Let’s have the UN decide
December 15th, 2008 at 3:00 pm by David FarrarIdiot/Savant at No Right Turn wants the UN to decide if NZ is meeting its obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
He explains:
It will allow individuals to bring complaints directly to an international body. So for example, if the government hadn’t decided to change its mind, the “Herception heroes” could have argued that PHARMAC’s refusal to fund their preferred drug violated their right to health, and complained to the UN about it.
I can think of nothing more ridicolous than having a UN panel, probably made up of representatives from Zimbabwe, Iran and Russia deciding whether or not the NZ Government should fund Herceptin.
Related posts:
- No full Herceptin treatment
- Let students and parents decide
- Frog on Pharmac
- Direct-to-the-consumer drug advertising
December 15th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
That anybody wants to delegate supreme control to a disparate body with no real interests in this country is hard to believe.
Sounds like one of Helen’s cronies is simply sucking up to the UN.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
What about a body composed of legal experts independent of NZ, but well versed in the workings of a democracy and legal system based on the UK’s…like maybe the Privy Council…doh!
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Rakaia George – well said. What’s the bet IdiotSavant was one of those idiots who wanted to get rid of the Privy Council to prove our own independence.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Rakaia George The members of the Judical Committee of the privy Council have forgotten more about the law than the whole of the Supreme Court of NZ If compare the backgrounds you will find the SC a bunch of very light weight baised jurists.
And the add insult to injury whilst the SC cost we taxpayers millions of dollars a year The JC only cost the Nz taxpayer if the crown was a party in a case.
As to the UN. Good grief If NZ was to submit to any Committee of that body it would be submitting to a bunch of inferiors.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Yeah! And what’s the bet IdiotSavant was one of those people who liked The Phantom Menace!
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
I don’t know why he doesn’t simply call himself Idiot because its clear he is one.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
@Ryan Sproull-
Vote:I feel like I am missing something here. What do you mean by your star wars reference?
December 15th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
How about Sepp Blatter and his team at the FIA being involved?
He is being done for corruption soon?
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Oh, I thought we were just randomly accusing IdiotSavant of things we don’t like.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
So Helen’s mates are engineering a job for her?
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
@Ryan Sproull -
Vote:Ah okay that makes a lot more sense now. Although I would be interested to know how New Zealand is going.
December 15th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
What would be the ramifications if Key told the UN we no longer wished to be a part of that corrupt and useless organisation?
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
You can see the far fetched plan developing here.
We lost the election, no chance of getting back in for a decade or so.
Helen wants a bit more power, so we get our Parliament to be subservient to her at the UN.
Brilliant thinking boys.
Slight flaw in the plan. We all think the UN is venal and corrupt just like Helen. Don’t think our younger, newre and more vibrant leader will have a bar of it.
So why doesn’t Idiot go and live somewhere else that suits his politics??
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
The weather has been awesome.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
@big bruv-
Vote:Agreed, as long as the members on the security council are overrepresented the UN is quite useless.
@Ryan Sproull -
lol
December 15th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Surely no-one could take such a suggestion seriously. This guy must just be fishing for traffic.
Congrats IDIOT, you’ve been upgraded to MORON.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Idiot says on his site:
“National opposes the whole concept of economic, social and cultural rights”
Where is the evidence for such a sweeping generalization? Idiot might have had a valid argument up until he used such a tactic.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
At the risk of allowing a few inconvenient facts to intrude into this thread (many of which could have been gleaned by actually reading I/S’s post, instead of, well, just typing whatever comes into your head)…
(1) The Optional Protocol allowing for complaints was adopted unanimously by the UN General Assembly … if this is a Labour inspired plot, they’re even more powerful than I realised!
(2) NZ hasn’t actually signed up to this Optional Protocol yet … until it chooses to do so, we’re not bound by it. So it’s actually National’s decision what to do here.
(3) NZ has agreed to allow individual complaints under the International Covenant on Civil and Political RIghts (ICCPR) for decades – but I haven’t noticed the UN dictating how NZ is to be governed under THAT document.
(4) The oversight body for the ICESR only has recommendatory powers – the NZ govt isn’t bound to implement its findings, and if it doesn’t agree with them can in practice refuse to do so. See, for instance, Labour’s refusal to repeal the Foreshore and Seabed Act when the UN’s special rapporteur recommended this.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
“I can think of nothing more ridicolous than having a UN panel, probably made up of representatives from Zimbabwe, Iran and Russia deciding whether or not the NZ Government should fund Herceptin.”
Quite right. The non-ridicolous (sic) way to decide where funding should go is for a politician to decide in the heat of an election campaign to deliver a sop to a vocal interest group, thereby shoring up the party’s credentials with an important voting bloc that it traditionally struggles to reach.
THAT’S good and prudent management of taxpayer dollars, which in no way undermines the expert body charged with making such decisions, nor threatens to politicise the vexed issue of what new generation drugs should be made available by the public health system.
[DPF: I've criticised that decision also AG, but it is not a choice of either or. I don't see any role for a UN body to be second guessing the decisions of the NZ Govt, beyond the areas they already do.]
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
burt Says: “So Helen’s mates are engineering a job for her?”
With Helen’s track record who would want tomemploy her?” Unlike Parliament she would need to provide a CV to gain gainful employment.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
AG, you mean that this Government is doing what it promised to do in the election campaign.
Unlike the former administration that wasted a billion dollars on a crappy train set on a whim. And then was forging ahead buying a big South Island Station for dear leader to enjoy, and kill off other European Guides.
Train Set or Loveley Ladies Lives?
Labour went for the train set, that is how twisted they became at the end.
The saddest thing is that the drug was to be unavailable to anybody who wanted to simply buy it. Now that is uncaring command and control.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Any body else picked up on the huge shift in emphasis of Corruption First Supporters.
Before it was Government money to spend how they so desired. Now they was lyrical about
Tax Payers Dollars. Funny That!
Still you can’t have too many limousines, Banquets, Rugby Tickets, Conventions in posh resorts, or obvious waste when
women are dying. Effin Hypocrites.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
“AG, you mean that this Government is doing what it promised to do in the election campaign.”
But what it promised is a bad thing. Keeping a bad promise isn’t exactly laudable.
Look – I’m sorry for those suffering breast cancer. I have been touched by cancer myself. But there isn’t enough money to buy every drug that might (might) help those suffering from it. Which is why we have an expert group to assess the evidence and decide what represents good value for money. Which is what J.K. has undermined in his desire to market himself and National as women friendly. Remember National’s outrage at the public service getting politicised?
Oh … BTW … “The saddest thing is that the drug was to be unavailable to anybody who wanted to simply buy it.”
Unless and until you can provide evidence to back up this statement, I’m calling you on it. I think you just pulled it out of your ass.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
“…Unless and until you can provide evidence to back up this statement, I’m calling you on it. I think you just pulled it out of your ass…”
Holy Shit! Now we’re in trouble, oh wait no we aren’t. yawn.
I was about to call the Herald. 
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
The UN is like a dose of the clap. Best avoided.
Bill.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
“[DPF: I've criticised that decision also AG, but it is not a choice of either or. I don't see any role for a UN body to be second guessing the decisions of the NZ Govt, beyond the areas they already do.]”
Fair call.
Vote:December 15th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Someone recently summed up the U.N. like this: “160 cannibals and 20 civilised people having a vote on what to have for dinner”………
Vote:December 16th, 2008 at 12:28 am
More (as in BORING) whining by the left, attempting to railroad their (PINOT NOIR [aka in most cases mediocre and expensive] socialist) agenda onto New Zealanders who don’t want it (said socialist utopian dream) as evidenced by the ELECTION RESULTS.
All socialists who favour UN rule should move to a tin pot country being run by the UN.
Vote:December 16th, 2008 at 8:57 am
They are really scratchy, and they give the impression that progress and better living standards will be
resented. Why? because it means so many of us being able to take control of our lives.
FO commies!
Vote:December 16th, 2008 at 10:37 am
“Look – I’m sorry for those suffering breast cancer.”
I don’t believe you.
“But there isn’t enough money to buy every drug that might (might) help those suffering from it. ”
Thats truly pulling something out of your ass. It’s one drug, not all of them.
I think JK made the right decision, and he did so for the right reasons. I voted for JK, not a panel of “experts”.
Back to the thread. The ONLY legitimate function of the UN is to provide a forum for discussion of treaties BETWEEN sovereign nations. It has no business demanding, or even “recommending” domestic policy. The UN has not a shred of democratic accountability.
Vote:December 16th, 2008 at 11:26 am
We have handed over to the United Nations the whole climate change scam and as a result the UN will effectively control our whole economy and every aspect of our lives.
So what’s the problem with letting them decide everything else. They are such a noble lot and obviously without fault.
Vote:December 16th, 2008 at 11:43 am
PhilBest Right on the button beautifully put and so much the reality when you look at those attending the UN chamber
NZ and 19 other civilised human being vs. well you said it so well
Vote:December 16th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
GM,
We’ll take it as read that you just make sh*t up, then? And we’ll treat the rest of your comments with all the respect a demonstrated liar deserves? Nice to have that sorted.
Lee,
Don’t care if you believe me or not. But “It’s one drug, not all of them” is exactly the point. The money spent on more Herceptin, with its unproven efficacy, now isn’t available for other drugs that actually could make a proven difference to other people suffering from cancer or other illnesses. It’s a zero-sum game … caving in to the “Herceptin heroines” has condemned other people to suffer. That’s reality.
Oh … and if you trust politicians to make medical decisions for you, get J.K. to operate on you when you need a heart by-pass. After all, you voted for him, not some pointy headed “expert” surgeon with his fancy degree and all …
Vote:December 17th, 2008 at 9:22 am
AG,
“The money spent on more Herceptin, with its unproven efficacy, now isn’t available for other drugs that actually could make a proven difference”
All drugs have to be proven. You torpedo your own case by admitting that other “could” make a difference. In other words they may or may not. Someone had to make a choice.
“Oh … and if you trust politicians to make medical decisions for you”
I don’t trust ANYBODY to make my medical decisions, but this was a decision regarding the spending of government money, and such decisions should be made by those who are democratically accountable and elected to make them in the first place. Government spending decisions must be made by politicians, not unelected elites.
“After all, you voted for him, not some pointy headed “expert” surgeon with his fancy degree”
Having a degree means nothing to me. I have met enough self-serving, arrogant, moronic and utterly useless doctors not to trust them as far as I can spit.
Vote:December 17th, 2008 at 10:23 am
Lee
“Government spending decisions must be made by politicians, not unelected elites.”
There is a world of difference between the government deciding how much money to spend on drugs (a political decision that should be in the hands of democratically accountable representatives) and politicians deciding which particular drugs to fund. And yes, “All drugs have to be proven’ … but weighing up the evidence that “proves” efficacy is best done by people who know how to do it. They’re called “experts”, and as I say – if you don’t trust them then by all means have J.K. operate on you.
Think of it this way – if the Greens promised to give everyone free homeopathic remedies if elected, and then got elected, would you sit back and say “oh well – they got the votes, so whatever they want to spend money on is A-OK with me.”? Or would you say “homeopathy is a crock of shit, and any government that interferes in the delivery of health services to fund it is a bad government.”
(Actually, I’m a bit afraid you might like homeopathy, so maybe this example will backfire).
Vote:December 17th, 2008 at 10:27 am
AG = LPrent.
Vote:December 17th, 2008 at 10:32 am
Expat.
You have the advantage of me. I’ve no idea what that means. But I assume it means “very handsome and successful person”. In which case, ta.
Vote:December 17th, 2008 at 10:36 am
yeah, kinda. like shortland street means successful and quality value for money nzonair spend nuzulund drama.
so, the exact opposite really.
hth’s.
xxx
Vote:December 17th, 2008 at 10:40 am
“yeah, kinda. like shortland street means successful and quality value for money nzonair spend nuzulund drama.
so, the exact opposite really.”
Oh – I see what you did there. Irony. Is this display of humour indicative of why you spend so much time on a NZ based website instead of out with real UK people?
Vote: