This is how politics works in NZ & Australia -- questions from NZ's house of parliament. Word is that the select committee report is due out next week and that it will recommend against the joint agency.
Trans-Tasman Therapeutic Products AgencyBilateral Treaty
11. SUE KEDGLEY (Green) to the Minister of Health: Has the Government made a decision to include the regulation of complementary medicines and dietary supplements in the proposed trans-Tasman therapeutic products agency, and when does it expect to sign a bilateral treaty between the Australian and New Zealand Governments establishing the agency?
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health): Yes. The Government has decided to include the regulation of complementary medicines and therapeutic dietary supplements in the proposed trans-Tasman therapeutic products agency. The treaty will be signed on 10 December.
Sue Kedgley: Why has the Minister made this decision before the Health Committee, which is inquiring into this very issue, has even reported back, and what does she say to members of the Health Committee who have been toiling away on this issue for 8 months, only to find at the end of it that that we have completely wasted our time because the Minister had already made up her mind?
Hon ANNETTE KING: It is not reasonable to expect the Governments of New Zealand or Australia to wait any longer for a report from a select committeea report that the Government did not call foron something that was first decided in September 2002, 15 months ago. Governments cannot hold up agreements on that basis. What countries would deal with us if we did?
Mark Peck: What process will be followed once the treaty has been signed?
Hon ANNETTE KING: It is proposed that the national interest analysis and a text of the agreement be tabled in Parliament in accordance with the parliamentary treaty examination process.
Dr Lynda Scott: What are the cost implications for New Zealands large complementary health-care market of having a trans-Tasman therapeutics product agency rather than mutual recognition and a strengthened New Zealand regulatory system?
Hon ANNETTE KING: Work undertaken by the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research suggests the costs of regulating complementary medicines within a joint agency would be significantly less than that of a New Zealand regulatory scheme.
Sue Kedgley: What was she saying to the hundreds of submitters who made submissions in good faith believing that we were conducting a genuine inquiry into this issue, and does she understand how they may consider her decision to be arrogant and extraordinary, and that they too may feellike the members of the Health Committeethat they have completely wasted their time because she had already made a predetermined decision on the matter that the committee is inquiring into?
Hon ANNETTE KING: The Cabinet made a decision in principle in November 2002 that complementary medicines would be included in the joint regulator. We have waited patiently for the select committee to report back. It still has not reported back. We are working closely with the Australian Government. We have considered what we have heard along the way. I think the member may well even be pleased when she sees the extent of what has been considered in the joint regulator.
Sue Kedgley: In light of comments by the Minister for Small Business yesterday that Australian businesses face much higher compliance costs than New Zealand businesses do, why is she supporting a proposal to regulate dietary supplements by an expensive, Australian-based therapeutic goods agency, when overwhelming evidence was presented to the select committee that that will increase the compliance costs of small New Zealand dietary supplement industries, and that no further assurance will be given to consumers as a result of these increased compliance costs, as the Pan Pharmaceuticals debacle amply illustrated?
Mr SPEAKER: That question was far too long. The Minister may comment briefly on one or two aspects of it.
Hon ANNETTE KING: This Government has decided to move, in conjunction with Australia, to regulate complementary and therapeutic dietary supplements because of the Pan Pharmaceuticals situation. Many New Zealanders demanded that we put in place regulation, and the work that I have seen shows the impact on small business of what we intend to put in place will be minimal.
Sue Kedgley: Is she aware that the overwhelming majority of submitters, consumers, and dietary supplement industries are completely opposed to the course she is pursuing, and does she agree with Margaret Wilsons comment, in respect of the Supreme Court debate, that a remote and inaccessible final Court of Appeal is not a hallmark of modern democracy; if so, why is her Government supporting the establishment of a remote and inaccessible body, based in Australia and staffed principally by Australians, to regulate dietary supplements in New Zealand?
Hon ANNETTE KING: The member is wrong on just about every point she has made. She has assumed that the body is remote, she has assumed that it is in Australia, and she has assumed that it is under Australias control. She is wrong on all those points.
