Hard News: No Bills
119 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last
-
This speech on vaccination she gave in 2004 gives me the creeps.
Yep, thanks Sue for helping.
-
I suppose this is one of the reasons that I desperately want the Greens to be part of the government - to move them out of opposition, where FUD is a constant temptation, and into a role where they can sink their teeth into some proactive policy delivery.
I should note that I have a lot of time for pretty much every other Green MP. I've interviewed Nandor several times and been impressed at his ability to actually discuss a topic rather than drop into blather mode like most MPs do.
-
I think it's partially the way the campaign was waged - basically the approach was to bag the Bill and generate support for defeating it rather than promote a better alternative.
Exactly. It was wholly destructive, hysterical and contradictory.
I just don't think that's fair Russell. Researching and interpreting this bill was all-consuming. Have you read it yet?
Panic-buttons were pushed for me 18 months ago when I tried to get an audience with a MedSafe bureaucrat to address some of my basic questions. There was no other way to find out what I needed to know. I was told point blank by MedSafe that "it was not the best use of their time" to meet me (a natural health practitioner / small business owner / industry supplier). When I discovered on page 14,964,579 of the legislation's regulations (ok, page number = exaggerated) that MedSafe and / or the regulatory agency had an OBLIGATION to meet with stakeholders to guide them through the process, I approached MedSafe again. They told me to attend a consultation in Auckland. I spent my hard-earned dollars and took time off work just to attend the "consultation" - only to find that a panel of bureaucrats were repeating what I already knew, and that there was not enough time for questions from the floor. I finally had a meeting with MedSafe which was actually very useful (and so simple! considering it was such a long battle to be granted an audience) - but there continued to be communication gaps from the agency. I have not even had a formal response to a submission I made in time for one of MedSafe's deadlines - August 2006. I'm not joking.
How can we have any faith in a future agency if this is its attitude to people and businesses who genuinely wanted to comply? No wonder our response was to bag the bill. We were already suffering its consequences!
Writing and presenting submissions for the Select Committee process was arduous and overwhelming. I have a business to run and I am trying to get on with it while complying, but there was so much research to be done before I could really figure out the nuts and bolts of what would be affected by this Bill.
I'm pro-regulation and still thoroughly unconvinced that in this form, this legislation would have made products safer in the short, medium or even long term. That's a big call, but I just can't see it. Maybe I missed those seventeen thousand pages.
Now to suggest that we could somehow simultaneously come up with a preferable alternative for compliance, while struggling with this one, well that is truly exasperating.
Maybe we'll have a chance now - and maybe the government will realise it should actually speak with the people and businesses who will be affected before it trumpets about how badly informed people are (as if it's not the government's own responsibility).
Now I'll go back to lurking.
-
I just don't think that's fair Russell. Researching and interpreting this bill was all-consuming. Have you read it yet?
Eleanor, I'm very sure I'd have felt differently if you'd been fronting the campaign rather than Christine Rankin and Sue Kedgley. I actually learned something from your contributions, and adjusted my view accordingly.
-
Mmmm I still can’t drag my thoughts away from the Green’s basic hypocrisy over this issue. The line for GM was don’t use until proven safe as far as I can gather. I’m with Bart on this; if the same rules were to be applied to Therapeutic Products and Medicines many would have to be taken off the shelves until proven safe. In the absence of an appropriate research/approval framework it might be some time before some remedies are publicly seen again in NZ. Drug companies and GM (neither of whom I particularly like BTW) have the right to cry foul on any inconsistencies suffered over this issue.
No I don't want to start a conventional vs. alternative argument here.
-
the Green's basic hypocrisy over this issue. The line for GM was don't use until proven safe as far as I can gather.
I'm not trying to defend an apparent hypocracy, but (hahaha, I knew you'd like that "but")...
the GE debate concerned the potential release of novel organisms into the NZ environment, with potentially far-reaching and unknown consequences for other species and our organics sector (not to mention other sectors). So it is essentially about managing risk in a prudent manner. The issue of whether one wants to consume GE products is separate, and can be addressed mainly through accurate labelling and rigorous consumer protection regulations. Let the buyer beware, give them a right to information, individual choice, etc.
So this issue of regulation of natural therapies and acceding to an Australian agency and regime is quite different, I would have thought, from the GE release issue. As Mikaere said, the Greens are NOT opposed to regulation, but this bill was a steaming load of sh...compost.
-
<qoute> So it is essentially about managing risk in a prudent manner. </quote>
Agreed
But why given the proposal of a ban for GM would the Greens opt for any form a regulation with respect to a sector that also suffers an extraordinary lack of evidence ? The growth with respect to Therapeutic Products and Medicines is not risk free and has far reaching consequences for health provision.
Perhaps I really am too stupid to get this but it seems to me that. In this case the green policy is putting the cart before the horse. Something they won't do in other areas.
-
Awwww s**T one of the consequences of having script stopping software on my browser is preview doesn't work.......unedited nonsense warning.
-
No I don't want to start a conventional vs. alternative argument here.
Well, I don't either - because, on level, it comes down to a similar place for me as the whole party pill debate. If you're really chuffed at the thought of ingesting powdered monkey smeg or drain clearer that's your own look out. I just think the folks shoveling this stuff down their necks deserve some clear and accurate information about what's really in the magic pills, and the potential side-effects. You can't legislate to make anyone take a blind bit of notice, though...
-
Damn you Russell! I went and read 8 pages of comments from the last time you wrote about this. It was interesting as hell (except for the faux philosophy of science bollox, I skimmed over that). This is the kind of debate we should be having in NZ, as a start on our own regulatory system.
-
Well I guess I ought to out myself on this one - What bothers me is that the advisory from which current MACCAH guidelines are drawn, openly discusses integration of Alternative Medicine/Therapy with mainstream health. At the same time it acknowldges the difficulties and present problems associated with figuring out what is safe and what actually works. The risk is that New Zealand will end up paying for "Monkey Smeg" and stuff that works until we figure out the difference.
-
"...openly discusses integration of Alternative Medicine/Therapy with mainstream health"
There is no such thing as alternative medicine, there is medicine that works and medicine that doesn't. If it works, it incorporated in medicine. If it doesn't, its called quackery, and Alison Rowe has some for you to buy. Unlabelled.
-
WH,
I like Jeanette Fitzsimmons. I think she is kinda neat. Unlike some Green Party MP's I can think of.
You can learn more about Jeanette here:
http://www.greens.org.nz/people/fitzsimons_j.asp -
faux philosophy of science bollox
come on kowhai, truth is science and science is truth. get with the program!
なんちゃって。
-
Eleanor, I'm very sure I'd have felt differently if you'd been fronting the campaign rather than Christine Rankin and Sue Kedgley. I actually learned something from your contributions, and adjusted my view accordingly.
That's all I could ask! :o)
Now that pesky Bill is dormant, I'm going to take a breather from this political stuff... I'm selective with my battles!
And there are luscious aromatherapy products to be made, after all.
-
Weston
My fave Greens are Bradford & Locke - they tend to walk a little more of their talk than 'my shit doesn't stink' Jeanette.Is this the Greens answer to P as well?
Prohibition isn’t protecting our kids.
http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/other6572.htmlBrough to you by Jeanette, Nandor, & Sue K
-
WH,
I was chatting with a charming and attractive bio-chemistry PhD candidate at a dinner party a couple of years ago. Her thesis was on the neuro-toxicity of recreational drugs. She told me that P kills brain cells at a uniquely alarming rate, and that the resulting damage was severe and probably irreversible.
I'm not saying there is a connection, but Sue Bradford's use of the Green Party as her personal vehicle is not the kind of carpooling that we should be encouraging.
-
Is this the Greens answer to P as well?
Not according to the website you linked to, but then you knew that, you were just being mischevous ...
-
If it's mischevous to link various drug use and outcomes regardless of leagal status, and cherry pick quotes (seemingly) not based on studies, sure. But haven't I just described the site?
-
There is no such thing as alternative medicine, there is medicine that works and medicine that doesn't. If it works, it incorporated in medicine. If it doesn't, its called quackery, and Alison Rowe has some for you to buy. Unlabelled.
Oh if only........
CAM (Complimentary and Alternative Medicine) is the terminology adopted by the Govt report.
If either Medicine or Science were capable of drawing such blinkered distinctions then I doubt very much if this debate would exist.
Placebos are Medicines discuss.......
-
The risk is that New Zealand will end up paying for "Monkey Smeg" and stuff that works until we figure out the difference.
Certainly, 81stcolumn, and I didn't mean to come across as being glib about the real hucksters and snake oil salesmen who are out there preying on desperate people. My point, such as it was, was that you can't force people to take any notice of warning labels (as any GP who's torn her hair out when folks just don't follow dosage instructions and wonder why they still feel like crap) - but that's no argument for not having the information there in the first place.
-
There seems to be a "They shouldn't be worried about that <insert topic>" meme that surrounds the Greens whenever there's some kind of policy win.
After the last election there was some commentary to the effect that National was failing in MMP because various people in key positions (McCulley, Bassett, et al) hadn't gotten their head around the fact that National is no longer a natural party of government, and that it could not, in MMP, expect to control the house and run FPP-style elected dictatorships; it had to cultivate its natural allies.
From some of the commentary here, I'm inclined to think that there are some in the Labour prty and its supporters who haven't grasped the reality that they are not entitled to 100% of the leftish-flavoured votes, either in the house or the electorate, or to dictate which issues those voters and reps consider important.
If we're talking about mis-use of political capital, perhaps we could discuss how Labour have ended up with Dunne's Future and Winston First, after all.
That said, I'm dissapointed with this outcome. Less than some, because, as it happens, I'm not sure I'm thrilled with a regulatory body which would likely be dominated by a country who sold it's independence in medical matters as part of a free trade agreement with the US (although I'm confident John Key will align us to that position given half a chance), but I do think people who wish to make huge sums of money selling things which purport to have theraputic value ought to at least be held to the same standards my local kebab outfit or Dick Smith's store are when it comes to the quality of teh ingrediants and the product performing as advertised.
-
perhaps we could discuss how Labour have ended up with Dunne's Future and Winston First, after all.
Er, could it be that Labour knows it can rely on the Greens when the chips are down? And it can almost rely on the Maori Party too? Perhaps I've watched too many bad political dramas on TV but I'm kinda sure that in a back room somewhere someone from Labour pointed out to someone from the Greens that it would be better for both of them if the Greens stayed out of any coalition with Labour.
Labour can continue to 'win' the 'centre' vote without being tarred by the 'radical' views of the Greens. And likewise the Greens can continue to stay firm on core beliefs. Witness the result: the Greens have maintained their voter base and seats in Parliament, while NZ First and United Future are shrinking almost as fast as Rodney Hide.
-
I'm not sure I'm thrilled with a regulatory body which would likely be dominated by a country who sold it's independence in medical matters ...
I know what you're saying, but I really don't think the point should be overplayed. We already operate joint food standards with Australia, and that seems largely to operate uncontroversially.
OTOH, if we had to sign up to their copyright law ...
-
I'm not saying there is a connection, but Sue Bradford's use of the Green Party as her personal vehicle is not the kind of carpooling that we should be encouraging.
I don't buy that. At least she's not passing laws which benefit herself, and/or her friends/business colleagues. Not all MPs have been so scrupulous.
And whatever side you stood on, the smacking kids bill is at the cutting edge of social debate, and not just here. And she's not the only person in the carpool, there's a whole heap of health and social agencies who were in that carpool too. And it got people taking an active interest in parliament, either for or against.
The 16 year old voting won't be so 'hot', but neither will a bunch of things in parliament. She's not doing it for personal benefit though, she's spent a lot of her life working with young people who are intelligent, thoughtful, and politically involved. She doesn't believe they should be denied the right to vote. It's a valid issue for debate.
Seems like she's fulfilling the purpose for which Private Members Bills were designed.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.