Stewart Barbara: 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 
Stewart Barbara: 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:15512] 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I rise to speak to the report of the Health Committee on the international treaty examination of the 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. As the select committee report states New Zealand First is opposed to the treaty agreement particularly as it pertains to therapeutic products. This treaty and the subsequent signing of it has been beset with problems right from the very outset when the main finding of the Health Committee inquiry into the proposal to regulate complementary health-care products jointly with Australia was that it should not proceed. 
 In the report we note that there are a number of legal issues that relate to the joint agency. The agency will be established and have legal status under Australian legislation and this raises further questions about how New Zealand’s interests will be protected. I was quite surprised to see that the Government did not support the first report that was issued by the Health Committee. New Zealand First agrees that there needs to be some regulation in the health-care industry. I think that most New Zealanders would be totally unaware that complementary health-care products are currently unregulated. We agree that consumers must have confidence in the products and that the ingredients claimed to be within those particular products are actually contained within those products. 
Like my colleague I was very fortunate to spend some time at the Healtheries and the Kordels manufacturing plants in Auckland. I was very pleased and impressed with the rigorous testing regime that occurs before any of their products are manufactured. The continual checks during production and the quality process are a whole part of the entire manufacturing process. These two manufacturers and their consumers can be totally assured of the safety the quality and the efficacy of all their products. It was very impressive to see the level of care in all their products. 
Hon Annette King 
: That’s the Australian standards. 
BARBARA STEWART 
: Although it may be an Australian standard it can be implemented here in New Zealand. New Zealand First believes that this too is a sovereignty issue. We do not want to have the New Zealand role in this agency reduced to that of an Australian state and that was noted in the legal issues part of the report that came back from the Health Committee. It is an insult to New Zealand particularly when we are not even a state of Australia. It is also an interesting fact that some of the Australian states do not follow the highly prescriptive regime that Australia wants New Zealand to follow as a result of this treaty. So definitely some questions need to be asked there. Why should this new agency impose this rigid regulatory regime on New Zealand? People usually have to get their own house in order before they start on someone else’s house. Matters of policy and principle that should be dealt with in the New Zealand Parliament should not be dealt with in an agency that has been set up in Australia. That must undermine our sovereignty even if we do have a branch set up here in Wellington. 
We are also concerned that the complementary health-care products and the dietary supplements actually come under this particular treaty. We in New Zealand First believe that they should be treated as a totally separate category and a totally separate class of product—definitely not to be included as an integral part of the treaty. Natural health-care products should not be controlled in this very same rigid way and by the very same people who control the pharmaceutical products. We know that there is a difference in purpose for pharmaceutical products and for the complementary health-care products. There should also be a separate office for administering the complementary health-care products. After all the bottom line is that these products are seen as being preventive rather than as a cure for disease. Most people take these products so that they will not contract an ailment rather than to cure a disease or to relieve the symptoms of an illness. 
Our third concern lies with the major impact that this treaty will have on a large number of New Zealand industries already involved in this particular sector. Every impact report that the Health Committee received on this proposed change has highlighted the detrimental effect for New Zealand businesses. So why should we vote for a treaty that does not recognise the concerns that the entire industry has recognised? It is quite surprising. This industry like every other industry requires a level of innovation often brought about by small businesses to stimulate and to grow the entire category. As I said before innovation is absolutely essential in an industry such as this. I know for a fact that many of these small businesses—a lot of them do tend to be small businesses in this particular area—are already prepared to meet the standard quality requirements such as ingredient testing good manufacturing practice guidelines and labelling to ensure the overall industry integrity. So why not develop a New Zealand - based system? We believe that the increased compliance costs and the additional regulation imposed by this trans-Tasman agency will cause many of these small businesses to close. That is definitely not something that we want to see occur at all. 
As New Zealand is the smaller partner in this treaty our interests will we believe be very much under-represented. The increased cost of products to consumers and the compliance costs for manufacturers will result in the closure of some of these businesses—and we actually heard that from some of the people involved in the Australian industry. When we look at the treaty we believe that it will definitely lead to higher prices for consumers and higher compliance costs especially among the smaller New Zealand - based companies that supply only the domestic market. Not everybody exports across to Australia. 
Like many other MPs in this House I have been absolutely overwhelmed by the number of emails I have received that are firmly opposed to this trans-Tasman treaty proceeding. I estimate that I have received well over 50 emails that are opposed to this joint regulation. That number could even be closer to 75. I have not received one solitary email advocating that this joint agency should proceed. I must admit that all these emails are not from one particular area in New Zealand. They have come from throughout New Zealand. There appears to be a total lack of support for this proposal from the complementary health-care industry in New Zealand and from many of the consumers in this particular industry. 
I must say in all fairness that I have received one letter in favour. That letter was from a member of the pharmaceutical industry who was concerned that we work with Australia because: “It wants critical mass in its regulatory system for pharmaceuticals.” It appears that this treaty is really being used as the instrument for change in the complementary medicines industry. New Zealand First questions the motives of the Government in agreeing to a treaty that has no tangible benefits for New Zealand. We strongly recommend that the Government explores options for administering a New Zealand - based regulatory framework.