Mysteries, Chemtrails, Aerosols :: Mysterious NZ New Zealand based Discussion Forums The strange & mysterious, archaeological anomalies, modern oddities... Current affairs, health & medical issues, Aerosol Spraying in NZ... ...and general interest: ARCHIVES
Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 7:36 pm Post Subject: Defeat the ANZTPA Bill at it’s first reading in Parliament
If you value freedom of choice for looking after your health, now’s the time to have your say and vote to stop legislation coming into law for THE PROPOSED TRANS-TASMAN GOODS AGENCY
Quote:
Labour is trying to decimate the NZ Health Products Industry
The Labour Government is trying to change the way in which all Natural Health Products (NHPs) & medical devices are regulated. They plan to treat them as medicines and give the power to control them to the controversial Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA)
We know from the Australian experience that this would mean;
• Fewer products available - consumer choice reduced
• Unnecessary bureaucracy and cost
• Increased cost to consumers
• Natural health products & medical devices all controlled like drugs
• Many NZ businesses forced to close - jobs lost
• There will be little NZ can do to protect itself – Australia would make decisions for NZ
The Australian TGA (which would take over NZ’s health products industry) is known to use an extremely heavy-handed approach. Remember the Pan debacle? The TGA recalled 1200 natural products off the market on the strength of one manufacturer’s lax handling of quality control standards. “The truth is that of more than 1200 products recalled, NOT ONE of the natural health products was found to be at fault. It was only one pharmaceutical drug which was a problem”.
Despite strong opposition from industry and a Parliamentary Select Committee report against the proposal, Annette King signed the Treaty with Australia on 10 December last year. But the battle is far from over. The Government still needs to have the treaty passed into law and for that it needs the support of the opposition parties. We can stop the Government’s TGA proposal especially if we are strong and united. The opposition party MP’s need to know the strength of public opposition.
You can see more at the NZ Health Trust web site and listen to a 12 minute except from DVD, which you can purchase for $5, about the issue.
Joined: 22 Feb 2004
Posts: 140
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 1:38 pm Post Subject:
Hi Carus,
Good posting... I wasn't aware of that treaty or the upcoming legislation.
Looks like they are trying to medicalise just about every aspect of healthcare.... And give us all the choices we want - so long as they are drugs and pharmaceuticals.
I watch the ads on TV at times and often think how they are steering the public into using particular medicines. The ads with Jude Dobson are so frequent now they're 'normal' .....and quite sophistocated. The push to have annual flu vaccines is quite noticeable.
Apparently National initiated plans ten years ago to introduce a joint scheme with Australia and Labour has carried on with the proposal since then.
National's health spokesman, Tony Ryall, said the party had long made its concerns about the agency clear.
These included "the compliance costs and the effects on natural products and the effect that might have on small businesses and consumer choice".
National was in Government when the agency was proposed and Mr Ryall said "we've always said it had some merit, but the devil was in the detail".
He planned to attend the briefing but said there had been "no consultation over the proposed rules and proposed legislation whatsoever".
"The Government has been quite irresponsible with the way it has dealt with this issue and at this stage we've seen nothing to address our concerns.
"Harmonising with Australia should only happen when it's of benefit to New Zealand."
Greens health spokeswoman Sue Kedgley asked when the Government was prepared to admit defeat.
It had already spent $4.8 million on developing plans for the agency, which included employing 7.5 fulltime staff, she said. A further $1 million has been set aside for it in this year's Budget.
WHAT IT'S ABOUT
* The Australia New Zealand Therapeutic Products Agency would jointly regulate prescription and over-counter medicines, medical devices and blood products and replace Medsafe.
* But critics say it would be too draconian, knocking many dietary and natural products off the market and closing businesses.
The aritcle also points out that many of the other political parties are against it:
Quote:
In recent weeks it has embarked on a lobbying campaign of parties it hopes might come onside, including New Zealand First and the Maori Party.
Last night Health Ministry officials undertook a cross-party briefing of MPs as the Government intensifies its efforts.
But unless there are significant changes to the proposed plan, the framework of which was long ago determined between the two Governments, there appears little chance of it succeeding.
The Maori Party is the only party yet to decide how to vote - but could not give the Government the numbers it needs to introduce the law.
The Greens, New Zealand First, Act, United Future and National are all opposed to the plan, with only some prepared to waver if there were significant changes.
Most of the parties said as much in a select committee report written in 2004 and say "draft rules" put out for consultation last month reveal little deviation from the original proposal.
Mrs King refused to comment on the issue yesterday, other than to confirm officials were briefing MPs.
There's some good stuff on the NZ Trust Health website as well on their news page. This except from a press release of questions put to Annette King:
Quote:
Barbara Stewart: Does the Minister acknowledge that there has been significant public opposition to the agency, and that the establishment of the agency is in doubt because New Zealand First will not support the accompanying legislation; if so, for how long does she intend to pursue this rather futile exercise?
Hon ANNETTE KING: I will continue to negotiate a joint regulator until all the issues have been finalised. It will then be up to this Parliament whether the proposal is accepted. But I would note that this regulator and the negotiations around it have been almost 10 years in duration. They started under a National Government and continued under this Government for the very good reason that we are progressing our joint relationship with Australia. This proposal is seen to be an advance on CER, which I think it is to the benefit of New Zealanders.
Sue Kedgley: Why has the Government spent $6 million to date on a project that has never had parliamentary endorsement or approval, and why will the Minister not admit that she does not have sufficient support in this House to get the legislation through, and that she does not have support amongst most people in the dietary supplements industry; why will she not call it quits, stop wasting taxpayers' money, and convene a working-group across all parties in this House to come up with a New Zealand - based alternative?
Hon ANNETTE KING: Because more than those in the complementary medicines sector are involved in this joint regulator. I am certain members of this House have received letters from those in the pharmaceutical industry who are in favour of it, from those in the over-the-counter industry who are in favour of it, from those in the medical devices industry who would like to see changes but are in favour of it, and from some of those in the complementary medicines sector who want to see regulation that protects New Zealanders. What I have not ever been able to understand from that member is why New Zealanders should have to put up with this sort of thing happening in this country. These are herbal medicines, complementary medicines, that have to be withdrawn from our market because they are not regulated in New Zealand. These so-called complementary medicines have in them undeclared prescribed medicines. They have been put into the so-called complementary medicines, and that is able to happen because we do not regulate them in this country.
Sue Kedgley: Does the Minister agree with Marcus Blackmore, head of Blackmores New Zealand, that in Australia regulatory creep has resulted in a drug-based model of over-regulation, of unnecessary red tape that is too complex, too costly, and bears little relation to the public risk involved; and does she further agree that we should have random testing of all products in New Zealand under the present legislation, that all members of Parliament in this House agree that we need a simple regulatory system that will ensure all complementary medicines are true to label, and that it should be in existence now with random testing?
Hon ANNETTE KING: If it were so simple that all one needed in a regulatory system was a random test, then we would have a very poor system indeed, because it is exactly what we have now. The only way these products are detected is by a random test. What we ought to have is good manufacturing practice and, in every part of the process, knowledge of what has been put into the product. That does not occur in New Zealand. We find out by chance in this country, by a spot audit, not by products being manufactured in a proper way, as is done in every First World country around the world.
With Annette King looking after our health we'll all be in the grave so much sooner. I wonder how many kickbacks that bitch is getting. Nothing against Labour mind you I think they've done a reasonable job. But that slag really lets them down. I wonder how many drug company reps shes had in the back room.
Some of you here have probably kept up with the developments on this bill.
I find it rather curious the way the government is proceeding on this. Here is an excerpt from the latest NZ Health Trust newsletter:
Quote:
As most of you will recall the 494 page Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill was slipped into the house just before Christmas and passed its first reading thanks to the about face by Winston Peters and the NZ First Party, making a nonsense of their claim that they put NZ first!
The Bill was referred to the Government Administration Select Committee and anyone including Australians can make a submission to that committee by 7 February. While that is a very short space of time, undoubtedly the Government designed it that way as another attempt to ram this through our Parliament without proper time for discussion.
The New Zealand Charter of Health Practioners Inc had this to say in their latest newsletter:
Quote:
As we head toward Christmas 2006 and the New Year fast approaches we reflect on a very busy year, with a number of positives a few disappointments and of course the introduction to parliament of the dreaded Therapeutic Products and Medicines Legislation. Despite all our efforts, the power and corruption and not to mention money wins the day with New Zealand First folding under the mere pressure. We understand that Australian Prime Minister John Howard threatened trade sanctions against New Zealand if our politicians didn’t fall into line.
Wow, trade sanctions.....so who's got the power here? The whole proposal is very corporate minded and not for the good of the consumer..
Quote:
As we have continually stated nutritional guidelines for herbal, vitamin mineral and amino acid guidelines should be evaluated by nutritional science rather than the toxicological science used to evaluate toxins. Codex Alimentarius categorically states that nutrients should be treated as toxins and that foods and nutrients are not useful in treating disease and therefore supplements are of little value.
This is why the handing over of our total healthcare system to a heavy handed Australian Bureaucracy with no respect for the health of the consumer will no doubt serve its intended purpose of harmonising laws across the South Pacific as planned and in line with the European Union to protect the intended vested interests, not the health and welfare of the consumer. Many people in different countries are fed up with over-zealous laws, and it will only be a matter of time before people who have been nullified by deceitful politicians and force fed media propaganda, take back their rightful control of their own destiny.
It should not be forgotten that there is an international move to narrow down our health care options, and the golden rule by those elected to protect the health and welfare of the people when it comes to the introduction of flagrantly undemocratic and unpopular so called reforms is that the true intentions of politicians and vested interests must be concealed and the public must be kept ignorant and confused such as happened in this undemocratic union with Australia, until it is too late.
And further on:
Quote:
Giant American Pharmaceutical companies hate the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and our Pharmac because they drive down prices by bulk tendering and the use of generics. So, in the future when American drug companies slow down the introduction of cheaper generic drugs in New Zealand as a result of the joint agency we can thank the New Zealand First Party for our problems. This will also mean that Pharmac’s budget will also be stretched thinner.
And one other dimension of the deal is the continuation of direct-to-consumer-advertising of drugs. New Zealand and the United States are the two western countries that allow direct-to-consumer advertising of drugs and there were plans to stop it here because of the pressure it puts on General Practitioners to prescribe unnecessary and expensive drugs, along with the misleading and unbalanced nature of the advertising. Unfortunately as part of the package with this treaty we will continue with direct-to-consumer advertising.
For these and the many other reasons this is a very bad agreement with Australia. The only winners here will be the Australian manufacturers and the American pharmaceutical companies.
Some of you here have probably kept up with the developments on this bill.
I find it rather curious the way the government is proceeding on this. Here is an excerpt from the latest NZ Health Trust newsletter:
Quote:
As most of you will recall the 494 page Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill was slipped into the house just before Christmas and passed its first reading thanks to the about face by Winston Peters and the NZ First Party, making a nonsense of their claim that they put NZ first!
The Bill was referred to the Government Administration Select Committee and anyone including Australians can make a submission to that committee by 7 February. While that is a very short space of time, undoubtedly the Government designed it that way as another attempt to ram this through our Parliament without proper time for discussion.
The New Zealand Charter of Health Practioners Inc had this to say in their latest newsletter:
Quote:
As we head toward Christmas 2006 and the New Year fast approaches we reflect on a very busy year, with a number of positives a few disappointments and of course the introduction to parliament of the dreaded Therapeutic Products and Medicines Legislation. Despite all our efforts, the power and corruption and not to mention money wins the day with New Zealand First folding under the mere pressure. We understand that Australian Prime Minister John Howard threatened trade sanctions against New Zealand if our politicians didn’t fall into line.
Wow, trade sanctions.....so who's got the power here? The whole proposal is very corporate minded and not for the good of the consumer..
Quote:
As we have continually stated nutritional guidelines for herbal, vitamin mineral and amino acid guidelines should be evaluated by nutritional science rather than the toxicological science used to evaluate toxins. Codex Alimentarius categorically states that nutrients should be treated as toxins and that foods and nutrients are not useful in treating disease and therefore supplements are of little value.
This is why the handing over of our total healthcare system to a heavy handed Australian Bureaucracy with no respect for the health of the consumer will no doubt serve its intended purpose of harmonising laws across the South Pacific as planned and in line with the European Union to protect the intended vested interests, not the health and welfare of the consumer. Many people in different countries are fed up with over-zealous laws, and it will only be a matter of time before people who have been nullified by deceitful politicians and force fed media propaganda, take back their rightful control of their own destiny.
It should not be forgotten that there is an international move to narrow down our health care options, and the golden rule by those elected to protect the health and welfare of the people when it comes to the introduction of flagrantly undemocratic and unpopular so called reforms is that the true intentions of politicians and vested interests must be concealed and the public must be kept ignorant and confused such as happened in this undemocratic union with Australia, until it is too late.
And further on:
Quote:
Giant American Pharmaceutical companies hate the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and our Pharmac because they drive down prices by bulk tendering and the use of generics. So, in the future when American drug companies slow down the introduction of cheaper generic drugs in New Zealand as a result of the joint agency we can thank the New Zealand First Party for our problems. This will also mean that Pharmac’s budget will also be stretched thinner.
And one other dimension of the deal is the continuation of direct-to-consumer-advertising of drugs. New Zealand and the United States are the two western countries that allow direct-to-consumer advertising of drugs and there were plans to stop it here because of the pressure it puts on General Practitioners to prescribe unnecessary and expensive drugs, along with the misleading and unbalanced nature of the advertising. Unfortunately as part of the package with this treaty we will continue with direct-to-consumer advertising.
For these and the many other reasons this is a very bad agreement with Australia. The only winners here will be the Australian manufacturers and the American pharmaceutical companies.
