Lee Rhiannon gave a speech in the NSW Parliament on the potential for toxic heavy metals, such as nickel, cadmium and lead, being used in the manufacture of imported dental prosthesis. While dental prosthetics manufactured in New South Wales are currently regulated by the Therapeutic Goods Administration, imported prosthesis are not subject to the same standards.
Extract from Hansard.
Ms LEE RHIANNON [2.59 p.m.]: Every dental patient should be confident that the crown, bridge or denture going into his or her mouth is safe regardless of where it is made, but this is not the case in Australia, where unregulated imports of dental prosthetics potentially contain toxic heavy metals like nickel, cadmium or lead. Whether it is a crown for a damaged tooth, a bridge for a missing one, a set of dentures or a mouthguard, up to 40 per cent of dental prostheses are thought to be manufactured overseas. This manufacture takes place in countries across Asia, including China, where labour and materials are cheap, and health and safety standards are lax. For example a $1,300 crown can be manufactured in China for as little as $25.
Without doubt, there are overseas manufacturers who produce high-quality prosthetics, but how can the public trust what their crowns and bridges are made of when imported prosthetics are not required to meet the same high standards as locally manufactured ones? Prosthetics manufactured in New South Wales are currently regulated by the Therapeutic Goods Administration, which undertakes a range of activities to ensure that therapeutic goods manufactured in this country are of an acceptable standard. Laboratory technicians in New South Wales and most other Australian States who are responsible for all aspects of the construction of bridges, crowns, dentures and other dental prosthetics must be registered and certified. Neither of these conditions currently applies to overseas technicians whose prostheses are imported into Australia.
This is about jobs. The local dental prosthetic industry has lost about half of its business to low-cost offshore laboratories. Highly regulated local manufacturers cannot compete with unregulated imports, and the public does not necessarily receive the benefits of these cheaper products. Prices for local and overseas dental products are comparable, but the largest proportion of profit goes to the Australian-owned clearing houses importing the products. Many of these clearing houses masquerade as Australian manufacturers. In order for the local industry to compete, the Government must either remove the Therapeutic Goods Administration regulations from the local industry or apply them to the imported products. Registration of laboratory technicians should be completely scrapped or federally harmonised to ensure that overseas technicians who produce prosthetics that are imported into Australia are subject to the same requirements. In both cases, the second option seems preferable. Regulations and registrations are required to protect the public's health.
We understand that the Therapeutic Goods Administration is currently drawing up laws in relation to these matters. We call on the State and Federal governments to put a complete stop to the import of dental prosthetics rather than allow the continuance of an unregulated yet legal environment. Overseas manufacturers are not required to provide documentation of all the materials they use in production. The Australian-owned clearing houses onselling these products to Australian dentists are not required to disclose the product's point of origin. By the time these products arrive in dental surgeries it is too late.
One completed prosthesis looks much the same as another. Dentists do not know whether they are installing a porcelain time bomb into their patient's mouth, which may one day release beryllium, nickel or lead into their system. Does the public not have the right to know whether they have cheap, unregulated products in their mouth? The Government must take steps to ensure that all dental patients are provided with the specific location and materials used in the manufacture of their prosthesis. This is no different from the requirement that currently exists for supermarkets and others to label produce with the country of origin. This requirement would provide the public with both awareness and choice, which is something they currently do not have.
end