A detailed chronology

1991: A resounding “NO” to fluoridation

On 14 September 1991, following ten years of intermittent discussion about water fluoridation, Hastings Council, as it was then named, held a Community Poll of enrolled local voters, asking if Fluoride (sodium silicofluorides) should be added to the public water supply. The result (available here) was 71 percent against – with 20,533 No, and 8,198 Yes.

1999 – 2003: Behind the scenes

Discussions and action took place in this period between NSW Health representatives, the Mayor of Hastings Council and relevant council staff. The elected Councillors and community were not informed of these discussions until later. See entry; June 2004.

2004: NSW Health pushes water fluoridation

Decay Crisis Summit, 2004 – NSW Health announced a “Decay Crisis Summit”, and formally approached PMHC Councillors in April about fluoridation. Similar approaches were made at that time to all four unfluoridated councils in the mid north coast (MNC) region, namely Hastings, Kempsey, Bellingen, and Coffs Harbour. Hastings and Coffs Harbour were, and still are, are largest in the region by population. The remaining MNC Council is Nambucca, fluoridated for several decades.

NSW Health presentation, 12 May 2004 – NSW Area Health made a presentation on water fluoridation to all four unfluoridated MNC councils.

Meeting, 31 May 2004 – The PMHC Mayor lodged a Notice of Motion to council’s monthly meeting regarding water fluoridation (Item 19). The council resolved 6:3 to refer the decision to NSW Health’s NSW Fluoridation of Public Water Supplies Advisory Committee to decide if there was a “strong case” to fluoridate. Further, that council would accept a direction to fluoridate if it is given. Almost identical decisions were made by all four unfluoridated mid north coast councils during May.

Lack of consultation

• Based on the NSW fluoridation Code of Practice regulations, PMHC Council should have consulted the community before making a decision on fluoridation. The NSW Fluoridation of Public Water Supplies Code of Practice states that NSW Health expects councils to have consulted their community before passing the matter to NSW Health to determine. No formal consultation with the broad community was undertaken.
• Peak health bodies such as the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) and the World Health Organisation (WHO) have also affirmed that the decision to fluoridate should be made by the community and not by government policy. In its 1994 report the World Health Organisation advises that community water fluoridation should be introduced only where it is “socially acceptable” (WHO 1994. ‘Fluorides and Oral Health’. WHO Technical Report Series 846. 1994:354). The principle of community consultation is upheld by federal and state laws and guidelines regarding the setting of ‘environmental’ standards, and more generally wherever decisions affect communities.
• In its 1991 fluoridation report, NHMRC states that, “If a majority of the community does not wish to have fluoride added to its drinking water, irrespective of any health benefits (or, indeed, adverse effects) that result from such addition, then that is a decision that the community and its elected representatives must make.” (NHMRC 1991 The Effectiveness of Water Fluoridation, Canberra: NHMRC 1991:7.6.2).

Significant resident objections were lodged from all four affected MNC councils, both to their councils and subsequently to the NSW Fluoridation of Public Water Supplies Advisory Committee, raising significant documented concerns about the lack of community consultation, plus dental, health, and ethical issues.

What decay crisis?

Matters raised in the objections included:

• Oral Health Budget Figures 1997 – 2004 show no significant difference in dental service provision between fluoridated and unfluoridated areas.
• According to official NSW Health data, the unfluoridated Mid North Coast Council areas had lower rates of childhood tooth decay than four of the five Sydney Health districts, all of which had been 100% fluoridated for many decades. There was in fact no local “decay crisis”.
• NHMRC’s 1991 fluoridation review and 1999 fluoridation review both report various potential health concerns, noting the build-up of fluoride in food and the need to start educating people to restrict their fluoride intake. The 1999 review recommends that children under 16 years not be given fluoride supplements, even where the water is not artificially fluoridated and has a low natural fluoride content.
• The NHMRC 1999 fluoridation review also stated: “No Australian reports were available which would have permitted the Working Group to precisely estimate the current intake of fluoride which various individuals are ingesting, nor the differential amount of fluoride which is being stored in Australian skeletons. In view of the classification of fluoride as an ‘equivocal’ carcinogen in high dosage in rats, they felt it was imperative that public health recommendations in the future be based on accurate knowledge of the total fluoride intake of Australians” (NHMRC 1999 Chapter 8).
  Despite that recommendation being deemed “imperative”, NHMRC has not funded any fluoride intake studies.

[Post script 2021: the 1991 and 1999 NHMRC reviews – with their serious health recommendations – were “archived” by NHMRC in about 2004. The 1991 review is purportedly no longer relied on by NHMRC. That is despite its numerous recommendations for health safety studies, none of which had been conducted by NHMRC, whether at, before or after 2004. The 1999 NHMRC fluoridation review was archived due to being purportedly “unfinished”, and since then has not been publicly distributed or validated by NHMRC, although other researchers do refer to it and the 1991 review.]

• In 2001, the US Centres for Disease Control (CDC) confirmed their 1999 finding that fluoride works best when topically applied to teeth, not when ingested. Despite that acknowledgement, water fluoridation continues to be (wrongly) touted as a top 10 public health measure, even by the CDC.
• In 2002, the UK Medical Research Council follow-up to the 2000 York Review of fluoridation confirmed that the state of research into “possible non-dental health effects of fluoride was generally of poor quality and limited in scope” and recommended priority areas for research

[Postscript 2021: the York and MRC recommended studies have still not been done by any fluoridating country].

• In 2003, the authors of the 2000 York Review issued a press release and parliamentary statement correcting misrepresentations of their findings by pro-fluoridationists. The authors confirmed that their Review did not find in favour of fluoridation, finding only marginal dental benefit and that no quality research into non-dental health effects could be found.
• Not even 5% of the world’s population receives artificially fluoridated water. Only around eight countries still fluoridate more than 50% of their water supplies, including Australia, USA, New Zealand, Republic of Ireland, and Singapore. 
• World Health Organisation decay data shows no pattern in decay rates that could differentiate between fluoridated and unfluoridated nations.
• Fluoridation has NOT been shown to preferentially reduce tooth decay in lower income groups. The adverse effect of fluoride on undernourished children is not known.
• Fluoride crosses the placental barrier. It appears to cause a delay in the eruption of teeth, but the effects on embryos have never been properly studied.
• Breast milk is less than 0.01mg/L of fluoride. It is known that babies should not be using fluoridated tap water containing 1mg/L fluorides. How will lower income families cope with this?
• Over 99% of fluoridated water never reaches its target, but is used to water gardens, flush toilets, wash clothes, cars, and people.
• The silicofluoride compounds used in fluoridation schemes have NEVER been tested for their effects on human health.

All these comprehensive objections from numerous mid north coast residents and groups were based on published data, studies and reviews. Despite that information being provided to councils, NSW Health and the NSW Fluoridation of Public Water Supplies Advisory Committee, the minutes of the meeting of the FPWSC record no discussion of submissions or other relevant facts before deciding to direct all four MNC councils to fluoridate.

Comment: Through personal communication with a member of the FPWS Committee, it is understood there was indeed no detailed discussion of the issues at that meeting, or at any meeting where a water authority had requested to cease or vary fluoridation.

A done deal

Meeting, 21 June 2004 – At its June Ordinary meeting (Item 32), PMHC Council received a staff report on the “Water Fluoridation Chronology” covering events prior to 2004, as had been requested by Cr Intemann at the 31 May meeting.

The staff-compiled chronology reported that;

• 1999 NSW Health had approached PMHC requesting the historic files on community submissions, media etc. about fluoridation.
• January 2001, NSW Health approached the Mayors of the unfluoridated MNC councils – PMH, Kempsey, Bellingen, Coffs Harbour – about the benefits of water fluoridation, and a joint meeting was held.
• In March 2001, “Following discussions with the Mayor it was agreed that Council needs to be armed with an assessment of the current situation with fluoridation should the matter become an issue of public debate. Accordingly, Hunter Water was engaged to conduct a review of literature both in Australia and world wide, on the matter, recent fluoridation techniques and practices together with an assessment of the capital and operating costs as they would apply to the Hastings District Water Supply Scheme.”
• 2001-Nov 2003 – Hunter Water were engaged, and drafted and completed their fluoridation report. The report accords with the official view that water fluoridation is safe and effective. It recommended a liquid chemical dosing system for the Rosewood Reservoir site, using Hydrofluorosilicic Acid (H2SiF6). The Hunter Water technical report was reviewed and endorsed by NSW Department of Commerce (DOC).

Comment: It should be noted that Hunter Water has, however, at least once asked permission from NSW Health to lower their added fluoride concentration from 1.0mgF/L to 0.6mgF/L, for climactic reasons relating to daily fluid consumption. That and indeed any and all requests from water authorities to reduce the fluoridation concentration or cease fluoridation, appear to have been refused by NSW Health, usually without giving any reason than that 1mgF/L is required by NSW law.

• 17 Dec 2003: PMHC received letter received from NSW Health advising of a “Decay Crisis Summit” to be held early 2004. (See below regarding actual local decay rates).
• 20 April 2004: PMHC Mayor, General Manager and Director of Infrastructure attended a dental teleconference with other Mid North Coast centres convened by Mid North Coast Area Health Service and chaired by Dr Norman Swann.

Comment: Significantly, neither Councillors nor the community had been advised at the time of these pre-May-2004 events, meetings, and evidently agreements, only the Mayor. That was despite the importance of fluoridation as a matter of health, and (a) the clear ‘No Fluoride’ results of the 1991 Poll, and (b) the requirement set down under the Code of Practice to the Fluoridation of Public Water Supplies Act that a water authority must consult with its community before making a decision about fluoridation of the water supply. The ensuing decision by PMHC to fluoridate must be considered invalid for those reasons, and NSW Health also held responsible by breaching its own fluoridation regulations and ignoring the need for proper community consultation.

Gazettal, 6 August 2004 – A direction to fluoridate was gazetted by the Director General of NSW Health, covering each of the four presently unfluoridated mid north coast councils. All those councils were instructed to commence fluoridation by 5 November 2005, unless otherwise approved by the Chief Dental Officer of the Department of Health. Council had allocated $1M in the 2004/2005 annual budget, towards the costs of the fluoride dosing plant.

2005 – 2012:  Fluoridation commenced

Fluoridation Plant approval, 29 August 2005 – The Development Application for construction of the Fluoridation Plant (Utility Installation) at Rosewood Road Wauchope was approved. There was no assessment in the DA of the fluoridation activity to follow, only the physical construction of the dosing plant.

Construction completed, 2012 – Construction of fluoridation dosing plant completed, with the cost of $1.78M funded by the Health Administration Corporation on behalf of NSW Health. Under the funding contract, the funding is to be reimbursed to NSW if at any time in the subsequent 12 years the dosing plant was not “used” or “fit to be used” for water fluoridation.

Fluoridation started, February 2012  – PMHC commenced water fluoridation to Port Macquarie, Camden Haven and Wauchope.

Meeting, 23 May 2012 – The May Ordinary council meeting (Item 8.04) was presented with 5,000 signatures (3,000 in hand and another nearly 2,000 tabled on the night), petitioning council to hold a Community Poll on fluoridation in conjunction with the September Council elections. The Council Administrator referred the matter to the incoming elected council for consideration.

2015 – 2017: NHMRC and NSW Health obfuscation

Meeting, 15 July 2015 – At its July Ordinary meeting (Item 10.01), arising from ongoing local objections to water fluoridation, PMHC resolved to “Write to the NSW Department of Health and the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) requesting detailed information on their studies and programs relating to water fluoridation”.

Consequent to inquiries made by PMHC to NHMRC:

Letter from NHMRC, 19 August 2015 – NHMRC advised they have not conducted any studies to ascertain daily fluoride intake under water fluoridation, and have not funded any studies into potential adverse health effects. (Letter available here).

Comment: That is despite the NHMRC’s own fluoridation reviews from 1991 and 1999 recommending both those actions.

Letter from NHMRC, 29 April 2016 – NHMRC confirm that “there have been no projects funded prior to or after 2000 that investigated potential negative health effects from fluoride or fluoridation.” They also confirm that NHMRC only reviews “fluoridation” literature regarding humans. (Letter available here).

Comment: That means NHMRC does not look at toxicological or clinical research or studies in vitro or on animals, as is normally considered in safety assessments.

The NHMRC letter adds that their 2007 review did not consider the 2006 report of the US National Research Council of the National Academies of Sciences (NRC 2006) or its reported “adverse health events” because that report considered fluoride ingestion per se, and NHMRC considers it “is not a scientific study”!

Comment: That is a truly bizarre claim, demonstrating the refusal of NHMRC to assess actual fluoride toxicology hence potential health effects from fluoride consumption. It is especially incomprehensible as the WHO Drinking Water Guidelines specifically refer to the NRC 2006 review of health effects from fluoride.

Consequent to inquiries made by PMHC to NSW Health:

Questions go unanswered

Letter from NSW Health, 21 August 2015 – NSW Health advised that they cannot inform Council of any change in local decay rates since fluoridation commenced in 2012 because they do not conduct “before and after” studies relating to fluoridation commencement. Moreover, they cannot provide information on individual Local Government Areas due to the difficulty of “disaggregating data”.

Comment: It is hard to understand why the data cannot be provided for individual LGAs, when obviously that data must be collected individually.

Letter to NSW Health, 18 October 2015 – Council wrote again to NSW Health on this date, with specific questions about: local dental data; evidence regarding health effects from fluoride consumption, and the procedure by which a council could request to lower its fluoride concentration in fluoridated water.

Comment: Council appears to have received no reply from NSW Health to this letter and questions.

Teleconference, 22 February 2016 – A teleconference was held with NSW Health representatives, which however evidently failed to provide answers to the questions raised.

Letter to NSW Health, 7 March 2016 – PMHC wrote a further letter to NSW Health requesting:

• decay results by local health district as offered by NSW Health;
• the series of state and national dental surveys that NSW Health stated constitute the evidence base for NSW and nationally;
• information on state and national dental surveys conducted since the 1970’s;
• copies of the studies into health effects that NSW Health stated they relied upon in setting the fluoridation level;
• UK study results into fluoride levels in individuals, as offered by NSW Health;
• NSW Health’s consideration of the recent decision by US Public Health Service to lower their recommended level from 1.2mgF/L to 0.7mgF/L, and
• Advice as to how a water authority could apply to reduce the local gazetted fluoridation level.

Comment: As with the letter of 18 October 2015, Council appears to have received no reply to this letter to NSW Health of 7 March 2016. Is NSW Health disinterested, or lacking the supporting information they claim they have?

Meeting, 18 May 2016 – At its Ordinary meeting (Item 13.01), PMHC formally received and noted the letters sent and replies received as above, with the report noting that “Council has been largely unsuccessful in its request for information on studies being done into the potential for adverse health effects from fluoride consumption.”

Council resolved to “continue to gather information on this matter.”

NOTE: All the NHMRC and NSW Health correspondence can be seen on the PMHC website, “Council Meetings and Agendas”.

Recommendations ignored

Letter from NHMRC, 29 July 2016 – A reply from NHMRC stated that it sets its guideline values for the concentration of fluoride in drinking water based on just two sources: (a) a 1987 WHO monograph on cancer, and (b) NHMRC’s own 1991 fluoridation review.

It seems important to note the NHMRC 1991 fluoridation review did not unconditionally support fluoridation, but specifically noted the potential for adverse health effects from fluoride consumption, and recommended, among other investigations,

• That NHMRC should not merely rely on research conducted by others, and should “adopt a pro-active approach by instigating its own research”.
• NHMRC should “develop monitoring mechanisms to document total fluoride intakes by adults with a view to estimating levels of deposition in bone.” (section D, p 17)
• “It would not be surprising if there were some undetected cases of skeletal fluorosis in the Australian population in individuals with pathological thirst disorders and/or impaired renal function. However, the matter has not been systematically examined. This matter should be the subject of careful and systematic review.” (s. 6.4, p 84)
• “It is desirable to look in a rigorous fashion whether the vague constellation of symptoms which are claimed to result from ingestion of fluoridated water can be shown to be reproducibly developed in these “susceptible” individuals. These claims are being made with sufficient frequency to justify well-designed studies which can properly control for subject and observer bias.” (s. 6.5, p 84)
• “During the conduct of any future epidemiologic studies, it will be very difficult to determine the levels of fluoride to which cancer sufferers and selected controls have been exposed, but systematic efforts to determine this are highly desirable. These issues also deserve the attention of a multidisciplinary group, backed by sufficient funds to initiate rigorous studies which can contribute information to the international knowledge base on these matters.” (s. 6.5, p. 84)
• “Dental fluorosis is a sensitive indicator of storage of fluoride in teeth during the developmental stages of tooth formation, but does not indicate the amount of fluoride which is being incorporated into bone throughout adult life. … Studies of bone fluoride collected at autopsy in selected individuals could provide needed reassurance that the current policy is not resulting in hazardous levels of bone accumulation.” (s. 8.4, p 108)

None of these abovementioned studies have been undertaken by NHMRC and nor have the matters raised been specifically investigated by them. In rescinding its 1991 review, it must be asked whether NHMRC is intending to hide its own previous recommendations regarding the need for specific investigations into potential adverse health effects.

2018 – 2019: Legal advice reveals 30 years of illegal fluoridation

Meeting, 18 April 2018 – At its Ordinary meeting (Item 12.06), Council received a report outlining the history of this matter and noting that:

• The Australian Drinking Water Guidelines recommend that water supply authorities not rely on external information and make their own enquiries as to the safety, or otherwise of any chemicals added to drinking water.
• “Council has been largely unsuccessful in its request for information on studies being done into the potential for adverse health effects from fluoride consumption.”
• The report “is informed by the submission from Michael Lusk on behalf of Citizens against Fluoride relating to the current Federal Circuit Court matter of Lusk v. Tong and Commonwealth Ombudsman”, which “sets out to require that the TGA provide reasons why fluoride is not a Therapeutic Good and therefore not subject to toxicological testing and regulation. It is proposed that Council continue to monitor this case and the outcome.”

Council subsequently resolved to: “Continue to monitor relevant updates concerning fluoridation including advice from NSW Health, NHMRC and the outcome of the current Federal Circuit Court matter of Lusk v. Tong and Commonwealth Ombudsman, noting that any changes to the environment or legislation that may impact on Council’s drinking water fluoridation scheme will be reported to Council.”

Meeting, 21 November 2018 – At its Ordinary meeting (Item 13.01), arising from a Question on Notice regarding the delay in any court outcome in the Lusk v Tong case, Cr Intemann asked the General Manager to secure legal advice regarding the Therapeutic Goods Act.

The General Manager replied verbally that such advice would be sought.

Meeting, 12 December 2018 – At its ordinary meeting (Item 12.02), Council received a report on progress in seeking legal advice concerning the Therapeutic Goods Act in relation to fluoridation.

The General Manager reported having written on 28 November to the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) requesting that the TGA identify the reason or reasons for the TGA declaring (on its website) that water fluoridation is not a therapeutic good. The letter asked why fluoridated reticulated drinking water is deemed not to be ‘therapeutic goods’ according to Section 3(1) paragraphs (c)-(h) in the definition of that term found in the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989.

The General Manager further reported that he will seek this advice in early 2019, after developing a suitable brief of information for the selected legal advisors.

TGA ducking and weaving

Meeting, 20 February 2019 – At its Ordinary Meeting (Item 12.02), Council formally received a reply from the TGA stating that TGA considers fluoridated reticulated drinking water is not a therapeutic good under the Therapeutic Goods Act, and TGA will consider making its position clear in an instrument under section 7AA of the Therapeutic Goods Act.

The General Manager advised that legal advice would be sought, and a report will come to Council once the advice is received.

Meeting, 19 June 2019 – In Confidential session of the Ordinary meeting (Item 15.13), Council considered the legal advice received regarding fluoridation and the Therapeutic Goods Act.

In essence the advice concludes that fluoridated reticulated drinking water qualifies as ‘therapeutic goods’, and Council is in breach of the Therapeutic Goods Act by supplying fluoridated water without registration of that product under the TG Act. The situation can be resolved by either (a) council registering fluoridated water as a therapeutic good under the TG Act, or (b) the Therapeutic Goods Administration excluding fluoridated water from the TG Act.

Council resolved to request the General Manager to:

• Instruct council’s lawyers to write to the TGA outlining the situation, attaching the legal advice, and requesting full details of what is involved in securing a license/registration for the manufacture, presentation and supply of an orally-consumed therapeutic good, including issues such as toxicological studies etc.;
• Provide the advice to NSW Health and invite their opinion;
• Provide a copy of the above-mentioned letters and legal advice to the relevant State and Federal Health Ministers, and the local State and Federal members of Parliament;
• Write to the Presidents of Local Government NSW (LGNSW) and the Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) (attaching the legal advice and the above-mentioned letters to NSW Health and the TGA), requesting that they raise this issue of significant public interest promptly with their respective Boards and subsequently their members, with a view to their associations forming a position on this issue so that they can advocate for and on behalf of Council with regard to the constitutionality or otherwise of reticulated water fluoridation.
• Make public the above-mentioned legal advice, including on Council’s website.
• Obtain further legal advice as necessary and to keep Councillors informed of such advice.

Bombshell legal advice

The received legal advice, dated 17 April 2019, (available here) importantly states:

• Clause 75 – “There is, however, what is called an operational inconsistency because no steps have been taken to register fluoridated water as a therapeutic good and the TGA denies that it is such a good at all and has declined to take steps to register it, or exclude it from the definition on that ground. It has, however, failed to specify its reasons for thinking that it is not a therapeutic good, and all that is known about its decision is that is was made after legal advice from the Australian Government Solicitor. That advice has never been disclosed, and is treated as something akin to a State Secret.”
• Clause 80 – “Conclusion – Fluoridated water is an unregistered therapeutic good under the TG Act. The TG Act binds Council. Its supply of fluoridated water is in breach of the Act until fluoridated water is registered as a therapeutic good or excluded from the TG Act. Council is exposed to both criminal and civil penalties. The Fluoridation Act requires Council to supply fluoridated water, but that obligation is inconsistent with the prohibition on its supply imposed by the TG Act. To that extent and by force of s 109 of the (Australian) Constitution, the Fluoridation Act is overridden by the TG Act. The TG Act is also applied as a law of the State by the (NSW) Poisons Act. In that capacity, it is also inconsistent with the Fluoridation Act. There is no reason why both Acts cannot be complied with, but the Fluoridation Act as the earlier law, cannot impose an obligation to supply consumers with an unregistered therapeutic good in breach of the later Poisons Act. To the extent that it purports to do so, it has been impliedly repealed by the Poisons Act.”

Comment: There is Freedom of Information and email correspondence spanning at least 15 years, wherein numerous Australian citizens opposed to fluoridation had questioned the Therapeutic Goods Administration and the state Health authorities from various directions concerning the relationship between water fluoridation and the TG Act. The TGA and Health authorities provided a diverse suite of different answers, none seeming obvious or legal, but concerning what the legal advice to PMHC described as “akin to a State Secret”.

In view of that extensive correspondence, the TGA cannot deny they knew there were legal problems with fluoridation in relation to the enactment of the TG Act in 1989 which prohibits the distribution of therapeutic goods without license, and by implication since 1996 with the therapeutic goods amendment to the NSW Poisons Act 1966. Either they also hid that fact from the state Health authorities, or the Health authorities were aware and are therefore implicated in also hiding the legal problems from the nation.

Moreover, the legal advice confirms that due to the inconsistencies between the various legislation, the NSW Fluoridation of Public Water Supplies Act 1957 was effectively repealed in 1989 and invalid since then by virtue of the TG Act and its consequent requirements under the Poisons Act. During the whole of that period, water authorities in NSW, and presumably other states, were being forced to supply fluoridated water unwittingly and unlawfully, in contravention of two Acts and exposing each participant to civil and criminal penalties.

Excluded Goods Order, 15 July 2019 – The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) published the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Excluded Goods) Determination 2019, by which ‘fluoridated reticulated drinking water’ is added to a list of goods specifically excluded from the operation of the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 (‘TG Act’).

Comment: That move was made without fulfilling the requirements under the TG Act, that a chemical must be properly assessed for safety and risk to the public before making an Exclusion Order under that Act. Fluoridation has once again been given a free ride, being assisted to evade any substantial safety regulation, thereby exposing the national community to fluoride’s now well-documented potential harms.

PMHC webpage, December 2019 – The PMHC fluoridation webpage reports that council conducted a due diligence legal exercise on the effect of the TG Act Amendment Determination, which resulted in the view that there is no longer a conflict between Council’s obligations under the Fluoridation of Public Water Supplies Act 1957 and the provisions of the TG Act or the Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act 1966.

2020- 2021: Time for a new community poll

Meeting, 19 February 2020 – At its Ordinary meeting (Item 11.02), the Mayor moved and Councillors resolved that the General Manager provide a report to Council “in March 2020 regarding the process, cost and proposed wording to conduct a Poll in conjunction with the September 2020 Local Government Election that provides for the community to indicate whether they would like Council to continue to add fluoride to the water supply or otherwise”.

In giving notice of the motion, the Mayor noted as follows;

“Council sought, and received, detailed legal advice in April 2019 regarding the legality of adding fluoride to the local government area’s water supply. This advice suggested that the addition of fluoride to water supply reticulation schemes had been illegal since the introduction of the Therapeutic Goods Act in 1989.

“The advice as initiated by Port Macquarie-Hastings Council and the wide publicity that followed prompted the federal government to exclude fluoridated reticulated drinking water as a therapeutic good from the Therapeutic Goods Act’s list of therapeutic goods, thus making the supply of fluoridated water legal.

“Council has an opportunity in the upcoming Local Government elections in September 2020 to conduct a poll to determine the community’s position with respect to adding fluoride to the water supply.”

Meeting, 18 March 2020 – At its Ordinary meeting (Item 12.03), Council received a report on the process and cost (approx. $66,000) to conduct a Community Poll. It was resolved “That Council conduct a community poll with the following wording in conjunction with the September 2020 Local Government elections, which will read: “Would you prefer that Council stop adding fluoride (hydrofluorosilicic acid) to the public water supply?”

Attached to the report was NSW Health’s advice regarding how a request to stop fluoridation might be considered by them, namely by considering any information provided by the council, and by consulting relevant ‘authorities’ on the subject.

Meeting, 15 July 2020 – At its Ordinary meeting (Item 11.01), PMHC resolved to hold the Poll one year later, on 4 September 2021 in line with the deferred Local Government elections, due to COVID.

Meeting, 17 February 2021 – Under item 10.04, Council considered a councillor-initiated motion not to proceed with the community poll but to seek staff advice on how better to survey community opinion on the question. Council resolved to affirm it decision to hold the poll, and also to seek staff advice on how better to survey community opinion.

Meeting, 21 April 2021 – Under item 10.12, council considered alternative consultation options and resolved 4:3 to proceed with the community poll, accompanied by an information sheet providing the ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ cases, and inviting local schools to engage in student discussions about the topic of fluoridation and the community poll as a democratic process.

Council asked NSW Health to provide information for the ‘No’ case to not stop fluoridation, but they declined. PMHC compiled a ‘No’ case using extracts from the websites of NSW Health and ADA.

Council asked Fluoride Free Australia to provide information for the ‘Yes’ case to stop fluoridation, and subsequently requested substantiating information on four FFA statements. All the information provided by FFA to PMHC can be found on the FFA website.

Meeting, 4 August 2021 – With the further delay of local government elections until 4 December, council considered a motion to amend the poll question, as well as a letter dated 16 July 2021 from NSW Health Minister Brad Hazard. Minister Hazzard requested that council not include the name of the fluoridation chemical in the poll question, and instead ask a question consistent with previous polls run by NSW Health. The question used by NSW Health is: “Do you agree with adding fluoride to the water supply to try and prevent tooth decay?”.

Council voted 4:3 that the poll question will be “Do you want Port Macquarie-Hastings Council to permanently cease adding fluoride (hydrofluorosilicic acid) to the drinking water supply?”

Fluoridation status – In his 16 July letter, Minister Hazzard also raised that PMHC had temporarily ceased fluoridation in November 2019 due to drought and lack of flow in the Hastings River, and had only recommenced fluoridation to the Wauchope water supply on 9 April 2021. The Minister stated that, following advice received by NSW Health from the EPA, the Public Health Unit had recommended fluoridation also be recommenced in Hastings District Water Supply, offering a 100% subsidy for the cost of a new or temporary dosing system.

The news that fluoridation had been halted for the past 18 months drew an outraged response from fluoridation supporters, blaming Councillors for stopping fluoridation and not advising the community. It emerged that Councillors had not been involved in the decision, the reason for ‘pausing’ fluoridation being evidently ‘technical’ issues, and with NSW Health briefed and consulted by council staff on all related matters.

It does seem ironic that NSW Health, which forces councils to fluoridate to prevent childhood dental decay, chose not to advise the PMH community that the water supply had not been fluoridated for the past 18 months.

Petition against the poll – Local doctors, dentists and health professionals raised a petition against the fluoridation poll, which FFA believes will be tabled at the September PMHC meeting. What is amazing, but unsurprising, is the lack of knowledge of fluoridation supporters regarding fluoridation, as evidenced by the Letters to the Editor and letters sent to FFA. The controversy continues.

Meeting 6 September 2021 – Council resolved not to proceed with the Community Poll on fluoridation, as had been planned in conjunction with the upcoming Local Government elections scheduled for 4 December 2021.

Instead of the community poll, Council also resolved to accept a public invitation by the Hon. Leslie Williams MP, for Council to engage in direct talks with NSW Health regarding water fluoridation locally.

These direct talks with NSW Health have been initiated by a series of detailed questions available HERE.