Maryan should ask Cunners

Maryan Street is asking why a medicine change wasn’t made 5 years ago by the government:

Legislation modernising rules on who can prescribe medicines to patients and also streamlining the process for approving new drugs passed its first stage last night – five years later than it should have, according to Labour.

The Medicines Amendment Bill, which amends the Medicines Act 1981, passed its first reading yesterday with unanimous support and will now be considered by the health select committee.

Labour health spokeswoman Maryan Street welcomed the bill but questioned why the Government was only advancing the legislation now – “Why not five years ago?”

Labour was teh government in 2007, and David Cunliffe was the Health Minister. Perhaps Maryan could ask him. Or perhaps Pete Hodgson, but he has retired of course…then there is Annette King who was Health Minister up until 2005…presumably she would know something of this.

She said that similar legislation introduced by the Labour Government in 2007 was blocked by National, which was “playing naked politics” at the time by “jumping on the bandwagon of people in the supplementary medicines industry”.

Now that is very interesting. National which was in opposition because Labour commanded a majority int he House somehow “blocked” legislation…really?

This is quite silly posturing by Maryan Street. Labour clearly commanded a majority and yet failed to pass legislation and somehow she is trying to blame National?

I can’t believe the Herald just prints her assertions without even challenging the veracity of the statements. I know Tony Ryall is a very effective Health Minister but not even his prodigious powers in opposition would¬†have¬†been able to overturn a parliamentary majority.

  • Adolf Fiinkensein

    Whaleoil dear boy, the Herald is to the Labour Party as the New York Times is to the Democrats.

  • Hakim of phut

    What you mean to say WO . National opposed it in 2007 before they supported it in 2012.

    Labour was a minority government for 9 years. So in 2007 the party didnt have the votes.
    At least they are consistent in supporting it now.
    Nationals reason for its backflip ?

    • grumpy

      “Labour was a minority government for 9 years. So in 2007 the party didnt have the votes”

      How come they “didn’t have the votes” but still formed a government?¬† doesn’t make much sense.

      Are you saying the opposition was the government????

      • Hakim of phut

        Same as now , the govt has confidence and supply all other votes in parliament are by negotiation.
        Surely you knew that .
        And whats your answer for nationals backflip ?

      • Agent BallSack

        If you read the story HaKosh, she is asking why didn’t the Government do something about it (Note the emphasis on Government). Well we all want to know the same thing. Perhaps this is how Labour finds out things that its own party is doing. Go to the media? Perhaps she should ask Helen. After all she was the Prime Minister at the time.

      • grumpy

        So, which party stopped them?

    • Auto_immune

      No¬†backflip HoP, because THIS legislation¬†doesn’t actually set up the joint Australia/NZ regulatory body that was mooted in the Therapeutic Product and Medicines bill in 2007.¬† National (and yes, Govt. support partners) were against the old TPM bill back then.¬†¬†

      This¬†bill is different in that¬†it contains many of the other amendments that were supposed to come under the TPM bill, but didn’t due to the regulatory body kerfluffle.¬† Other medicine amendments (one’s that Street is talking about)¬†should really have passed separately, but didn’t since they bundled with the TPM bill back then.

    • Agent BallSack

      Typical lefty response. Blame someone else. Preferably the nasty right. Fuck, do you ever stop and listen to yourself and Kosh?

      • SalaciousTCrumb

        Ballsack, if the roles were reversed and you were posting such at Red Alert or the Standard, you would be bounced. That kind of sums up the mentality you are up against.

        That flogging a dead ho analogy springs to mind….

  • In Vino Veritas

    Shoe leather in mouth, munchety crunchety. Goes with the leathery look to be fair.

    Hak, I’m sure the list of backflips by Labour is long as well, for eg: CGT. Bowed backs are par for the politicians course. More importantly, what have you to say to Street’s comments? Would that be nothing?

    I chop your argument!

  • pdm

    Cunliffe was too busy sacking Health Boards to worry about legislation like that.

    • Hakim of phut

      Labour party didnt have a majority. 
      Same as National now , doesnt have 61 votes from National MPs. needs support from ¬†its ‘drink coaster’ parties ACT and UF.

      • peterwn

        But as far as I can see, it seemed Labour would not negotiate anything with National but blasted National when National did not give support to bills which Winston / Greens did not support. Prime example was a bill to move some drug charges from High Court to District Court. National also got a unfair and inappropriate blast from the Judiciary on this whereas they should have blasted Labour.

  • Philip ure a cock

    Because they were too busy feathering their nest for the long term by appointing all their cronies to overpaid positions on public sector boards… That and muff-diving

  • thor42

    Labour sure are desperate – welcoming the bill but whining that it “should have been done five years ago.”
    Meh….. whatever……
    Wake me up when you have some policies, Labour. 

57%