Penk Chris; Kerekere Elizabeth; Verrall AyeshaCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Madam Chair. Just a brief one from me if I may within Part 9 which I think we're sitting in at the moment just about the procedural aspects of reviews that are able to be made under this part. So clause 361 for example allows an appeal to a District Court if an applicant for review wants to seek another look for want of a better phrase against the regulator's original decision. I think it's actually quite helpful that the following clause 362 sets out that a person still has the right to go to another court or tribunal for example—and this is just now my own thinking but I think it would be a reasonable thing to point out that at a High Court for example someone could go and seek a review of an executive decision. So that's all good and helpful so far and it actually points out—again in I think actually helpful clarity—that if that takes place then a review under this part would be put on hold.So my question is simply: if a complaint to the Health and Disability Commissioner is made I would say that's outside the meaning of the phrase proceedings in any court or tribunal." but roughly speaking it might be—you know in general terms it could cover the same subject area. I think I know what the answer is or certainly from my point of view it seems to me that someone should still have the right of review under this Act as it will be even while they've made a complaint to the Health and Disability Commissioner. The Minister in the chair Ayesha Verrall may or may not have thought that far ahead—comfortable if not—but if she or her officials are able to give any clarity on that now then that might save some argy-bargy later to use a technical legal term.Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE: Kia ora koutou. Firstly I want to thank the Minister and all of the officials who have worked on this bill. As a member of the Health Committee I'm very conscious of the huge amount of effort that has gone through the drafting of this and multiple changes that were made through that select committee process and then this significant Supplementary Order Paper that the Minister has brought to us to consider. The only reason I am voting against it is because of the provisions related to rongoā. When I was a Green MP and I spoke in the first reading we supported it hoping that through that process the provisions for rongoā would be improved and specifically to respond to the call from Māori across the country—the resolution that was made at Waitangi that rongoā should be excluded. We've had further conversation through the first reading that would necessitate a definition being added which has been. My concern remains that instead of just excluding the impact of the different parts of the bill it goes further and establishes an advisory committee. So this is here in Part 9. We're just wondering about and want to get some feedback from you and clarity about the powers of the advisory committee because it appears that instead of resting the power to do with rongoā identifying rongoā practitioners in the community and that mātauranga Māori in Te Ao Māori this rongoā advisory committee will then advise Government how it will protect this whole field. So some questions that I have are around how this advisory committee will work. We see under subsection (2) of clause 347 that the regulator is required to notify the advisory committee and take into account any advice. So we see that we have our rongoā practitioners in the community and they have associations organisations that they affiliate to collectives that exist around the country. Government has this particular role the regulator has a role and this advisory committee seems to be the liaison between them as opposed to those organisations themselves. So it appears that if the regulator has reasonable grounds it can actually ignore that advice and decide actually not to even notify this advisory committee of issues that might impact on rongoā practitioners.It seems to us with the absence of a Tiriti o Waitangi clause in this bill as we did in the revolutionary Pae Ora legislation that there's no requirement in here for the regulator to give effect to Te Tiriti when it's dealing with issues to do with rongoā and the Government has taken on a role to protect rongoā itself as opposed to perhaps funding resourcing the groups in the community whose role I believe is to actually protect and guard the mātauranga Māori that is rongoā. Yeah so I'll start there and ask for some clarity around that. Kia ora.Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): Madam Chair thank you. I'll deal with Mr Penk's question first. The bill doesn't limit the ability to go to the Health and Disability Commissioner for that set of concerns where within the scope of the Health and Disability Commissioner the consumer has received a health service.With respect to rongoā the Government has heard very clearly from Māori the concern about regulating rongoā and you'll note in the earlier parts of the bill there is a statement that the bill seeks not to regulate rongoā. However there are some challenges there and the main one posed by that approach is the ability for natural health products to carve out rongoā as a way to escape regulation even when they're not rongoā. So the regulator is not tasked with proactively going out and identifying what is rongoā and what isn't and what is OK—not at all. It is more likely to be used in a situation where in order to not be subject to the natural health products regulation a producer says "Oh well my product is actually rongoā so it doesn't need to be regulated." In that case it will be very helpful for the regulator to say it is or isn't rongoā and that's the purpose of that. The committee does make sure that the voice of Māori will always be heard in these decisions."