The New Zealand Charter of Health Practitioners Incorporated.

This Submission was presented to the Select Committee on the 28/04/04
The New Zealand Charter of Health Practitioners Incorporated. 

28th day of April 2004 Supplementary Submissions JTA Agency:

These Submissions are to be read as supplemental to our earlier submissions on the;

AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF AUSTRALIA AND THE

GOVERNMENT OF NEW ZEALAND FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A JOINT SCHEME FOR THE REGULATION OF THERAPEUTIC PRODUCTS

Because of the extremely brief period of time (nine days) that this final version has physically been in our member’s hands, just nine days to study the impact of 47 pages titled the JTA Treaty Final Version 9 September 2003.

The official letter dated Thursday 8th of April, (the day before Easter Friday) was received on the 14th day of April 2004. In the following seven working days it has not been possible to adequately cover every point of contention raised in the Treaty Agreement.

We were informed that a fax was also forwarded. However as a benevolent employer we allowed our staff to have additional holidays over the Easter break. Subsequently it is difficult to know that correspondence has been received when there is no staff in the office.

Major Complaint

A major issue is that the Government has had this JTA Agreement document in its hands since the 9th of September 2003 and possibly felt that the items set out in the Agreement were of such a delicate nature that they should not be released for public or practitioner comment and input until the eleventh hour.

Six months for the release of this document seems an inordinately lengthy period of time. Both the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries do appear to have the interesting habit of making unpopular official announcements on the eve of or during public holidays, as has occurred in this instance. 

The effect of this document is a possible reason for the delayed release, If the public were to realise the extent to which their sovereignty and their ability to care for their own health status is to be abrogated by this agreement, they might just ask awkward questions before the Government finalises this agreement.

Where have we come from and where are we going?     

Exposé 

New Zealand Consumers, Practitioners, Manufacturers and Distributors have lived with the 1981 Medicines Act and its many amendments for the last twenty three years.

When the 1981 Bill was introduced it was recognised as the most draconian and ridged, prescriptive and restrictive act in the Western World (the so called democratic world). It was also hailed by its proponents as an example for the rest of the world. New Zealand Administrators were able to hold their heads up in world forums such as Codex Alimentarious,

What has happened in the intervening 23 years? Did New Zealand’s world as far as the availability and Freedom of Choice of dietary supplements fall apart?

The answer is no, it did not. In actual fact more and more New Zealanders embraced the wisdom of augmenting their deficient diets with specific supplementation.

The draconian measure that inhibited correct and truthful labeling of product, the censorship of information – as to what product was used for which condition – did not stop the ever-increasing New Zealand public from turning to Dietary Supplementation and Natural HealthCare Therapies when they found that the state approved system of medicine performed very poorly at both the corrective and preventative level, even with common ailments.

With the passing of the 1981 Act was the Ministry of Health overwhelmed with the need to enter into prosecutions to enforce the Act?

Apparently not, as prosecutions under the act have been very rare, if at all. In most instances the misguided felon had only to be informed that they were in breach of the Act and they quickly complied.

Twelve years ago the public (and practitioners) were beginning to understand the scope of the Medicines Act. Key members of Medsafe began to campaign for a new Act as the old one needed overhauling and there was a need for a level playing field. They did not inform the public or practitioners that the level playing field was designed only for the Administrators interests. The new playing field would produce increased revenues.

While these administrators were occupying themselves proselyting their articles of faith, some interesting events were occurring in New Zealand. The New Zealand media were feeding slanted information to the public in regards to how bad Dietary Supplements were, (even though over a twenty year period no deaths were correctly attributed to dietary supplements and there was a minimum of adverse reactions). In fact the number of adverse reactions to food far exceeds by a great magnitude any possible self-limiting reactions from dietary supplements.

Our Health Industry representatives have constantly informed the Members of Medsafe that Dietary Supplements are placed at the interface between foods and pharmaceutical medicine and should be regulated in a special category of their own – and not in the medical straight-jacket that administrators are determined to apply.

During this period Medsafe officials made attacks on dietary supplements with statements in the media about a number of Chinese herbs (approximately ten or twelve) that were laced with prescription drugs. This is a crime under the Medicines Act and Natural HealthCare Practitioners would have applauded any and all efforts on Medsafe’s part to enter a prosecution for this criminal action. These prosecutions did not happen; if they had that would have ended the matter there and then. The specious claim was made that Medsafe did not have the resources to persecute this blatant disregard for the Law of New Zealand.

Interestingly Medsafe managed to acquire the resources, however, to vigorously pursue the option of aligning themselves with the Australian Therapeutic Goods Authority – using staff that would have been better used protecting the health and welfare of the public of New Zealand.

Medicines Act Not Used

Why didn’t Medsafe use the existing Medicines Act to prosecute?  Why didn’t The Minister invoke the Medicines Act for the Pan recall debacle? Why?

To have used the Medicines Act would have been an admission that the Medicines Act was working. This would not have been in the interests of administrators and the Minister who were determined to join with Australian Therapeutic Goods Authority

The full extent of the Ministry of Health Anti-Dietary Supplement position surfaced at the last Parliamentary Select Committee Inquiry in the guise of a table of adverse reactions to dietary supplements and herbal preparations. A number of the adverse events recorded in the tables were culled from alarmist newspaper reports. There were other allegations that were slanted with terminological inexactitudes and a number that were outright fiction. All of these erroneous allegations were paraded as scientific fact; this, from a department extremely selective as to which type of science it accepts when applications are made directly to it in regards to Dietary Supplements.

One interesting fact was that Green Tea was listed as causing Adverse Reactions. In Australia Green tea is on the negative product list – Green tea has been used by the Chinese and other Asian people for over 5,000 years with no adverse reactions reported. There is abundant scientific evidence regarding the extensive health benefits of Green Tea.

The latest research findings involving 8,552 Japanese adults covering a period of nine years, indicating that the ingestion of Green Tea on a daily basis reduced the incidence of cancer in women by 43%.   The other interesting scientific report states the incidence of breast cancer reduced significantly by over 30% through ingesting Green Tea because of its antioxidant and tumor suppression capabilities.  During the trial period up to ten cups of Green Tea were consumed on a daily basis.

These findings indicate that women with a family predisposition to breast cancer would be well advised to ingest Green Tea as a preventative measure. A more convenient method would be to consume natural green tea in a capsule form.

Special Note:

Under a JTA Treaty agreement, the use of Green Tea in capsule form would be prohibited in the market place. A possible reason being that under the current Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration JTA Treaty Proposals, Green Tea in a capsule form (or any other substance) would have a “medicine-like” appearance and is therefore prohibited (JTA definitions).  

What else has been happening in Australia?

In Australia a number of viable dietary supplement manufacturers have been bought out at very high prices. One manufacturer that we referred to in our earlier submission to the Health Select Committee on the JTA Treaty has been bought out by pharmaceutical interests. This was a medium sized concern with 150 products. To our knowledge the larger manufacturers produce up to 1,600 Dietary Supplements and Natural HealthCare Products. Small innovative manufacturers may only be producing up to ten products.

JTA Treaty Costs!

Under the JTA Treaty the New Zealand consumer will face an increased cost above what they are paying for their present Dietary Supplements – that is if the present Dietary supplements are still available.

An increase of 15% plus (+GST) is based on the actual Australian cost increase (since the introduction of The Australian Therapeutic Goods Authority) of a specific manufacturer. (In our submission we described this manufacturer as a major manufacturer, simply on the basis of his company’s high public profile and the quality of products, whereas in reality this company is actually medium sized). This company has a relatively significant market share, and the additional costs cover registration and compliance only. For a large manufacturer with a large market share, these costs could have a lesser impact. For a small manufacturer The TGA compliance costs have proven to be a prohibitive burden.

We did state in our previous submission that “By way of comparison this assessment by the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research is erroneous”.  However we do note that this figure may or may not be correct for the largest Australian manufacturer with the largest market share. However, the 15% increase for a medium sized manufacture could hardly be described as incremental.

An Economic Dilemma:

The New Zealand Institute of Economic Research complains in its report about the paucity of information regarding New Zealand manufacturing costs. In view of the fact that the Institute’s first report was found to be unsatisfactory, is the second report in actual fact satisfactory and quotable? What information do they ascribe to “there being a paucity of”?  There should be a reasonable amount of information in regards to manufacturing costs in New Zealand and there should be a reasonable amount of information as to how much the Australian Therapeutic Goods Authority costs are over and above the normal New Zealand costs because New Zealand has a number of exporting manufacturers who already meet the Australian TGA standards.

If these figures have not been supplied by the New Zealand manufacturers to the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research or if the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research has not been correctly briefed by the Ministry of Health, or if the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research has not investigated to the depth required to provide solid figures to be used as a comparison, then the Government and the people of New Zealand have specious information.

The most important factor

Over the last sixty years the health and quality of life of New Zealanders has steadily declined. This decline can possibly be attributed to environmental and nutritional factors. There is more environmental pollution now than ever before in the history of New Zealand. The pollution referred to here is low level pollution that has an insidiously subtle, initial effect on the health and wellness of humanity. While those in authority may well wring there hands and state that there is no scientific evidence that pollution is contributing to the decline in the health status of New Zealanders any sane thinking person must agree that there must be some reason for the ever declining health state on New Zealanders.

Even the Government is starting to admit that our dietary habits may contribute to our declining heath status, (Health Strategy Policy) our ever increasing incidence of heart disease and diabetes, which were relatively low sixty years ago. Today we lead the world with the respiratory complaint known as Asthma – a complaint that could be attributed to the environmental pollution or substandard nutrition or a combination of both or some other unknown factor.

New Zealand has a higher incidence of Heart conditions that were virtually unknown at the beginning of the last century and relatively rare sixty years ago.

Gallbladder problems also appear to be approaching endemic proportions with lengthy waiting list for surgery

Cold Hard Facts:

Our declining health status will not be improved by entering the Australian JTA Treaty. A cold hard fact is that Australia is in the same boat as New Zealand as far as health status is concerned, even after 12 years of governance by the almighty, self-proclaimed, world leading Australian Therapeutic Goods Authority.

New Zealand needs to develop its own system regarding Dietary Supplements. It would be catastrophic for New Zealand to embrace the Australian system that is no better than what we already have.

The extremely high incidence of cancer (a multifaceted condition with no known single cause) has also increased exponentially during the last sixty years. Regardless of billions of dollars wasted on standardised research, cancer rates continue to increase.

Some sixty years ago the known incidence of cancer was twenty persons per thousand who would contract some form of cancer in their life time.

Today the figure is three people in every five and is fast approaching four out of every five people. The same figures apply to both Australia and New Zealand. Regardless of Australian therapeutic Goods Authority Governance.


Will the JTA Treaty benefit New Zealanders? 

Will the JTA Treaty benefit the health status of New Zealanders?

The simple answer to the above is No.

New Zealand’s entry into the JTA Treaty will only benefit Australian manufacturers and in particular the pharmaceutical manufacturers who produce Dietary Supplements.

New Zealand’s entry into the JTA Treaty will only benefit New Zealand Administrators, by providing increased staffing due to a larger Administrative unit.

New Zealand entry into the JTA Treaty will only benefit New Zealand Administrators who at a joint meeting in Auckland informed industry that they would be paid at the higher Australian rate for the same work and would also have the advantage of the dollar exchange rate difference. 

An Important Question?

The term JTA Treaty is not defined and could be taken to mean “Therapeutic Joint Agency Treaty” or it could be taken to mean “Joint Trade Agency Treaty” which would possibly be more correct as the Harmonisation procedure was first set up in relation to closer economic relations with Australia and the driving force was closer Trade Relations.

New Zealand needs to realise that the Australian Government and the Australian Therapeutic Goods Authority see themselves as the dominant force in the Pacific Rim. In the matter of trade they are not above using any and all methods possible to stamp on any opposition to what they perceive as their pre-eminent position. In the Australian New Zealand Food Authority, New Zealand is not recognised as a sovereign country but as a small state, with no more influence than a single Australian State and is outnumbered seven to one.

 Playing by Australian rules may economically inhibit New Zealand’s ability to trade with other countries. The JTA Treaty set up under Australian Corporate Law will not allow for a level economic playing field.

 If New Zealand enters into the JTA Treaty and locks out the free entry of up to 6,000 products (that are able to be sold in their country of origin), just because the Australian Therapeutic Goods Authority has already acted in this manner with a negative list of 60 ingredients that are available in New Zealand and not available in Australia. We can expect those other countries that have previously enjoyed free access to New Zealand, to retaliate in some manner, either directly or covertly because of the loss of trade.

 

The number one side effect of Dietary Supplements

The number one side effect of Dietary Supplements in our modern world is the failure to take enough of them. Dietary supplements are extraordinarily safe substances and their very success has led to their down fall.

Successful Dietary Supplement therapy is a threat to the medical profession because physicians know very little about them, having never being adequately trained in their use. 

Dietary supplements threaten the pharmaceutical industry because they cannot be patented and be sold at huge profits.  

Dietary supplements threaten the established dieticians profession with their never supplement dogma.

 The very success of Dietary Supplement therapy is viewed with alarm in the hallowed halls of government administrators because they, like doctors and dietitians, lack adequate knowledge as to how effective and cost-efficient such therapy can be. Without compulsory registration, revenue-gathering processes are unable to be attached to the Dietary Supplement industry.

 

The Labour government

The present Labour Government has certainly progressed downward from selling off New Zealand’s Assets (bought and paid for by the taxpayer) to not selling out New Zealand’s Health interests but actually giving them away free of charge to the Australians. This generation and future generations’ health status will be under the control of the Australian dominated JTA Treaty.

 

Wake up New Zealand

It is time for New Zealand to wake up and realise that our country was a once an enviable world leader in health, social and economic development. During that time as a world leader, New Zealand had to rely on its own innovation and rugged determination. Over the last half a century New Zealand has allowed the introduction and implementation of solutions that have failed in their country of origin. We have fallen prey to self styled experts and implemented systems that, while full of promise, in the long term did not produce beneficial results.

If New Zealand refuses this JTA Treaty pie in the sky solution, protects its sovereignty, works towards it own method of governance in matters relating to health it is possible, only just possible that New Zealand could once again become a leader in health, social and societal development.

This Legislation and the Law:

Perhaps the most interesting facet of this JTA Treaty is its relationship to the Law.

On the 23 July 2003 the Hon. Annette King Minister of Health, Minister for Food Safety, MP for Rongotai (incl. Chatham Islands), forwarded an official letter to The New Zealand Charter of Health Practitioners Incorporated.

In this letter the Minister stated – “You should be aware that constitutionally Parliament is the supreme law making authority in New Zealand and is not bound by any court decision”.

The Minister may or may not be correct in regards to this statement.

The Minister and Parliament are no doubt aware that since the inception of the New Zealand Parliament – the common law of England has always been paramount and is the basis of the Statute Law of Parliament. The supremacy of English common law in NZ was reaffirmed by the NZ Government in the Imperial Laws Application Act of 1988-89 

If the Minister and Members of Parliament were to read this Act they would see that ----After the commencement of this Act, the common law of England (including the principles and rules of equity), so far as it was part of the laws of New Zealand immediately before the commencement of this Act, shall continue to be part of the laws of New Zealand.

Cf.   1908,  No.  55, s. 2

 

The Minister and Members of Parliament Need to Be Aware

That the Divine Right of Kings was abolished by The Great Charter of English Liberty (Magna Carta) granted by King John on June 15th in the year 1215 at Runnymede. And further that the common law, so called tacit laws that derive their authority from the consent of the people, without a legislative enactment are in themselves superior and sovereign to the so called supreme law that the Minister quotes. The divine Right of Kings was not abolished so that any Parliament could take up that divine right and place itself above the law. This would be nothing short of totalitarian dictatorship and anæthema to Democratic Government.

In our previous submissions on the JTA Treaty we made reference to the 1981 Medicines Act and its amendments that the Right to Practice and Dispense is set out in section II clauses 28 and 32. These rights have existed since the reign of King Henry the VIII and the Act passed that embraced not only England but also the Dominions. This Act bestowed the right of non-medical practitioners to practice without suit, vexation, trouble, penalty, or loss of their goods and any other Act, Ordinance or Statute the contrary heretofore made in any way not withstanding.

Our members claim the protection of not only the above two clauses of the Medicines Act 1981 but also the original Act of King Henry VIII 1542 which is today known by the common name as “The Herbalists Charter”.

Madam Chairperson and Members of the New Zealand Parliamentary Health Select Committee.

We are here today to present our main and supplemental submissions and to inform you – on behalf of our membership, representing 76 Incorporated Societies with a total membership of over 9,000 members involved in natural health, each of whom are aligned with a wide cross-section of the New Zealand electorate (also using natural health therapies) – that the main and most compelling submission that we have to place before you is the determination of our members, that the rights and freedom of choice of the consumer of New Zealand in all matters relating to health is the paramount issue in relation to the JTA Treaty and further, that the rights and freedom of our practitioners to practice effectively without hindrance using safe preventative and corrective products is the central pivotal facet in relation to this government’s determination to impose this JTA Treaty on the people of New Zealand.

Let it hereby be known by all members of Parliament that any action to infringe on the rights of our members to practice and dispense will meet with the strongest resistance possible.

We the members of The New Zealand Charter of Health Practitioners Incorporated – being natural women and natural men of New Zealand – are united in our determination that as this JTA Treaty would appear to be designed to abrogate our common law right to practice and dispense and as this JTA Treaty does not recognise that we have the right to practice and dispense, it therefore infringes on our rights established by The Herbalist Charter 1542 under English common law, without vexation, trouble, penalty or loss of goods, that the JTA Treaty should not be placed before the New Zealand Parliament.

Therefore; we give full notice of our intent that:

As the Minister and the Government appear to be adamant that they will press ahead with this JTA Treaty, regardless of any and all opposition to this Treaty and having not called for any input by the general public into this final version of the JTA Treaty, that, if the Government of New Zealand moves to pass or implement the JTA Treaty or any other treaty or any other legislation in any shape or form along the same or similar lines or intent, that we will use every method within our power to ensure that the Government of the day is removed from office by the dissolution of Parliament and that new elections be called forthwith.

We place before you this demand that the Government of New Zealand provide an Official Statement of Intention to not proceed with the JTA Treaty or any other treaty or any other legislation in any shape or form along the same or similar lines within a period of seven (7) days from this date the 28th day of April in the year of our lord 2004.

Failure to respond to our demand within the required time frame cited above will leave us no option but to set in motion the necessary steps to ensure the dissolution of Parliament and the calling of new elections.

These main submissions and Supplemental submissions by,

The New Zealand Charter of Health Practitioners Incorporated and the,

 

Declaration of Independence,

Dated on this the 28th Day of April in the year of our Lord 2004.

Patrick F. Fahy

Chief Executive Officer

The New Zealand Charter of Health Practitioners Incorporated