Robertson Grant: Natural Health Products Bill — First Reading 
Robertson Grant: Natural Health Products Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:675;Page:21386] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call on the Natural Health Products Bill. It is difficult to sit on this side of the House and listen to discussions about this matter when we know that when in Opposition National continually played politics with this issue. 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: Who did? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: National continually played politics with this issue. This whole issue of regulation could have been resolved if National when in Opposition had been prepared to take a responsible approach to looking at this issue. Instead it became a political football. It is useful to refer here I think to an email from 13 August 2007. It is from Michelle Beckett who at that time was the executive director of Natural Products New Zealand. The email reports on a meeting with Tony Ryall which she described as “greatly pared down”. I am not quite sure what that means but she said that Mr Ryall “quite clearly previously indicated his inflexibility” on the issues related to natural products. Ms Beckett said that she and her colleagues left the meeting with a feeling that the natural products industry was “of little importance to the new leadership of the National Party”—that was Mr Key—“and that this sector is seen only as a political football to be leveraged to any political advantage regardless of the consequences to what has been a growing New Zealand export industry.” That is the truth. On this issue National has no credibility whatsoever. 
National members have come to the House today with a bill and Labour will support its referral to a select committee because our position has been consistent. Our position has been that we want regulation in this sector. We want New Zealand companies to be able to develop their products and to grow their exports in an area that is undoubtedly a growth area. This all could have been done as part of a comprehensive arrangement that involved a trans-Tasman regulator and a comprehensive regulatory framework. It all could have been done 5 years ago if National had not used this industry as a political football. The Minister knows that. He knew when he introduced it that the credibility of his party was in tatters on this issue. 
A regulatory regime for natural products is a good thing. These products are used by many New Zealanders. It is important that we know that they are safe that they do what they say they will do and that consumers have good clear information about them. We also want to send this bill to a select committee so that the public can have a say on this issue so that they can understand what is being done here and so that the industry can ensure that the rules are both fair and also protect the health and safety of New Zealanders. We think that the health and safety of New Zealanders should come first but also we believe that New Zealanders need to have the ability to understand the products that are in front of them. 
We have some concerns about this bill. We have some concerns about the way in which this arrangement will work alongside as the Minister said the arrangements that are being put in place in terms of a joint regulatory framework with Australia. I refer to the regulatory impact statement for the bill which indicates that elements of the proposal being put on the table today by the Government will be problematic in terms of addressing a joint regulatory body. 
Government members are very keen to be able to say that they are supporting a New Zealand - based regulatory body for natural health products but the truth is that they have put into the arrangements with the Australians the same 5-year window that the Labour Government had in place in 2007 which will enable natural health products to become part of that wider trans-Tasman arrangement. Should that be the Government’s plan in the future then who knows where National will go on this issue. It has flip-flopped around so many times on this issue that it is quite difficult to know. But if it decides to go with a trans-Tasman arrangement that includes natural health products this regulatory impact statement is telling us that that may well be problematic. So we need to be very careful as we work through this proposal as to whether those problems are so great that it will actually provoke some difficulty in the future for New Zealanders. 
Another issue that I think all of us will be very keen to look at when we get into the select committee process on this bill is the question of cost. Associate Minister of Health Jonathan Coleman mentioned the issue in terms of cost. I will mention briefly two aspects to that issue. One of those is the question of cost to the country—the cost of setting up an independent regulator outside Medsafe. The Government on the other side of the House likes to trumpet that it has reduced bureaucracy and reduced costs in Government. Here we are setting up a new agency. We will be looking very closely at the best way in which such an agency can be set up and how it will be able to deliver its outcomes and be cost-effective at the same time. The other element of cost is the question of cost to the industry. Again I will make some reflection from the regulatory impact statement because it makes it clear that it is very difficult to work out what the cost of regulation will be on the industry particularly at a per-product level. The estimates that underlie this paper and give the reasons why it is a cost-effective solution are quite flimsy in many ways. In fact the regulatory impact statement says that all of the estimates in the papers that back up this bill are provisional. So it will be very important in this process to look at both the cost to the country in terms of setting up an independent regulator and also the cost to the industry itself. I think that both of those matters deserve a significant piece of work by the select committee. 
From the point of view of members on this side of the House we find it difficult to stand here and look at these issues without reflecting on what has happened in the past. This side of the House has always been committed to a regulatory regime that works for New Zealanders. We will support this bill to go to the select committee because we believe that regulation in this area is overdue and needed. But what we do not want to go through again is National’s flip-flopping on its position and playing politics with the natural health products industry. We look forward to the debate in the select committee and we want to make sure that all New Zealanders get a chance to have a say on it but we do not want to limit our options in the future for a trans-Tasman regulatory agency. 
I know there are those in this House including my colleague Sue Kedgley who feel very strongly about what a trans-Tasman regulatory agency might mean to New Zealand’s sovereignty and our ability to make decisions. I respect that view. It has been consistently held by Sue Kedgley. My own view is that there are benefits for New Zealand in a trans-Tasman agency and benefits for those who wish to export their natural health products. I do not want to see an overly bureaucratic regime but I do think the future of these kinds of regulatory arrangements lie in trans-Tasman arrangements that protect New Zealand’s sovereignty. That is completely possible and the benefits for New Zealand and New Zealand consumers of access to more information more expertise and more markets for our exporters are good benefits. I think they deserve to be investigated while ensuring that New Zealand sovereignty is protected. We will support this bill to go to the select committee but with the reservations that I have outlined.