Turner Judy: International Treaty Examination — Consideration of Report of Health Committee Agreement between the Government of New Zealand and the Government of Australia for the establishment of a Joint Scheme for the Regulation of Therapeutic Products 
Turner Judy: International Treaty Examination — Consideration of Report of Health Committee Agreement between the Government of New Zealand and the Government of Australia for the establishment of a Joint Scheme for the Regulation of Therapeutic Products 
[Volume:620;Page:15514] 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to make our comments on the Government’s treaty that was signed on 10 December with the Australian Government in relation to the regulation of therapeutic products medical devices pharmaceuticals and complementary medicines. 
The Health Committee looked predominantly at two areas. We looked at how complementary medicines should be regulated and then with the kinds of conclusions we came to on those matters we looked at how this proposal affected those outcomes and whether we thought it was a viable option. For instance the industry was very clear in its dealings with us that it accepted there was a need to strengthen the regulatory framework which is currently a very weak structure in New Zealand—that is regulating complementary medicines. However I guess the area that the industry seemed to feel a bit ripped-off by was the fact that it felt that it had had ripped out of its hands the chance to develop a system of its own that suited the New Zealand - innovation aspect of that industry and to set up a system that would facilitate trade through mutual recognition. 
The things that came out when we looked at what a strengthened domestic regulatory system could include are very interesting and highly relevant to the outcome of this treaty. First of all any regulatory system would need to be risk based. When one is talking about vitamin pills and products that in general make what we would term “wellness” claims as opposed to therapeutic claims then the intention that this treaty has of bringing complementary medicines into the same category as pharmaceuticals—transferring them from their current status of being regulated under foods—United Future agrees with the industry is a complete overkill. 
Several other people who have spoken tonight talked about tours they have had through complementary medicine factories. I spent some time with members of the Health Committee at the Comvita factory in Te Puke. What struck us on entering that factory which at the time we were there was manufacturing and processing honey was that on one side of the factory honey was being processed to put on one’s toast; it was being processed as a food product. Directly over the corridor that same honey was being processed to treat wounds. The difference we saw between one side of the factory and the other was almost the difference one sees between a warehouse and a science fiction movie. Because the standards—the very necessary standards that one needs to have in place for the processing and manufacturing of pharmaceuticals—are extremely rigorous as they should be. But when one applies these standards to very low-risk products it does start to look rather ridiculous. 
One of the things the industry understands it does need is a central register—a simple electronic lodgment. Of course one of the areas that this treaty does not cover and which came up very strongly in our inquiry is that we would like to see—and the industry is very keen to see—that complementary health-care products are regulated based on a negative list. This includes a list of ingredients that are not permitted as opposed to the white list that focuses on a very substantial list of things that are permitted. The industry is well aware of the need for good labelling practice and better customer information. It is committed to excellence in good manufacturing practice and that needs to be monitored and enforced properly. But one of the things that has really marked out the New Zealand industry and set us apart in many ways from other countries has been the huge development over the last 20 to 30 years of innovative products that started often in very humble beginnings in people’s garages. They have now developed into amazing products that are well able to move beyond making just “wellness” claims. There is now very clear scientific evidence of their therapeutic efficacy and they are well able to move into that area because of that evidence.  
The next thing the Health Committee did was to have a reality check. We realised that the Government did seem fairly hell-bent on signing this treaty so we took a very realistic approach and made a series of recommendations to be considered on the understanding that the Government did intend to go ahead with the treaty. Let us be clear here. This treaty which was signed on 10 December was literally signed while the ink was drying on the select committee report that was waiting to be tabled. I think we did have a slight slap in the face sense about an inquiry that had been undertaken very seriously. We had taken a huge amount of time out to listen to the concerns of both consumer groups and those working in the industry. We had listened to their proposals and their fears. The Health Committee also visited the Therapeutic Goods Administration. A huge amount of work had gone into this only to find suddenly that at the end of the day it did not actually matter—that this proposal was going ahead without taking any time to pause and reflect on the recommendations of the report. 
We have a huge myriad of concerns. When one first reads the Government’s response to the Health Committee’s report it seems very much like it is endorsing many of our recommendations. But there are three recommendations that the Government does not support. As far as I am concerned these are perhaps the most key and the most substantial of our recommendations. If I had to draw a bottom line on this issue for United Future it is the request from the industry that complementary medicines and products be regulated within their own category. I may be wrong here but I suspect that the Minister herself would possibly be prepared to consider that option but is unable to offer it because there is a complete unwillingness on the part of the Australian Government which is partnering with us in this treaty to give it even a second consideration. 
Also the Government—and I would probably rank this as my second concern with this treaty—does not make any provisions for the recommendation that a negative list be used because of the fact that it requires a high threshold of harm to be substantiated. So we are disappointed about that. The other thing that concerns us is that there seems to be a dismissing by the Government of our concerns about the impact of this treaty on the small businesses that make up part of our industry here in New Zealand. When we look at the Australian Government’s own response sheet to the treaty it is spelt out very clearly in black and white and makes the point that the advantage to the complementary medicines industry is very much on the side of the Australian market. The Australian Government sees that there is huge advantage to the Australian industry over the New Zealand industry and obviously that makes it a real plus for Australia. We need to make sure that any treaty we sign gives us at least the same advantage as anybody we are partnering with. United Future is becoming increasingly concerned. We have been lobbied as have other members of Parliament by vast numbers of people all expressing their concern. I think we need to remember too that there are several groups here. There are consumers importers manufacturers and product developers that are all seriously expecting to be badly affected by this treaty.