|
The latest findings on poverty levels in New Zealand are evidence of a steady improvement in social wellbeing under the Labour-led Government.
The findings - derived from Statistics New Zealand's 2004 Household Economic Survey - show that poverty rates have declined in New Zealand since 2001 as a result of a rise in real incomes for lower-income families.
After tax and housing costs, low-income families now have more money in their pockets each week than they did in 2001, and income levels continue to improve across the board.
The results are an endorsement of this Government's continued investment in New Zealand families through policies like income-related rents, paid parental leave, low cost primary health care, and a focus on reducing unemployment.
Highlights from the data include:
- The proportion of children in households below the benchmark of 60 percent of the 1998 median income fell from 27 percent in 2001 to 21 percent in 2004
- The proportion of low-income households spending more than 30 percent of their income on housing costs fell from 42 percent in 2001 to 35 percent in 2004
- The biggest growth in incomes was among the middle 60 percent of New Zealand households, with after-tax incomes increasing by 5.3 percent in real terms between 2001 and 2004
- The rate of growth in income inequality has slowed since the 1990s
As the survey was conducted in 2004 the results could not take account of Working for Families, estimated to reduce poverty levels by 30 percent by 2007.
Poverty levels had risen under the National government in the 1990s and the Labour-led Government has worked hard to reverse this trend through a greater investment in families and children.
National's policy of slashing core services to pay for tax cuts, and halting the implementation of Working for Families, would do nothing to improve income levels for the majority of families. The choice is between continuing prosperity under Labour, or a return to the bad old days of spending cuts in critical areas, of privatisation, of mounting food bank queues, and of more New Zealanders living below the poverty line.
In December 2003 the Australian and NZ Governments signed an agreement to set up a joint scheme for the regulation of therapeutic products so public health and safety can be safeguarded by managing the risks associated with the use of therapeutic products.
Under this agreement the Therapeutic Goods Administration in Australia and Medsafe in NZ will be replaced by a single, bi-national agency that will administer the joint regulatory scheme in both countries and be accountable to both the Australian and NZ Governments and Parliaments. The joint agency is expected to start by July 2006.
Legislation for this is currently being developed and will need to go through the normal parliamentary processes in both countries before the treaty can be ratified and the agency commence operation.
Currently, most complementary medicines are sold as dietary supplements in New Zealand. Dietary supplements are regulated under food legislation and therapeutic claims are, therefore, prohibited. There is no pre-market scrutiny of products placed on the market and no requirement for products to meet appropriate quality standards.
In order to be able to lawfully make a therapeutic claim for a complementary medicine, a supplier would need to apply for and be granted an approval under the Medicines Act 1981. Because the Medicines Act requirements are onerous, very few suppliers have registered their products as medicines. As a consequence, complementary medicine products are either lawfully supplied without any therapeutic claims, or are unlawfully supplied with therapeutic claims. Neither situation is satisfactory, because consumers are often not provided with reliable, balanced information that would enable them to choose products wisely and use them safely.
All therapeutic products need to be subjected to an appropriate level of regulation to ensure they are safe, of good quality, and that the claims made for their effectiveness can be proved. The level of control that needs to be applied in order to protect public safety varies depending on the risk associated with use of the product.
Under the proposed new legislation, there would be a simple assessment and approval process for most complementary medicines in recognition of their low level of risk. Suppliers would be able to make appropriate claims about their products and consumers would be able to have confidence in the safety and quality of the products they purchased.
This Government is committed to ensuring that the proposed joint regulatory scheme with Australia delivers to the NZ consumer the widest possible choice of products that are safe, effective and of good quality.
For more information about the proposed joint agency and regulatory scheme, and to view key documents relating to the project to establish the agency, please go to www.jtaproject.com.
My apologies again to the staff, pupils and families of Huia Range School for not being able to attend the school's opening on June.
The House was sitting in urgency that day debating the final reading of a very important piece of legislation that affects all New Zealanders. Urgency means that no members of government caucus are granted leave from the House because the legislation is considered too important.
Unfortunately this happens from time to time and plays havoc with plans made by organisations up and down the country.
Again my apologies but I was pleased Sheryll (in my place) and Labour candidate Denise MacKenzie were both present.
Finally you are probably aware that legislation reviewing the drinking age has been before the House.The vote was 78 to 41 in favour of sending it to a select committee for further examination and I was one of those in favour of getting feedback from wider New Zealand before making up my mind.
If you have a view on this please contact my offices: Masterton at gbeyer@wise.net.nz and Dannevirke at g.beyer@xtra.co.nz
I'd like to know what you think.
|
|
|
