5. SUE KEDGLEY (Green) Link to this
to the Minister of State Services
Does the Government still aim to introduce legislation to the House this month to set up an Australia New Zealand therapeutic products agency; if not, why not?
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of State Services) Link to this
No. Consultation on the proposed Australia - New Zealand therapeutic products agency is ongoing.
Has she seen Australian consultant Val Johanson’s damning report predicting that if New Zealand joins the trans-Tasman therapeutic goods agency, compliance costs for natural health products will escalate, over 50 percent of small dietary supplements businesses will close down or move offshore, and the cost of natural health products will significantly increase; and can she explain why she would want this to happen in New Zealand?
Yes, I have seen that report. I do not agree with everything in it, but certainly, in terms of the consultations, we are looking at ways we can ensure that those who make complementary medicines in New Zealand will not be unduly affected by the cost of compliance.
Darien FentonHas she seen the reports from opponents of the scheme stating that traditional Māori medicines and healing would be legislated out of existence; and is this correct?
Yes, I have seen such reports. Their information regarding Māori and other traditional medicines is wrong. The authors have been told that is the case, but for their own purposes they continue to peddle this misinformation.
Barbara StewartDoes the Minister acknowledge that there has been significant public opposition to the agency, and that the establishment of the agency is in doubt because New Zealand First will not support the accompanying legislation; if so, for how long does she intend to pursue this rather futile exercise?
I will continue to negotiate a joint regulator until all the issues have been finalised. It will then be up to this Parliament whether the proposal is accepted. But I would note that this regulator and the negotiations around it have been almost 10 years in duration. They started under a National Government and continued under this Government for the very good reason that we are progressing our joint relationship with Australia. This proposal is seen to be an advance on CER, which I think it is to the benefit of New Zealanders.
Why has the Government spent $6 million to date on a project that has never had parliamentary endorsement or approval, and why will the Minister not admit that she does not have sufficient support in this House to get the legislation through, and that she does not have support amongst most people in the dietary supplements industry; why will she not call it quits, stop wasting taxpayers’ money, and convene a working-group across all parties in this House to come up with a New Zealand - based alternative?
Because more than those in the complementary medicines sector are involved in this joint regulator. I am certain members of this House have received letters from those in the pharmaceutical industry who are in favour of it, from those in the over-the-counter industry who are in favour of it, from those in the medical devices industry who would like to see changes but are in favour of it, and from some of those in the complementary medicines sector who want to see regulation that protects New Zealanders. What I have not ever been able to understand from that member is why New Zealanders should have to put up with this sort of thing happening in this country. These are herbal medicines, complementary medicines, that have to be withdrawn from our market because they are not regulated in New Zealand. These so-called complementary medicines have in them undeclared prescribed medicines. They have been put into the so-called complementary medicines, and that is able to happen because we do not regulate them in this country.
Does the Minister agree with Marcus Blackmore, head of Blackmores New Zealand, that in Australia regulatory creep has resulted in a drug-based model of over-regulation, of unnecessary red tape that is too complex, too costly, and bears little relation to the public risk involved; and does she further agree that we should have random testing of all products in New Zealand under the present legislation, that all members of Parliament in this House agree that we need a simple regulatory system that will ensure all complementary medicines are true to label, and that it should be in existence now with random testing?
If it were so simple that all one needed in a regulatory system was a random test, then we would have a very poor system indeed, because it is exactly what we have now. The only way these products are detected is by a random test. What we ought to have is good manufacturing practice and, in every part of the process, knowledge of what has been put into the product. That does not occur in New Zealand. We find out by chance in this country, by a spot audit, not by products being manufactured in a proper way, as is done in every First World country around the world.