Roy Heather: Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill — First Reading 
Roy Heather: Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:636;Page:7083] 
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT party to talk on the first reading of the Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill. This bill has a very long history as has already been pointed out in this House. Like the member who has just taken her seat Judy Turner it was the first issue that arose on our agenda as members of the Health Committee when I came to Parliament in 2002. The history should perhaps be remembered in the course of the debate because it has been very contentious and there has been huge public interest on both sides of the debate. I like everybody else who has spoken have received all the emails. I received one this afternoon which I thought summed up beautifully the issue involved from my perspective and from that of those sitting on this side of the House. It stated: “The proposed Australia - New Zealand Therapeutic Goods Act will stifle innovation of natural or complementary products and medicines in New Zealand simultaneously taxing the resources time and finances of small businesses.” That to my mind sums up the intent of what we must remember is validating legislation to a treaty that was signed on 10 December 2003. 
However the history goes back even further than that. The issue that I talked about that I was first involved with when I came to Parliament in July 2002 was an inquiry into the proposed therapeutic goods joint agency. The select committee undertook a very rigorous process during that inquiry. We called for submissions and there were a large number of interested parties. Everybody was given a very full and thorough hearing—I think there would be little disagreement by those who were on the select committee at the time about that. 
We were however hindered in our inquiry by Annette King the Minister who was in charge of the issue at that stage. When she moved from the health portfolio to become Minister for Food Safety she kept this issue as an area of interest for herself and showed what could be described only as disdain and contempt for those who did not think the same way as she did about it. The select committee inquiry was pre-empted in releasing its findings which was scheduled to happen on 12 December 2003 by the then Minister of Health Annette King jointly signing an agreement with the Australian Minister of Health on 10 December 2003 which was as she knew 2 days before our inquiry was about to be reported on. She pre-empted the impending outcomes and suggestions that we had put forward as a select committee. 
There was a great deal of grumpiness in the select committee about that by all the Opposition members at the time including members of two parties United Future and New Zealand First which are now supporting this validating legislation. We held what was widely agreed to be an unprecedented press conference. Members from all sides of the House—apart from those in the Labour Government—came forward and were united in their contempt. I might add that those Labour members were left to hold the fort on their own in the select committee and they were grumpy about that. It is a great shame that members of those two parties who were so vocal in their opposition to this agency have now changed their minds but that has happened for a variety of reasons and I will come to them too. Needless to say the ACT party remains steadfast in its opposition to this validating legislation for the treaty. 
Further down the track the treaty came to our select committee. Again it was heard in full. A large number of people wanted to submit and many of the same issues were discussed for very good reason. Again the recommendations made by the select committee were largely ignored by this Government and have been overridden. So those of us on the select committee who opposed these issues feel that we wasted a good deal of time and effort and I think those in the industry would agree with that. 
This is a huge piece of legislation with 380-something pages. It is no longer just about the pharmaceuticals the dietary supplements the complementary therapies and the medical devices. It is in fact about a wide range of topics. We have finally reached the point where after 3 years of trying the Government has managed to introduce this legislation which was supposed to come before the House 6 months after the treaty was signed. Three years down the track there has been a great deal of wheeling and dealing to get to this point where the bill can be introduced into the House. 
It includes all sorts of things that in the initial stages were never intended such as direct-to-consumer advertising. I have to say I support absolutely the direct-to-consumer advertising recommendations in this bill but I cannot support the bill overall. Xenotransplantation pharmacy ownership and designated prescribers—amongst other things—are now all rolled holus-bolus into this legislation which essentially was supposed to be about regulation for the safety of New Zealanders when it comes to complementary therapies. We have all sorts of things rolled into one here so that in the final instance this bill can be introduced into this House and pushed through. 
Many comments have been made in this House today and I would like to recognise some of those. Tim Groser spoke on behalf of the National Party Sue Kedgley spoke on behalf of the Greens and Tariana Turia spoke on behalf of the Maori Party and I agree with all of the points they raised. As I have said it is unfortunate that two of the parties who opposed the legislation until a very short while ago have changed their minds. 
I come to a few of the points that have been raised. ACT is absolutely in favour of closer economic relations. I agree with the comments made by the National Party member Tim Groser who said that this is not a debate about closer economic relations as was put forward by the Minister of Health. It is absolutely not. It is about pushing forward regulation—heavy-handed bureaucratic regulation—on the New Zealand industry. There will be many Kiwis both consumers and producers of therapies who will be severely disadvantaged by this process. 
Those supporting the bill present it as a fait accompli. They say it is going to be wonderful there will be offices everywhere and Australians will recognise what we New Zealanders want. Well let us just see what happens when the legislation gets there because I am afraid I do not share their faith in the outcome of it. 
Perhaps the biggest thing I am absolutely opposed to in this legislation on behalf of the ACT party is the suggestion of a subsidy to offset the cost of regulation. We are supposed to raise our hands and shout “Hallelujah!” 
Tariana Turia 
: A bribe. 
HEATHER ROY 
: It is absolutely a bribe. Let me say that we in New Zealand were world leaders in getting rid of subsidies. New Zealand has been there. We have done that. We rejected the concept and the world in part followed us in getting rid of subsidies. But here we are today at the very end of this parliamentary session this year saying that subsidies are a wonderful thing; let us have them back again. Well that is a retrograde step for New Zealand—a step we should not be even contemplating. 
The New Zealand First member stated that she wants equal status for New Zealand and Australia. I have already touched on this point; I share very little faith with her that equality will be reached. I think that we will see heavy burdensome bureaucratic regulation imposed on an industry that is quite prepared to look at other solutions without having that cumbersome approach put in place. The industry for all of the 3 years that we are talking about and that we have debated this issue has always shown an absolute willingness to cooperate with what it sees as reasonable regulation. It is in favour of self-regulation which many other professional bodies have and it wants to see regulation to protect its products from those put forward in a shonky way—those that are unsafe to consumers. It too because it has pride in its products and believes in them wants to ensure the safety of the New Zealand consumer. Instead of having the opportunity to have this discussion to talk about professional self-regulation and to talk about other forms of regulation that could have happened without the involvement of this heavy-handed bureaucratic joint Tasman agency the industry has been denied the opportunity to do that. 
The Minister for Food Safety Annette King also said in her initial speech that she wants to see this bill go to the constructive environment of a select committee. Well if only she meant that I would feel a little assurance. However I talked before of her disdain for the select committee process which we have already seen twice before. Firstly there was the inquiry into the complementary therapies. There was a very constructive environment in that select committee but the Minister completely ignored the findings from that inquiry. Again she treated the select committee with a great deal of contempt in relation to the signing of the treaty but she also showed contempt when we went through the thorough process of examining that treaty in detail. 
ACT New Zealand opposes vigorously this bill at its first reading.