 |
 |
 |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|||||
|
Leader's LetterOctober 2004
Dietary Supplements and the Trans-Tasman TreatyThe Minister of Health recently signed a Treaty with Australia to establish a joint scheme for the regulation of therapeutic products. This Treaty was signed despite the Health Select Committee’s complete rejection of the proposed trans-Tasman agency. The Government totally ignored the select committee inquiry that was under way and actually signed the Treaty prior to the committee submitting a report of its findings to Parliament. The Minister of Health’s action called into question the democratic parliamentary process. At the time of writing, the enabling legislation had not been tabled in Parliament. New Zealand First is opposed to this Treaty. First, this is a sovereignty issue. To have New Zealand’s role in decisionmaking reduced to the level of an Australian state is an insult to our national sovereignty. This 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. Apparently we will only have a branch agency set up here in New Zealand, while the main office will be in Australia. Secondly, we are concerned that complementary healthcare products and dietary supplements are an integral part of this Treaty. We believe that these should be treated separately as a third aspect of the arrangement, not as an central part. Natural health care products should not be controlled in the same rigid way as pharmaceutical products - the focus for each is different. We do agree that there does need to be some regulation in the complementary health care industry, but to be forced to follow Australia’s rigid regime when all of the Australian states do not, is very puzzling. Puzzling too, is the requirement to have low risk products administered by staff that are heavily involved in the administration of higher risk pharmaceuticals. This will certainly create challenges. Our third concern lies with the impact of this Treaty on New Zealand industries involved in this sector. These range from small to large industries. Every impact report on the proposed change has highlighted the detrimental impact for New Zealand businesses. We are also concerned that the level of innovation will be stifled and innovation is essential in an industry such as this. All MPs have received an overwhelming amount of mail that is firmly opposed to this Treaty. New Zealand First questions the Government’s underlying motives, which appear to have no apparent tangible benefits for New Zealand. We strongly recommend that the Treaty not be ratified and that the Government explore the options for administering a New Zealand based regulatory framework. Barbara Stewart MP
|
|
|||
|
|
||