NZ Last
NZ First, which should henceforth be called NZ Last, has agreed to sign up to a deal on the Joint Therapeutics Agency with Australia even though they previously promised to oppose it. This is a major sellout given the strident position of opposition they took before they signed up to the deal with Labour.
The joint agency will make it hard for the NZ based dietary supplements industry and it will hand over sovereignty for the regulation of therapeutics to an organisation established under Australian law (though with significant NZ input). We all agreed that dietary supplements needed more regualtion, but a heavy handed Australian-based organisation wasn’t the way to go.
One dimension worth considering is that this agreement effectively brings the NZ regulation of drugs under the Australia US Free Trade Agreement because the Joint Therapeutics Agency is established under Australian federal law. One of the targets of the AUSFTA was Australia’s Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme which is a weak version of our Pharmac. US big pharmaceutical companies hate the PBS and Pharmac because they drive down prices by bulk tendering and the use of generics. So, in the future, under this deal, when US drug companies slow down the introduction of cheaper generic drugs in NZ as a result of the joint agency we can thank NZ Last. And that of course means that Pharmac’s budget is stretched thinner.
And one other dimension of the deal is the continuation of direct-to-consumer-advertising of drugs. NZ and the US are the two western countries that allow DTCA and there were plans afoot to stop it here because of the pressure it puts on GPs to prescribe unecessary and expensive drugs, along with the misleading and unbalanced nature of the advertising - see Toop report. But as part of the deal that NZ Last has signed up to, we will continue with DTCA.
For these reasons this is a very bad deal that NZ Last have signed up to. Two big victories for the big pharmaeutical companies. Why did they do it?
December 14th, 2006 at 8:00 am
It is fairly clear why Winston First agreed to go with Klarke over this Russell, it is all about the “baubles” of office.
One of the things I have changed my opinion on in my time here is the value of MMP, while I am still not a huge fan of it I can see that it is not all bad.
But then you have Winston……if ever there is a bloody good reason to go back to FPP it is him, I am of an age when I can remember Muldoon,I never thought it possible to despise a pollie more than I did with Muldoon, Winston first proves me wrong.
December 14th, 2006 at 10:08 am
Or maybe the Australia First Party - Pauline Hanson would be proud of him, even though he is a little dark in complexion.
But like it or not, Big Bruv, he does represent a sector of the population, and even the bigoted and duplicitous have a right to representation in a democracy.
December 14th, 2006 at 11:07 am
For a while now I’ve been forming the opinion that free trade agreements are fundementally bad, and it is the ramnifications of this U-turn are just another little bit of supporting evidence for the theory…
December 14th, 2006 at 11:26 pm
Can only hope that voters will now realise that both NZ First and United Future are useless political appendages to the rotten structures that are the Labour and National parties.
I’m encouraging everyone I can to vote for either the Greens or Act. Bring on a truely green, liberal, and fiscally prudent government - now that would be a government to get excited about.
December 16th, 2006 at 12:07 pm
looks like frogblog has ‘gone on the nod’…again…
i mean..nothing on that whoop-de-doo! ‘house grading system’…?
announced by ‘govt spokesperson for the environment’(!)..jeanette fitzsimons…?
(looking as ‘proud as punch’..as she announced the setting up of yet another paper-chase….and layer of beaurocrats…)
and if i could just pause here for a moment…and ask just how many of you reading this actually knew that jeanette had that title/role..?
i mean..who knew..?
so..jeanette is/has been this governments ’spokesperson for the environment’…
and this in/during a period the environment has been going down the toilet…?
yet she..during this time..in that role has said nothing..!
is she bound to the govt line by some sort of de-facto cabinet solidarity agreement..?
and the policy baublettes…?
is this why she has been so….quiet…?
and does or does not that announced grading system set new benchmarks in incrementalism/deck-chair re-arranging..?
hello..!..hello..!
iceberg dead ahead..!
(how many stars would you give it..?..that ice-berg..?..)
no new (compulsory) building standards..?
no plans to retro-fit our (internationally-recognised) crappy existing housing stock..?
just a system of feckin’ stars…!
good grief..!
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
December 16th, 2006 at 12:14 pm
btw…those interested in the fate/destiny of the green party..could do well to read of the reasons for the demise of their ideological great-granparent..
the fabian society…
what happened there was the major political parties of the day took (some of) their policies..
thus dooming them to irrelevancy….and eventual political oblivion…
there could be some lessons learnt there..
or mistakes to be (currently?) repeated..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
December 16th, 2006 at 3:26 pm
Stu
That is never going to happen (and thank god for that)
Phil
Why re fit the “housing stock”?..why not just get rid of them.?
December 16th, 2006 at 5:55 pm
Phil, it would be nice if you got your facts right before you go off on one of your rants, but I guess the facts don’t fit with your theory so you must ignore them.
Jeanette is the Government Spokesperson on Energy Efficiency and Conservation, not “environment”.
There is a lot more to the draft New Zealand Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy than the star rating for houses (which was the only aspect covered by Guy Espinors “report” on TV3). Maybe you should read about the whole thing?
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0612/S00291.htm
And if you don’t think the draft strategy and action plan it goes far enough, you can make a submission and maybe influence it to become more effective. It’s a draft.
And along with that strategy, the previous solar water heater plan, there was yesterdays announcement of the Bioenergy Knowledge Centre.
http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/PR10452.html
So each of these may be a small part of the picture, but when you have 3 smaller announcements inside a month, it starts to add up to something more significant that together make a real positive step towards sustainability.
On the other hand, I completely agree with you about the lack of frog postings. A real shame, given all the important announcements recently that haven’t been covered/analysed. As well as the Jeanette/govt announcements mentioned above, also worth comment was Helen’s non-entity of a climate change announcement and Jim Anterton’s sustainable timber importing announcement.
December 16th, 2006 at 6:27 pm
stuey…whatever the title….
the rest of it still stands…
we are told this has been her role in this government…
yet she has said nothing as we slide further and further into the crap…
and these new ideas are all purely ‘voluntary’ imperatives….
yet another toothless tiger..achieving little..
so stuey…apart from that (small?) my bad on that one…(the actual title..)
and yr ad hominen..
you didn’t really refute what i said..eh..?
and i went and looked at your ‘knowledge centre’..
thinking before i went there…’..that’s a good idea…a collection point for all the up to date research/development…’
but no..!..it’s a website and an 0800 number for the forestry industry..!
worthy yes..!..but..?
that’s your one third of “..a real positive step towards sustainability..’..?
and sorry..the scoop report you sent me to was meant to tell me exactly what..?
and i read it twice….eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
December 16th, 2006 at 8:02 pm
phil:
I’ve thought that Jeanette has had a reasonably high profile recently on the media that I read, listen to, and watch. Actually it could be considered a very high profile for a minor party in Parliament. After all it is the media (from reporters to editors to owners) who decide what to cover, regardless of how well the Greens are at reporting stuff.
I often can’t understand you (frequently) negative “glass half empty” rather than “half full”) stance … Is that a common way of thinking for Aucklanders? (As one who is from well “South of the Bombay Hills” in a less populated / “less important” part of Aotearoa/NZ, I get the impression that it is!)
However, do keep your thoughts from ” the centre of the universe” coming our way!
December 16th, 2006 at 8:41 pm
“The draft strategy contains a range of possible actions and we are inviting the public to tell us which actions they support, where the priorities should be, and whether the proposals aim too high or not high enough,” Ms Fitzsimons said.
So send in a submission saying that you don’t think the proposals go far enough.
December 16th, 2006 at 8:45 pm
eredwen..i see nothing to be glass-half-full about…around these recently announced measures..
they are incrementalist in the extreme..
and i repeat my assertion….these ‘roles’ and policy baublettes effectively muzzled the greens..
(did you eredwen..know jeanette was govt spokesperson for whatever…?..
and if as expected..and as is the case for all (..stuey excepted)..you didn’t know that..?
what does that tell you of the efficacy of the greens..?
and also that this is at a time the deterioration of our environments is ever-accelerating…..!
this is when jeanette is silent..?
i repeat my question…does her govt role put her under the direction of clark..?
and yes..over the last week or so jeanette has been wheeled out to support helens’ wild flight of ’sustainable’ fantasy…
but before that there has just been a resounding silence..eh..?
and eredwen…i doubt there is a geographical thread to my concerns..
hold that jafa-bashing…!
and anyway..we all know that it is all a front put on to tease visitors..
and that amongst yourselves..behind closed doors…you all agree on how much you really like us jafa’s..
and really really appreciate our (ever-increasing) role of the engine-house of our economy…..and the centre of all that is interesting…
with the rest of you having your ever more polluted environments to rue over..
eh..?
btw..how about that sea of cowsh*t and chemicals that is drowning our beautiful south island..eh..?
not to mention the human faecal matter many of you seem to just pour (untreated) into the nearest body of water…eh..?
not much to hold your collective heads up about in that sorry (glass half empty) tale…eh..?
seasons’ greetings..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
December 16th, 2006 at 8:47 pm
this is my submission stuey..
saying just that..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
December 17th, 2006 at 12:04 am
Submissions should be sent to:
Draft Strategy Submissions
Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority
PO Box 388
Wellington
Or emailed to: feedback[at]eeca.govt.nz
Or sent via the EECA website: http://www.eeca.govt.nz Your submission must be received by 5pm Friday 30 March 2007.
December 17th, 2006 at 1:10 am
phil:
Yes I DID know “whatever” Jeanette was spokesperson for …
Try reading the Green website:
http://www.greens.org.nz/people/mps.htm
In Christchurch we are not “drowning in cowshit and chemicals” and our untreated artesian water remains pure (and delicious!)
However, there ARE far too many “dairy conversions” on the normally dry Canterbury Plains which are seriously depleting our precious aquifers.
This shows up (hopefully soon to be corrected) weaknesses in our “Regional Council” model of governance (land ownership, water use, etc)
I’ll take your word for how WONDEFUL Auckland and Aucklanders are!
My father wisely fled to the South Island in the early 1930’s. Numerous rellies remain in Auckland. I visit only occasionally (and prefer my jaffas out of a little packet!)
Merry Xmas!
eredwen
December 17th, 2006 at 12:08 pm
An energy review (er:consultation) absent a framework and an informed debate around what that framework should look like is just pithing into the wind.
It was also objectively critiqued by Rod Oram(sp?) on RadioNZ giving much the same reason.
The ChCh consultation was described by a Canterbury Professor and member of Engineers for Social Responibility as ‘the concrete has been poured, and the consultation gives it time to set!’.
December 17th, 2006 at 11:59 pm
so, Phil dissed the Draft Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy, as containing only voluntary measures, not mandatory ones, being toothless and having nothing about new building standards or no plans to retro-fit our housing stock.
So I had a look at the full draft strategy to see if he’s correct, it’s available as a 1.4MB PDF:
http://www.eeca.govt.nz/eeca-library/eeca-reports/neecs/report/draft-n zeecs-06.pdf
Pages 11 to 15 of the document contain a long list of all the different action ideas that the strategy contains, there are a lot.
I admit that most of the actions are merely “identify”, “investigate”, “scope”, “monitor” or “develop a strategy” but there are a lot that set targets or introduce mandatory obligations or fund actual implementation work. Some cherry picked examples:
* Reduce standby power consumption in all new appliances to less than 1 watt by 2012
* Provide support to increase uptake of highly efficient products by 2008
* Improve insulation levels and water heating energy efficiency in the Building Code by 2008
* Increase the rate at which pre-1978 homes are insulated to adequate levels
* Change the Building Code to require more energy efficiency for new buildings and retrofits by 2009
* Expand electricity efficiency programmes by 2008,
* Introduce fuel consumption labelling for new and used cars by August 2007
* A sales-weighted average fuel economy standard for new and second-hand cars is being considered
* Consider economic instruments (e.g. differential registration or other fees) to send appropriate pricing signals to influence the purchase and use of a vehicle, preferred options selected by the end of 2007
* Implement a mandatory biofuels sales obligation
* Invest in public transport
* Encourage walking and cycling with good design and infrastructure
* Build industry capacity for small-scale renewable energy by 2009–2010
* Begin fast tracking marine energy technology by 2007 to 2008
* All new government buildings and new leases above threshold size meet an energy efficiency standard that delivers best value over whole-of-life (e.g. the GreenStar building rating tool) by 2012
I think it all sounds great, and I like all the “investigate” ones as well. Great work, but the battle is now on to get them all retained and not watered down following submissions.
December 18th, 2006 at 1:44 pm
Anything that makes a therapeutic claim must be rigorously tested. Supplements must face the same kind of hurdles as medicines…if those supplements are going to imply a therapeutic benefit. Moreover, if they’re not game enough to assert curative qualities…they should be subject to the same kinds of quality standards as other food-stuffs.
December 18th, 2006 at 5:04 pm
I also knew Jeanette was the spokesperson for Energy and Conservation - and I hear her on radio in particular with increasing frequency (making more sense than most others do).
While it’s useful to keep prodding the Green Party to perform better, I wish there were some constructive suggestions sometimes - as a long-time friend of Jeanette’s I know it is simply not true that she has been bought off with ‘baublettes’. It’s just hard to be perfect, especially when you get more brickbats than bouquets.
December 18th, 2006 at 5:26 pm
Hi Phil,
I think Stuey has done a pretty good job of posting some of the detail in the NEECS and I seriously suspect there would have been much less of that if Jeantte hadn’t been in her role os Govt Spokesperson on Energy Efficiency & Conservation.
However, I also wonder how much freedom she has to criticise elements of this draft strategy - I expect she is somewhat constrained in that as a result of the post election agreement and her role as spokesperson (a little like a much watered-down “collective cabinet responsibility” restriction I suspect.)
But is it always best to be outside p.ssing in? Guess that’s a trade-off decision to be made as against how effective a person (or a party) thinks they (it) can be by being inside the tent trying to push things along.
Personally, i don’t think Jeanette has been quiet since the election - I’ve seen a lot of really good media comment from her - true, most of it is on scoop cos the mainstream print lot don’t pick up very much of it, but she seems to be doing her bit to get the messge out.
And I don’t think she can be that hamstrung by her EEC spokesperson role as she has commented fairly robustly on the deficiencies of the National Energy Strategy.
The Turn Down the Heat policy proposals were a good contribution to the debate from the Green party and were welcomed by a wide range of stakeholders - even by the farm forestry lobby.
December 18th, 2006 at 6:59 pm
frog..(or stuey)..(or russell)..
could you please clear up that uncertainty about any ‘cabinet collective responsibility’ inherent in that agreement between the greens and labour..?
this is the third time i have asked this…
or..are we not allowed to know…the details of that deal/agreement..?
janine..jeanette is the co-leader of the green party..
who else should we address our concerns too..?
especially when she is the one selling this exercise in smoke and mirrors..
and i am not the only one pointing out this is yet more paper-pushing..
with beggar-all actual goals..
it’s just consultation…consultation..consultation..
haven’t we had enough consultation..?
how about some action..?
and i don’t just hand out brickbats..
a little while ago i wrote a piece on how professional jeanette is now with the media..
watching her under the media glare before used to be like watching teeth being extracted..
that is now no longer the case..
she comes across as very relaxed..and has learnt to ignore the cameras/microphones…
and speaks directly to the audience..
and that is quite a skill..
but if i think these outcomes(?)..or lack of them..
are a load of ars*….i will call them as such…
and i’ve been trying to find something positive to say about russell in his role..
but nothing i’ve seen (or read) has changed my opinion/conviction that he should stand aside from the role..
and throw his weight behind nandor as male co-leader..
sorta ‘do the right thing’..eh..?
but i don’t think there is much chance of that happening..eh..?
and kiwinuke…the reason you see jeanette on scoop is because scoop print all the press releases..from all the pollies…
and the reason you see the greens nowhere else is because for some reason the greens seem to think issuing press releases is ‘it’..
all you need to do…
and having lurked in some dark corners of the media..i can tell you..99% of pollies press releases are seen as what they are..
usually self-serving pap..and most instantly bin them…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
December 18th, 2006 at 11:19 pm
I suspect that the reason no-one has answered your question Phil is that no-one read your rants, as soon as we see all the … we scroll down past you, so I expect that no-one was aware that you’d asked one.
Now I have seen it, I can point you to the ‘Labour-led Government Co-operation Agreement with Greens’
http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/other9314.html
which says:
“Collective responsibility
The Green Party will not be bound by collective responsibility on government decisions. Where the Green Party has participated in the development of a policy initiative, and that participation has led to an agreed position, it is expected that all parties to this agreement will publicly support the process and the outcome. ”
meanwhile, if we’re counting ad hominen attacks on each other, I think you’re beating me by about 20 to 1.
December 19th, 2006 at 9:13 am
oh well stuey..(nice try at an ad hominen..sorta..!..)
at least i can be sure you are reading..eh..stuey..?
seeing as you’re counting.eh..?
hee-he..!..you’re funny..!
(does that make it 21-2..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
December 19th, 2006 at 9:25 am
and of course..being in that government role..there’d be no ‘unspoken’ pressures not to criticise the governments actions..or lack of actions..
(that..and an almost ‘begging’ desire..to one day..maybe..being accepted as a junior coalition partner by labour..)
do ya reckon they’d be factors stuey..?
(and b.t.w…not a lot of dignity to be had in that supplicant-to-labour role.)
eh stuey..?
so..i think you’ve answered my question stuey…
and confirmed my suspicions that was why the greens have been so (otherwise) inexplicably silent….
on so many urgent ‘green’ issues…
so..thanks for that stuey…..
i feel a cartoon coming on…
a cartoon of the greens…standing to one side…holding helens’ violin-case…as she fiddles..
it’s all a bit grim..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
December 19th, 2006 at 10:46 am
What colour is jaundiced Phil?
Personally I don’t know why anyone even bothers to answer the occasional reasonable question you ask - you don’t take anyone’s answers seriously anyway.
You just hang on to your own view and keep on pissing honey.
December 19th, 2006 at 11:16 am
show me what is untrue in what i say…kiwinuke..
don’t just ad hominem at me…show me where/how i an wrong in that call..
as i said..it’s grim…
should i just go “la-la..la-la..everythings wonderful.!”..?
(anyway..that’s stueys’role eh..?…he’s got that ground staked out..
he’s auditioning as cheer-leader..
that’s 43-2 stuey..)
and i guess you’d say i’m starting to feel somewhat jaundiced…
how many years of green parliamentary representation has it been..?
and for what..?
and i could handle that….(y’know..history..and all that..)
but my concerns are focussed in the here and the now…and the future..
and the imperatives in that future..
and from all i can see..
it ain’t happening..eh..?
once again..show me how i am wrong on that call..?
and i must say..i am still in a state of shock over frogs’ response to me a while back that “..the greens have no answers..”…
from what i can see…
they haven’t even got any questions…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
December 19th, 2006 at 12:15 pm
phil:
There is a difference betweeen what the media reports (or doesn’t report) and what is actually said and done (as I am sure you well know!)
1. I find the Green Parliamentarians and their team imaginative in the way they get much of the publicity they do. (I choose to give credit where credit is due, and I very much doubt that you could do better!)
2. When Jeanette (and Rod) were deciding the pros and cons of any associations with Cabinet-type posts (in this case “spokesperson”) I remember that there was a considerable amount of discussion about these pros and cons. One of the biggest “pros” is an image in people’s minds that this person is speaking wisely in an official capacity. (That image remains … often longer than the details of what the position was. Thus it is an incremental step in the right direction.)
I think the Green MPs are often “punching well above their weight”.
phil, surely you realise that your “rants” (as others call them) are not doing anyone much good … especially you!
December 19th, 2006 at 12:29 pm
Hi Phil,
“and of course..being in that government role..there’d be no ‘unspoken’ pressures not to criticise the governments actions..or lack of actions..”
I agree, there are bound to be both spoken and unspoken pressures from Labour - but that hasn’t, to my knowledge, stopped any criticism of Government policy that the Greens are not partly responsible for. Jeanette has recently criticised the National Energy Strategy (see frog’s latest post) and Russel has consistently criticised current govt efforts on CC in his trips around the regions.
I agree that Jeanette probably has a lot less room for criticism on the Energy Efficiency Strategy as she is involved in developing and fronting that. But I still think that without her involvement the current draft startegy would be a lot weaker than it is. So the real question is - would the Green Party be more effective not being a part of that and having the freedom to criticise more?
This government has shown itself to be pretty immune to criticism from the Greens to date - they only seem to react when the Nats do something to get the polls swinging their way.
“so..i think you’ve answered my question stuey…
and confirmed my suspicions that was why the greens have been so (otherwise) inexplicably silent….” Phil
I don’t agree that the Greens have been silent - I see them stating their case consistently in a number of fora, not just with press releases but with public actions (such as Nov 4) around the country, MPs public meetings around the country, climate change DVD showings in the regions and policy statements on the website.
If your view of an ideal world is one where Green Party policy and criticism of the government’s snail-dribbling progress on CC policy is given front page coverage I agree that would be helpful - but I think you underplay the difficulties in getting the message out. The Green Party doesn’t seem to have Al Gore’s movie budget.
“and the reason you see the greens nowhere else is because for some reason the greens seem to think issuing press releases is ‘it’..” Phil
I disagree again - but I am curious, other than the avenues persued above what methods do you think the Greens should be using to get their message across?
As for jaundiced, I think you might find a surprising amount of disappointment and frustration amongst the Green MPs themselves at the foot-dragging approach Labour has been taking and at the difficulty of achieving any real change when you’re effectively side-lined by a cosy power sharing arrangement between Labout and Winston and Peter.
But if just moaning about that from the sidelines really had a dramatic and positive effect you would surely have single-handedly changed the course of NZ history by now Phil.
December 19th, 2006 at 2:37 pm
phil: “show me what is untrue in what i say”.
me: what’s the point? you won’t listen, and you’ll just go off on another rant where you insult me. I’ve got better things to do with my life.
December 19th, 2006 at 6:05 pm
Hi Phil
It’s only a press release - but at least it’s not just on scoop
The link I mentioned earlier on Jeanette’s criticism of the Govt Energy Strategy.
Silent eh?
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3896467a10,00.html
December 19th, 2006 at 10:57 pm
that’s ok stuey..
jeez..yr starting to sound like one of my ex’s…
enough already…!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
December 19th, 2006 at 11:11 pm
omg, you’re right I do sound like someone’s ex. How embarrassing.
December 19th, 2006 at 11:32 pm
i just ‘don’t listen’..eh..?
and eredwen….
you say i’m doing myself no favours by urging from the sideline..
but that dosen’t matter eredwen…
nothing i did in the greens was to win a popularity contest..
and unlike most of the others ..i had no personal ambitions to fosture/work for…
freedom from those imperatives gives one a certain freedom..
but i must admit…you are right about one thing..
i don’t seem to have/be having any effect….
there is an institutional truculence/memory/inertia i can’t get past..
and i think i am close to not bothering anymore..for those reasons…
i think i’m still feckin’ naieve enough to think scales will fall from peoples eyes..from using the power of argument/the word..
despite that not happening time and time again..
i think you..the greens..have set your own course..with your choice of leadership…and continued close’ relationship with labour..
i hope for your sakes your welding yourselves to that course of action will have a ‘result’ for you….
however you will value/grade that..
so..i think i’ve pretty much said my piece..
anything more would be repetition…
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
December 19th, 2006 at 11:40 pm
I agree that using words and the power of argument can change opinions, but it also needs good presentation or those arguments will be ignored, not to mention being polite and seeing someone else’s side and attempting to engage with them rather than rail at them.
December 19th, 2006 at 11:48 pm
ok..stuey..
you….like that ex..can have the last word..eh..?
carry on..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
December 28th, 2006 at 7:23 pm
In the above posts there is little mention of MONEY. This is what it is all about. Basic food supplements (vitamins and minerals) are dramatically more expensive here and in Australia than in Canada or the US.
Other items are controlled by being on prescription i.e. too dangerous for people to take unsupervised.
A good example is melatonin - a possible anti-cancer agent available OTC in many countries. A friend was prescribed it by her doctor here in Auckland. She complained to me it cost almost a dollar a tablet (excluding doctor’s fee and prescription charges)
I got her some on the internet from the US for about 5c a tablet. I suffer from jet lag. It works miracles for me. I bought a 500 tablet bottle in Amsterdam airport recently for around $25.
Melatoinin is not a product being produced by small local suppliers. The impending Australian rules and our prescription regulations will guarantee that all those concerned will continue to profit handsomely except ordinary Kiwis of course!!