electorate of Epsom abolished as part of a review.

Red tape minister tangled in red tape

That’s not all. Seymour could face action from the speaker of the house after attempting to drive a Land Rover up the steps of parliament yesterday, stopping after security intervened. As the “red tape” minister, Seymour turned the drama into one of unnecessary regulation. “There’s always a bit of red tape trying to stop you doing something for a good cause in this country, isn’t there,” said Seymour, reported the Herald’s Adam Pearse. (The 77-year-old Land Rover is being driven the length of the country as part of a fundraising drive, and the exact same vehicle was driven onto parliament’s steps more than four decades ago). Luxon told reporters at his post-cabinet press conference the matter was between Seymour and the speaker, though the Herald’s Claire Trevett (paywalled) described the prime minister as having a “resigned look” as he faced questions over the “political sideshows”.

We may never know just how tense things really are behind closed doors – but the perception of instability alone could be enough.