Dear Ministry of Health,

Can you please describe your relationship with me as a resident of Auckland and customer of Watercare for reticulated town water supply and connection services.

Specifically (and in the context of described above):

R1) Please supply any document that illustrates that the Ministry of Health:
a) Has a direct contract with myself or people such as myself, or
b) Is a joint contractual partner in my contract with Watercare.

R2) Please supply any document that shows that the Ministry of Health has a regulatory relationship with Watercare with respect to the water supply contract I am a part of. Please quote the basis of this regulatory power - eg the relevant Act, Order in Council, regulation etc.

R3) Please supply any document that shows that the Ministry of Health has a regulatory relationship with myself with respect to the water supply contract I am a part of with Watercare. Please quote the basis of this regulatory power - eg the relevant Act, Order in Council, regulation etc.

Ways of Working:
1) You are obliged to consult with me under the OIA so please do this before rejecting the request if there are "too many documents". We can discuss whether there are ways to reasonably limit the request, but you will need to supply details of the document count, keywords used and potentially a list of documents from a reasonable search. This consultation phase will limit a trip via the Ombudsman which just wastes time.
2) I am not asking for the creation of any Records. I am asking questions which you may be able to be answered via a short paragraph - especially where the answer is that there is no relationship or no such documents.
3) I am not asking for ALL documents, I am asking for ANY document which definitively illustrates the situation. Therefore a suitably experienced person within the Ministry should be able to lay their hands on the requested information/document.
4) While the Act giving any power may be public (and does not need to be provided under the OIA), the information I am asking for is the Ministry's belief and claim that a particular Act and section(s) of the Act provide a power or create a relationship to my contract with Watercare - and the document that argues or makes the link.

Yours faithfully,

Chris Johnston

Dear OIA Requests,

Thank you for your insightful reply.

APOLOGY AND INFORMATION
I realise that you have not fully understood my OIA and this may be due to my communication, so this is a reply under the Consultation you should have entered into with me under the OIA Section 18B when a request is likely to be refused. If you have any doubt about this then please refer to the Act itself https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/publ... or the guidance from the Ombudsman’s office https://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/site...

I have adjusted and refined my questions based on the response above, and then sought to take the next step in the conversation.

GRAMMAR AND STAKEHOLDER COMMUNICATION CONVENTIONS
You mention that a sentence is very important for me to understand but mention an organisation that I am not aware of and I cannot find this organisation at http://www.ManatūHauora.govt.nz

“It is important to note that Manatū Hauora is not aware of any contracts you may hold with
Watercare.”

If this is a Maori name for the Ministry of Health then please note that myself and my family speak English, and a number of other languages but not Maori. The OIA as submitted is in English therefore a reply is expected in English using the English translation for all nouns, proper nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, and in all tenses…. especially for important sentences, English by precedent is an official language of NZ. I will not ask you to understand a non-NZ language nor ask you to reply in it. These standards of conduct are important if the MoH’s communication with its stakeholders is to be effective.

Please clarify whether this Manatū Hauora you speak of is a legally distinct organisation to the MoH or the same organisation. Is the website www.MoH.govt.nz the official website for this Manatū Hauor and can I therefore rely on it for official information?

THE WATERCARE CONTRACT
For the avoidance of doubt the link below is the contract that Watercare enters into with residents in the Auckland Unitary Authority. It is publicly available information and on their website. However I made it hard for you so I apologise for that and rejoice that our Consultation on an OIA likely to be refused has clarified this issue.
https://www.watercare.co.nz/Help-and-adv...

Now that the MoH has possession of this link it is now a Record under the Public Records Act held by an organisation that has received this OIA and is subject to the OIA. Please now answer my questions with respect to this standard contract.

TRANSFER AND REGULATORY OR CONTRACTUAL PARTNER RELATIONSHIPS
The MoH reply contains what appears to be an important paragraph that I do not understand due to the use of another language I do not have knowledge of. This makes me feel disempowered as a seeker of information and clarity.
“Manatū Hauora was the regulator for drinking water and had a relationship with Watercare up
until 15 November 2021. This was not a contractual relationship however Watercare had a duty to comply with part 2A of the Health Act 1956 (now repealed) and the Drinking Water Standards for New Zealand that were in place at that time. The regulation of drinking water transferred to Taumata Arowai on 15 November 2021.”

Is the transfer of regulatory relationship something to do with what is colloquially known as “3 Waters”?

LEGAL BASIS
I note the “Water Services (Drinking Water Standards for New Zealand) Regulations 2022”
https://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulati... has a note at the bottom that says : “The standards are based in part on the World Health Organization Guidelines for drinking-water quality: fourth edition incorporating the first and second addenda. “. Can you please:
- Provide me with the document that details all the evidence used to set the MAV for Fluoride for the equivalent set of regulations that applied before 15 November 2021 - “Drinking-water Standards for New Zealand 2005 (revised 2018)”. I need a document for each year the regulations changed - even if the value for Fluoride did not change.
- Confirm that it was the MoH that did the due diligence, policy analysis and legislative drafting for these regulations from 2005 to 2018?
- The “Drinking-water Standards for New Zealand” regulations from 2005 to 2022 deal only with maximum allowed values (MAVs), and do not specify any Minimum levels required.

Can you please provide the basis of (and documents supporting) Ashley Bloomfield’s instruction to Auckland Council / Watercare to introduce additional Fluoride (a minimum) to the water supply. Copies of the correspondence internally within the MoH and any Auckland Council or Watercare officers is also required. On what legal basis was this done if the date was:
- Before 15 November 2021
- After 15 November 2021

CLINICAL BASIS
I note with interest that this letter has come from the “Public Health Policy and Regulation Public Health Agency”.

Is there a minimum amount of Fluoride recommended and on what clinical evidence (the published studies). If quoting a report from another health agency (eg WHO) then please quote the scientific studies that document references explicitly. I want to ensure we establish the actual studies and evidence - not just “they said it was true so we repeated it”.

Can the MoH Public Health team specifically answer whether this draft report…. https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/sites/default/... …. has been:
- 1 - Downloaded and viewed by anyone in the team
- 2 - Critiqued by anyone in the team or sent out for review as part of due diligence and a duty of care
- 3 - Filed in the MoH or Health NZ archives as a Record under the Public Records Act
- 4 - Confirm that at least (1) and (3) has been done in answering this OIA, and the location / meta data of its storage (eg SharePoint library and tags).

In a short paragraph, is the fluoride in drinking water supposed to have most of its affect topically on the tooth or by ingestion and entry into the blood supply to the tooth? What is the MoH’s official clinical position based on the evidence?

“FIRST DO NO HARM”
I also need to see the latest 3 documents that mention any liability for the MoH organisation or officers from enforcing a Public Health measure that causes damage to citizens.

For example , this might be a SSC document absolving any public servant from prosecution, or an assessment by the MoH quantifying how many lives have been adversely impacted and whether there is financial or criminal liability. It could be to do with Fluoride but the latest 3 on any public health initiative/topic will suffice.

COMPENSATION
Finally, there is my clarification of my questions, the MoH’s answers, and the potential implication.

Someone has interfered with my contract to supply water to my property. This interference is not hygiene related but is in the form of mandatory medication for a supposed health benefit that is deemed desirable. In order to avoid the consequences of this interference (which may be well intended), I need to take actions to remove or avoid these substances. Those actions have a cost.

Now with fortified bread I can choose not to buy the bread at all. However I am forced to buy the town water supply and an alternative. Therefore it is like the Public Works Act and compensation is due for transgressing property rights. In this case my private contract with Watercare.

Please provide any document that discusses whether compensation is required for end users from the mandated medication of their water supply. For example, this might be the purchase of bottled spring water, or the installation of equipment to take out what has been put in.

For example (on a non Flouride topic) I have been experimenting with supplementing with liquid Iodine but this produces a Chlorine smell in Watercare’s product from the residual bleach, whereas the bottled Spring water does not react. Watercare is answering a LGOIMA regarding this aspect where they may claim that the MAVs are driving “over bleaching” for hygiene (avoidance of harm) and avoidance of fines/penalties.

Does the MoH agree that compensation is appropriate where over regulation or aspirational mandated treatments are involved that interfere with private property/contractual arrangements? Why? Why not?

Please note that I make no comment or conclusion on effectiveness. I seek the MoH point of view on some data points, and risks that may materialise, and then proceed to ask the question “even if it is good, if I object to compulsion, then can I be compensated for not being able to use my contracted supply of water anymore?”

Kind regards
Chris Johnston

Dear OIA Requests,

Thank you for your reply. This was generally very useful with links to good sources and materials.

There is an item I would like to follow up on at this time which relates to a response to item 8 about whether anyone had reviewed the latest findings from the USA.

The response was:
“ The Ministry of Health does not file information that is publicly available. ”

Can you please produce the documents that substantiate that this is the policy of the organisation.

The importance is that:
- Links to material online may disappear
- Material that underpin a decision or policy of the government need to be retained so that they can be produced in court in an original form as they existed at the time the decision or policy was set.
- I refer you to the concept of a departmental library that keeps books, periodicals and papers despite them being available in public. This may apply to Health NZ.
- This phrase seems to be used in this OIA to avoid asking the team whether they have in fact downloaded and reviewed the document - and hence answering the question posed in item 8.

I would also note that the link provided refers to a review that looked at an earlier version of the meta analysis in question.

If you cannot find such a retention policy, then please proceed to state this and answer the original question that you numbered item 8.

Yours sincerely,

Chris Johnston

Dear OIA Requests,

Thanks for your reply.

Given that we have established that there is no policy not to store information that is publicly available but a desire to prioritise resources, there is no now impediment to asking your team whether anyone has downloaded the study referred to in the item you numbered (8). This OIA is asking you to establish whether Health NZ holds this document in your Records, and/or whether the officials in relevant roles have reviewed it. It is a very simple process to ask by email and to assess (eg via voting buttons or emailed replies) whether anyone has indeed downloaded, reviewed it or stored it.

I repeat thee question below:
“8. Can the MoH Public Health team specifically answer whether this draft report - NTP
Monograph on the State of the Science Concerning Fluoride Exposure and
Neurodevelopmental and Cognitive Health Effects: A Systematic Review has been:
- 1 - Downloaded and viewed by anyone in the team
- 2 - Critiqued by anyone in the team or sent out for review as part of due diligence and a
duty of care
- 3 - Filed in the MoH or Health NZ archives as a Record under the Public Records Act
- 4 - Confirm that at least (1) and (3) has been done in answering this OIA, and the
location / meta data of its storage (eg SharePoint library and tags).”

On the topic covered in your response:
"Research can influence exposure guidelines or regulations, so it is important for it to be able to
withstand scientific scrutiny. Individual studies or papers are considered within the broader body
of scientific research. The analysis of evidence requires an assessment of all relevant
information available and should not be based on a single study or opinion."

Question: Can Health NZ please confirm that it is aware that the study referred to is a "meta analysis" and has been the result of input from a team of relevant and qualified people? That is, it is a serious careful academic review of a substantial amount of the literature/science?

The answer that has been provided seems to indicate a danger that Health NZ has not grasped the breadth of the analysis that this paper represents. It is not just "a single study or opinion" as your OIA response characterises it.

Yours sincerely,

Chris Johnston