As adults, we make choices on a daily basis. Our choices may relate to matters of great importance, or may be of a more modest nature. Whether we are choosing a bank or breakfast, we understand that we are entitled to make those choices, and that it is our right to make decisions for ourselves and for our families.
The basis on which choices are made varies from person to person. It depends on many factors, ranging from upbringing to experience to the spontaneous and spur of the moment. The basis on which choices are made does not alter the fundamental right to make those choices. Effectively, this is essence of democracy. The right of the individual to access reliable information, consider the options, and then to make a choice is inherent in our society. That’s what the voting public does in New Zealand every three years, in local body elections and in the general elections. Of course some people choose what will best meet their own needs while others base their choice on what will best serve the needs of their community or society as a whole. But there can be no argument about the need to protect the rights of individuals and communities to make their own choices in a democratic nation.
It is disturbing therefore, that to witness the Ministry of Health juggernaut, via the District Health Boards, relentlessly pursuing the fluoridation of all public water supplies. At the moment approximately 48% of New Zealand’s public water supplies are treated in this way. The Ministry is determined to extend fluoridation to other centres in an effort to combat record tooth decay levels in children. The oral health of our children can be improved in many ways, such as improved & more regular examinations, improved diet, better education, improved awareness of dental hygiene. In my view, the detrimental effects of fluoridation far outweigh any uncertain benefits. And I have yet to be convinced that a toxic chemical which is thought by some to have an effect topically, but accepted to have no effect systemically, needs to be ingested by an entire population. Democrats for social credit reject compulsory mass medication. Why? A visit to www.fannz.org.nz offers a full and thorough look into the dark world of fluoridation and gives access to reliable, sourced information.
The decisions of local authorities to put the issue to ratepayers and residents by way of binding referenda is to be applauded, representing at it does a genuine belief in democratic process. What could be more democratic than a “let the people choose” approach?
Unfortunately, groups opposed to fluoridation are at a considerable disadvantage in this type of contest: they simply cannot match the resources at the disposal of the Ministry and struggle to disseminate the information necessary to put their case convincingly. I admire the anti-fluoridation lobby groups around the country who gallantly defend their right to fluoride free water, on a shoestring, and who succeed against formidable odds. Wanganui, Greymouth, Gore, Oamaru and, hopefully, (at time of writing the results are not in) Ashburton have rejected fluoridation. Hamilton people were not so fortunate, despite the best efforts of the fluoridation opponents - the vast disparity in the expenditure of the pro and con lobbies explains much.
Admirable though binding referenda may be, it is clear that the process requires a level funding field to be truly democratic.
In the same way, the government’s Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill has the potential to deny New Zealanders the right to access the health products and medicines of their choosing. This Bill proposes a trans-Tasman regulatory authority to police natural health products by imposing an expensive pharmaceutical model, administered off-shore, on New Zealand’s natural health products industry. It seems extraordinary that consumer choice can be decreased in this way, and by a regulatory body managed by an unelected, unaccountable managing director vested with statutory powers of delegated legislation.
Democrats for social credit members understand that adult New Zealanders have the right to make their own choices. We believe that although there are obvious areas where the interests of the public are best served by legislating to protect the public good, there are many areas in which New Zealanders are perfectly entitled to make their own decisions, to choose their own paths and that they have a right to do so.
Democrats for social credit policy protects this right by promoting Binding Citizens Initiated Referenda to ensure that governments heed the voice of the people and true democracy is realised.
Written By:
Stephnie de Ruyter
Party Leader