TGA Amendment Bill
This power would mean that a bureaucrat could decide to dose the public drinking water forever with whatever they deem fit – eg. Fluoride chemicals, lithium and whatever else in the future that may crop up. In the case of this ‘exclusion’ there would be no limit, independent scrutiny or regulation such as for other therapeutic goods.
The idea of a government appointed ‘regulator’ is to regulate the supply of therapeutic goods and medicines so they do not harm the public. This is the whole reason we have a Therapeutic Goods Administration. If they are able to exclude any therapeutic goods (particularly for oral ingestion) from such regulation, then the whole ‘raison d’etre’ of the TGA is nullified. It would then just become a proxy arm of an ‘old boy’s’ pharmaceutical club where there is preferential treatment for some but not others, and not in the interests of the public.
Already the TGA survives by membership subscription fees and not by government funding. Already there is an incentive for powerful members to unduly influence TGA decision making and administration. Let’s not make this situation even worse by giving such carte blanche powers as proposed in this amendment.
People should demand from the government that we have a public regulator to regulate ALL therapeutic goods (for ingestion) to ensure the health and safety of the community and protect against toxic exposures, and there should be NO exceptions.
Any time there is a public intervention to dose the public with substances (synthetic chemicals and drugs) that would not be naturally occurring in such quantity in a healthy ‘natural’ environment, there should be the utmost regulation and scrutiny – as well as public consent.
Regulation and scrutiny is the official role of the TGA and it should stay that way without this amendment, in the interests of the health and safety of the community receiving the therapeutic treatment intervention.
‘Public Consent’ to therapeutic treatment via public drinking water is an issue to be addressed by our legislators, but we need to ensure in the meantime that at least the TGA’s regulation responsibilities are not abrogated by this amendment.
Please help to get this message across to your senators… NOW. Time is short. Any day the third stage could be passed because senators may be unaware of the implications. Contact list attached.
May God grant us success to achieve justice and freedom.
One day after the Bill was agreed to by the House of Reps (11/2), the Senate has already had a first and second reading (12/2) which was moved with no amendments.
If the third reading is accepted by the senate, it’s ‘done and dusted’.
I have emailed yesterday –
The Australian (Sean Parnel – FOI/Health), Sydney Morning Herald (Amy Corderoy – Political/Health), Daily Telegraph, Courier Mail.
the online Medical Observer.
the Consumer’s Health Forum.
The Bill was last year left unfinished with the Scrutiny of Bills Committee when it lapsed, but who knows what closed door discussions ensued in the intervening time. This has now been confirmed (13/2) by that Committee in an email. Likewise, the Greens Senator Di Natale’s office also advised of private meetings being held.
No wonder we can’t get any information via the parliamentary legislative channels!
The Amendment Bill in its current form
DE-REGULATES the assessment of any therapeutic good including those for human consumption.
With Labor having introduced the Bill last year and Liberals now running with it:
• no regulatory controls of what therapeutic goods could be excluded from the provisions of the Act
• no regulatory controls on the decision making process (the new point 3 in the Bill is not mandatory and The Legislative Instruments Act 2003 on which the Minister would base his decisions only “encourages” consultation).
• no regulatory control requiring evidence based decisions or external consultation
• the TGA, a 100% self-funding division of the Department of Health & Ageing, open to potential ‘conflict of interest’, overseeing what products are destined for exclusion from oversight of the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 and Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code 2007 for “rubber-stamping” by the Minister.
For therapeutic goods for human ingestion – deregulation is not a good thing!