edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
White HelenHELEN WHITE (Labour): I rise very proudly to speak in support of this bill. I have been a business owner I've also acted for lots of businesses and I've acted for employees and I have been worried about the lack of sick leave and our attitude towards sickness in the workplace for a very long time. I am absolutely thrilled to see this.The reality is that our businesses can't afford not to have a provision like this around sick leave because this is the very sort of thing that stops pandemics spreading. This is the very sort of thing that stops the flu spreading and the flu actually kills a lot of people every year. If an employee comes to work and they are sick then they pass it on to others. Other people pay the price as well in that situation. They pay a financial price and it is risky so I am absolutely thrilled to see this.I do note that the arguments that are being used with regard to discrimination also just don't equate with my experience of employing. I have employed people and I've employed them on boards and various things and I've never considered their sick leave entitlement because what you're looking for is the best person for the job and we're employing human beings not machines. It is not just a statistical exercise. I know lots of good employers and I know that they would be appalled if you thought that that was their motivation.Finally I just wanted to say that the impact of this bill is not actually on most of us in this room because most people in this room if they were employed were employed with 10 days' sick leave. It is our poorest workers—it's actually our non-unionised workers—who have these provisions in their Act and that is where we should be targeting. These are the very workers who need our protection. I commend this bill to the House.
Luxton JoJO LUXTON (Labour—Rangitata): Well my goodness me Mr Simpson. Why on earth is it that that member has so much disregard and distrust for the working people of New Zealand? To stand there and assume that because we're increasing sick days from five days to 10 days employees are going to be so distrustful and they are going to rip the system something shocking—I honestly cannot believe it. I cannot fathom that Mr Simpson is stuck in his 1950s' world view of employees.Now as an employer and a small-business owner I welcome this change. I welcome this change because quite frankly I would far rather have staff members staying away when they are unwell than coming into work spreading their illness—Chris Bishop: At least you have some experience.JO LUXTON: —which in turn—Mr Bishop—means that more staff take more time off therefore costing more in productivity and there is the financial cost to the employer if all staff members are heading away on sick leave all the time. Just because sick leave is increased to 10 days per annum it does not mean that every staff member is going to take their 10 days' sick leave all at once all in the same week all on the same day. However it might sound I just can't comprehend what it is the Opposition are trying to say. What this does is it allows—Chris Bishop: Why don't you listen?JO LUXTON: Well if the member has something worth listening to then I would listen but there is no argument worth listening to from that side of the House. What this does is it ensures that employees will not come to work sick spreading their bugs and therefore affect the productivity of the business. In fact if you think about it we compare ourselves quite often with Australia and they actually over there provide 10 days' leave per year for workers. We're probably one of the few countries in the OECD that do not. So I stand here very proudly as a small-business owner from the South Island supporting this piece of legislation. I think it is fantastic. It is perfect timing and I commend the Minister for bringing this piece of legislation to the House.
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Tēnā koe Madam Speaker. Look very pleased to rise on this bill in light of the fact that Te Paati Māori has chosen not to speak on this bill or indeed any other bill tonight. And I'm particularly surprised that they're not speaking on this bill given that it's implementing the Wai 262 report and in fact making sure that New Zealand adheres to its Treaty obligations in respect of plant variety rights.I mean plant variety rights are in fact a property right. They're an ownership right to exclude others from the use of plant variety rights. This is a significant step forward to recognise intellectual property rights plant variety rights and the fact that they may be held by Māori in respect of their traditional plants and that they can exclude others from registering plant variety rights.So look I'm very pleased to stand on this bill. I know the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee will do a very good job on it. I certainly hope that the Māori Party take the opportunity to sit on that committee because they haven't spoken on this bill and I know the committee will do a lot of work on it. I'm absolutely sure that our caucus members who sit on that committee will look at it very carefully and I'm sure members from the other side will do the same. So I'd invite all parties in this House to participate in the legislative process particularly on things that relate to the constituency they claim to represent. Kia ora.
Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Madam Speaker. I don't think I'm going to need that time all of it to make a few short points in support of the Plant Variety Rights Bill. I find it slightly ironic that the previous speaker talked so glowingly about the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) because he was part of a party in Opposition that fought tooth and nail against that.Hon Damien O'Connor: No we didn't—we signed it.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Oh he signed it he says. Oh no that's right. They didn't fight the CPTPP; they fought the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPPA)—as if that made a blind bit of difference to the substance of the agreement. Damien O'Connor is one of the experts in rewriting history. Lions in Opposition something else in Government. One of the things that they opposed ironically was the undermining of our obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi notwithstanding that there was a lock solid built-in protection for Treaty rights under that trade agreement. That should be remembered.But this is a good bill. It's important that we maintain those obligations under both the Treaty and our free-trade agreements but I think the Government and Tāmati Coffey who has just resumed his seat could reflect actually on one of the iconic indigenous crops which is kūmara. Kūmara was nearly wiped out in this country due to a blight a black rot in the 1950s and was rescued and propagated and improved by a Chinese immigrant refugee and his wife Joe and Fay Gock​. It's a great story. I think the moral of that story is that in our efforts to provide protectionism and the property rights of certain plant varieties we don't overlook the fact that there is contribution that can be made from any number of people to improving that stock.This is a really important bill and I look forward to it going to the committee. I'm not sure—is it the Māori Affairs Committee who are going to consider it?Dr Duncan Webb: Economic development.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Economic development? Well they will have I think an excellent dialogue with submitters and I look forward to hearing the results of their efforts.
Watts SimonSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. Look I rise on behalf of the National Party and as the MP for North Shore to take a short call on the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill (No 3) third reading. National supports this bill. There should be a level playing field for all types of overseas investment in New Zealand regardless of whether this investment is on a farm commercial enterprise technology start-up or in forestry. This bill works to reduce the burden that the Overseas Investment Act imposes on investors and the regulator and this is a sensible approach. We are pleased that the Government has finally started to recognise the importance of reducing the arduous administrative red tape that is around investment red tape that is costing our businesses growth and productivity—red tape that reduces New Zealand's attractiveness to investment necessary to support a productive and sustainable economy. Having spent over 20 years of my career working in financial services and global banking and markets it is clear to me that making New Zealand a more attractive place to do business and a destination for overseas investment needs to be and should be a significant priority particularly around reducing the burden of regulation. The National Party supports the amendments that have been made to this bill through the select committee process and I thank those members on the Finance and Expenditure Committee for their contribution. One of those particular amendments was around loosening the requirements around unproductive farmland which likewise otherwise could be repurposed for commercial use industrial or residential developments and I guess this makes sense. So we're pleased to see that. What doesn't make sense is the fact that this Labour Government has not used its powers to remedy the carve-out for forestry and that is disappointing. But we've still got time. I'm only the ninth call this evening so we might see a change in decision on that before we finish. In my electorate of the North Shore we have many bright and hard-working people with real ambition to be best in class and telling our story and promoting the attractiveness in the North Shore as a destination for foreign investment is important. It's important for our technology incubator businesses that are operating within healthcare and also looking at climate solutions so anything that this House can do to reduce the burden of regulation on our business reduce red tape and reduce cost should be a priority and should be something that we continue to do at pace. I commend this bill to the House.
Medicines Amendment Bill — Third Reading
Verrall AyeshaThird ReadingHon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Associate Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister of Health: I move That the Medicines Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.
Dean JacquiHouse resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The committee has considered the Medicines Amendment Bill and I report the bill without amendment. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.
Medicines Amendment Bill — In Committee
Verrall Ayesha; Dean JacquiHon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Associate Minister of Health): As I've mentioned the ministry obviously believed it was acting legally and in accordance with practice.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Parts 1 and 2 the Schedule and clauses 1 to 3 stand part.Parts 1 and 2 the Schedule and clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National): I wish to question further. The Minister has said that—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! I call Dr Nick Smith.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Minister's answer actually requires further explanation. Earlier in the committee stage the Minister indicated the Government knew that the Medicines Act was outdated. In fact the Minister has said that the Government's work programme was concerned that the Medicines Act was outdated. Now the Minister has just said legal risks were assessed. Well I'm sorry the Minister has to give some explanation as to why if legal risks were assessed and section 23 said that the vaccine could be used for only a limited number of patients when the Government's intent was to roll the vaccine out for 5 million New Zealanders—how could the legal risks have been assessed when a person without any legal qualifications could see the mismatch between the law and the Government's intention?
Verrall AyeshaHon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Associate Minister of Health): I think the member has my answer about when consideration of this matter was initiated by Cabinet which was in response to the court ruling. And no I disagree. I think legal risk has been considered throughout the vaccine roll-out overall.
Bishop ChrisCHRIS BISHOP (National): So summarising all of that from the last half an hour 40 minutes or so plus the second reading is it reasonable to say the following: the Government was never told that there was a chance of a legal problem about the roll-out the Cabinet papers did not identify any legal risk in relation to the roll-out no one in the Government asked for advice about any legal risk to the roll-out and that the first time the Government started to consider legislation to respond to any negative court ruling was last week?
Verrall AyeshaHon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Associate Minister of Health): In response to the member Chris Bishop's first question the answer is no and to the second question the answer is: last week. I think the last member to speak the Hon Dr Nick Smith asked a number of rhetorical questions about how this is possible. Well the answer must be the same for this Government as it was for the Government in 2012 that approved two similar pandemic vaccines—Hon Dr Nick Smith: We weren't rolling out a nationwide vaccine.Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Well why did you approve something you didn't think—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! The Minister will not bring the Chairperson into the debate.Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: My apologies Madam Chair. So this has been the practice in this area for some time—that conditional approvals have been not considered to be restricted with respect to people—and our legislation today updates the Act in order to make it reflect practice and international best practice.
Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National): I just want to reinforce the importance of the Minister in the chair answering the essential question because here is the part that has me dumbfounded: you would not need a law degree to say that when section 23(1) of the Medicines Act said it was to be used for a limited number of patients" and you were proposing to roll a vaccine out for 5 million New Zealanders that you've got a mistake that—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): No. Order! Order! Not me.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: That's right; the Minister in the chair. It would not require a legal degree or a great deal of sense to realise that when section 23(1) requires that it may be used for "a limited number of patients" and the Government was intending for a vaccine roll-out in the biggest public health crisis in a century aiming it for 5 million people was never going to pass the legal test of a limited number of patients.So the question that my colleague Chris Bishop asks is a question the Government must ask because it goes to the core of the competency. I want to remind the committee that we are overruling a court decision. We're applying this law retrospectively. It is an issue that goes to the heart of the biggest issue that New Zealand has faced in many years: that there is a high expectation of a level of competency within Government. So we do require an answer to: how was it possible for a Government to be so incompetent to believe that it could approve a vaccine when the provision on which it was approving it explicitly said that it could only be used for "a limited number of patients"? That question needs to be answered by the Government."
Bishop ChrisCHRIS BISHOP (National): Sorry I thought my colleague Andrew Bayly was seeking a call but in fact he's skedaddling. So two questions following on from my previous remarks and they relate to Part 1 or New Schedule 1AA which amends Part 1 in relation to the validation. The first is when the Cabinet was considering the roll-out of the COVID-19 vaccines particularly the Pfizer vaccine in relation to the Cabinet papers did those Cabinet papers identify any legal risk and was this prospect identified as a legal risk? And secondly when did Cabinet first turn its mind to the possibility that the legislation that we're debating might be required?
Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I thank both the Minister and Mr Parker for that observation which I agree with absolutely as a prefacing comment although I would add that it wasn't only the words on the treatment of a limited number of patients" that's being deleted. It's sold supplied or used on a restricted basis and so the legal framework was intended to restrict the dispensing of medicines under this section compared with those approved under sections 20 to 22. I think my central point remains that there is a risk that we get into a potentially perpetual cycle of approvals under section 23 if the vaccine changes to such a degree that a new application is warranted. Therefore we may never—that's a slightly far-reaching sort of conclusion—actually approve a COVID vaccine under sections 20 to 22 and that was never the intention of this section. It's an unusual situation I think where because of the potential rapid mutation of a virus the medicine itself changes to such a degree that it's no longer applicable to dispense it under the gazetting under section 23. I simply raise it as a policy question for the ministry because it may well be that we need a third path of approvals."
Parker David; Verrall AyeshaHon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you Madam Chair. Just reflecting on the point that was raised by the Hon Michael Woodhouse I would ask the Minister to confirm my understanding if I've got it right which comes from both the general policy statement and the explanatory note which is that the effect of the amendment is essentially to remove the words from the current section 23 that the use has to be for a limited number of patients". This is made clear by considering the existing section 23(1) which says "Notwithstanding sections 20 to 22 [of this Act] the Minister may by notice in the Gazette in accordance with this section give his"—as the member has said—"provisional consent to the sale or supply or use of a new medicine where he is of the opinion that it is desirable that the medicine be sold supplied or used on a restricted basis for the treatment of a limited number of patients."That's replaced in this new bill by clause 4 of the bill which replaces that section 23(1) with this subsection (1) which says "Notwithstanding sections 20 to 22 the Minister may by notice in the Gazette in accordance with this section give provisional consent to the sale or supply or use of a new medicine if the Minister is of the opinion that it is desirable that the medicine be sold supplied or used." So other than making it gender-neutral language the only change here is to remove the reference to "a limited number of patients". That is the change in effect as I understand it and that change is not just for the benefit of the listed consents that are being retrospectively validated; it also applies to other applications for provisional consents in the future should they be made. Of course that could all become overtaken eventually by the replacement in the therapeutic goods bill but we don't need that in order to have a functioning mechanism in respect of provisional approvals for new vaccines or other medicines. That was a question to the Minister as to whether my understanding is correct.Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Associate Minister of Health): I can confirm that is my understanding."
Verrall AyeshaHon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Associate Minister of Health): Thank you that is a really important point for us to keep in mind as we develop the therapeutic goods bill. I think just to be clear the two influenza vaccines in the Schedule are pandemic influenza vaccines. The H5N1 is a bird flu vaccine and the other is a generic influenza A pandemic vaccine that does allow for that and it is currently I understand agnostic as to which specific strain of influenza A it is so it can be updated. To me it seems like that is an appropriate use of the provisional consent which of course is time-limited. But I take the member's points and concerns on board and I'll certainly raise them as we do the policy development around the next Act.
Verrall AyeshaHon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Associate Minister of Health): I think you've heard from the Attorney-General already today that Ministers learnt of this problem at the time of the court action and our view is that the ministry obviously believed that it was acting legally and in accordance with earlier practice and you can see that from the fact that going back to 2012 other pandemic vaccines have been approved in this way.
Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National): Madam Chair I think it's a very serious question that my colleagues Chris Bishop and David Seymour have put to the committee. We have an unusual situation where we have a court ruling and we have the Government using the powers of this Parliament to overrule that court process. In many instances that I have seen Parliament do this often it's said that you would allow the benefit of the individual that's taken the court action to get the benefit of that and that is just unconscionable in the public health situation that we have in the world and in New Zealand and that is why National is choosing to be so cooperative in what is a pretty extraordinary exercise of parliamentary power to override the decision of the court.So I want to go back to the very real question that my colleague Chris Bishop has asked and that is that—and our Government experienced similar such experiences when dealing with the earthquakes both Kaikōura and—and had to take extraordinary action. And when we did as I'm sure you would in a corporate if I look at my colleague Chris Luxon—is that you're dealing with a crisis and you'd be saying What's the legal advice? How do I get the skills in place?" And making sure we've got all the ducks in a row.Now when I look at the court ruling it seems blatantly clear that to use a provision that was intended for a relatively small group of people to be able to receive access to a medicine—to effectively provide for the authorisation of the vaccine—surely somewhere in the bowels of Government in dealing with the big-list public policy issue that our nation's faced at one of the biggest crises in our country's history somebody asked the question: is the vaccine lawful and the process proper?So I go back and would ask the question that has been asked both by David Seymour and Chris Bishop. It does need to be addressed by the Government. Did the Government Ministers ask the question of the officials as to whether the provisions in the Medicines Act—that we're seeking to amend—were adequate for a national roll-out of a vaccine as important as that for COVID?"
Verrall Ayesha; Dean JacquiHon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Associate Minister of Health): I'd be very—just not sure if that is a question in relation to this bill and I'm sure this will be canvassed thoroughly at future question times when the Minister responsible will be available.DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Point of order. Madam Chair I think the Opposition have been very gracious and quite generous. We could be doing three readings and debating a committee stage on the parts was it not for the fact that the Opposition have agreed to actually truncate this debate so that the Government can get more of its business done later in the day. Now I wonder if you might consider asking the Minister to be a bit more candid in answers to her questions in return for that.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you. On that point of order it was my view that the question asked by Chris Bishop was in order; however it is not to me not up to the Chair to determine the quantum or the quality of the Minister's answer. And Mr Bishop has further opportunities as does every member in this committee stage to probe the Minister on that question.
Bishop Chris; Dean JacquiCHRIS BISHOP (National): I note that we're talking about the Schedule to the bill. So I seek leave for all parts to be taken as one debate.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.Parts 1 and 2 the Schedule and clauses 1 to 3CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you Madam Chair and thank you to the Minister for her answer to that previous question from my colleague.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Sorry Chris Bishop. Just procedurally I need to put—the question is that Part 1 stand part. [Interruption] No. The question is that Parts 1 and 2 the Schedule and clauses 1 to 3 stand part.CHRIS BISHOP: Madam Chair thank you. I was just trying to be helpful to the committee. Clearly maybe not! CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): No very helpful.CHRIS BISHOP: Oh thank you Madam Chair very kind. Thank you to the Minister for that answer to my colleague's question. Following on from the comments from the Attorney-General in the second reading of the bill I note his response to my question through my speech which was basically two questions: what was the Government told and when were they told it? His answer was the first the Government knew about the possibility of a legal challenge to the roll-out of the Pfizer vaccine was when the court proceedings were filed which produced the judgment that has prompted this case which begs a series of other questions the first of which is: did the Government ask for advice in relation to the legality of the Pfizer vaccine roll-out prior to the court proceedings being filed; and if not why not?
Verrall AyeshaHon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Associate Minister of Health): Yes I can assure the member that these are the medicines that need to be treated in this way—though of course we've amended the Act so there is an opportunity for prospective applications for new medicines that fit the criteria for provisional consent to be made. It might be helpful for me to describe what the basis for other medicines listed there are and why they fit the provisional consent criteria because I think it's illustrative of what the provisional consent avenue seeks to achieve. So the first one labelled (a)" there is of course the COVID-19 vaccine that we're discussing. But there are five further ones: item (b) and item (e) are both oral contraceptive pills. And I think this is a really interesting illustration because we experienced both issues with manufacturer problems with supply and also supply chain disruption in the last year. That meant that there was a realistic possibility of there being no oral contraceptive pill available. Now if we were only to have an emergency medicine authorisation process I'm not sure if that would meet the definition of an emergency. But there is certainly a clear public health need for that. Both of those medicines were approved in other jurisdictions and on that basis and the basis of other data that was able to be provided to Medsafe they were approved. Item (d) and item (f) are both influenza A vaccines suitable for use in a pandemic and they have both been subject to conditional approval since 2012—obviously with the two-yearly renewal of that status as is required by all conditional approvals."
Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. I just have a fairly simple question for the Minister in the chair. New Schedule 1AA inserted by clause 6 Part 1 clause 1(1) states The following provisional consents must be treated as having been given under section 23" then lists a series of I think six medicines that are consented. Now of course we're doing this under urgency. Parliament's been taking up its time not doing any other business to get this right. Due to the sort of fast-moving and fluid and dare I say it haphazard nature of the process can the Minister just assure everybody that in this list of six pharmaceuticals these are the only ones that need to be treated in this way? It would be terrible to wake up to the news tomorrow and find that actually there was some other medicine or some other category of medicines that were caught so that we had to then go and do all this all again especially on Budget day."
Dean JacquiIn CommitteePart 1 Amendment to provisional consenting provisionCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The House in committee on the Medicines Amendment Bill. Members we now come to the committee stage of the Medicines Amendment Bill. This bill will be debated in parts. We come first to Part 1 which includes the debate on clause 4 the amendment to the provisional consenting provision. The question is that Part 1 stand part.
Medicines Amendment Bill — Second Reading
Reti ShaneDr SHANE RETI (Deputy Leader—National): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a short call on this bill which we are clearly supporting. And just to remind ourselves—we find ourselves in this situation because as compared to other countries we don't have an EUA an emergency use application which the US and certainly the UK and other countries have. So we've had to rely on a section 23 provisional consent. If we imagine the initial intention of an EUA-type procedure it actually came out of the 1980s with the HIV/AIDS epidemic where we needed to move really quickly to progress medicines that we believed had core net-benefit over disadvantages. And that whole decade of needing HIV medicines brought us to the 1990s.I think in the early 2000s the Food and Drug Administration first approved an EUA for anthrax for military staff and then in 2009 it became available for civilians for H1N1—Tamiflu I believe is what it is. So we find ourselves in this position because we're trying to jury-rig a section 23 provisional consent into what other countries have used as an EUA.I want to support what my colleague Chris Bishop was saying about wondering when the Government was first aware that a section 23 may not be suitable. We were certainly querying other mechanisms; I'm looking back at written questions in March around section 29 whether there was something there. So we know that for many months we've been raising the question around section 23 and as Chris Bishop said if the Government had some concerns then then let's see it. Let's hear what action was taken.I think if I look at this I'm just interested to know if this has been futureproofed in any way. So I can see the elements in the bill that are going to be carried over into this new amendment. I see the sodium chloride I presume that's the diluent that goes with the Pfizer vaccine. I can see some oral contraceptives as well. My question is: if we run out for whatever reason of Pfizer vaccine are we coming back to do AstraZeneca in a new amendment? Is that what we're needing to do?And I'd be interested to hear any discussions around whether we've considered the merits or otherwise of futureproofing this bill both for other coronavirus vaccines that may be required or indeed to make it clear that the routine flu vaccine is covered by this. I do understand that the Therapeutic Products Bill will fix all of these issues and this redundancy but that's going to take a lot of time. If we do need to move quickly if we do run out of Pfizer vaccine and do end up moving to AstraZeneca or an alternative again I come back to that point: are we coming back to the House?So I'd be interested to know if this is being futureproofed but our support is very clear on this and we commend this bill to the House.
Verrall AyeshaSecond ReadingHon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Associate Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister of Health: I move That the Medicines Amendment Bill be now read a second time. This bill proposes to amend the Medicines Act 1981 to clarify the appropriate use of provisional consents to sell and use medicines in New Zealand. The bill also validates existing consents. The bill will ensure that New Zealanders continue to have timely and safe access to effective medicines through this channel. Section 23 of the Act allows medicines and vaccines to be provisionally consented for early access if there is a significant clinical or public health need. Importantly that clinical need must be weighed against the risks as prescribed in section 22(1) of the Medicines Act.The bill removes the requirement for provisional consent to be granted on a restricted basis for the treatment of a limited number of patients. In doing so it should be clear that this provision perhaps referencing concerns about orphan drugs did not protect safety. That was always achieved through the risk assessment prescribed in section 22(1).The amendments in the bill are consistent with the policy intent of section 23 which is for New Zealanders to have timely access to safe and effective medicines where there is a public health need. The Medicines Act is an outdated piece of legislation that has not kept pace with international regulatory practice. Responding to the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted an urgent need for amendments to the Medicines Act.As can be seen from Part 2 there are a number of other situations where timely access to safe and effective medicines is important—other pandemic vaccines medicines where a class is affected by supply shortages and alternatives are needed rapidly. I would also note that the Therapeutic Products Bill which the Ministry of Health is currently working on ahead of introduction to Parliament next year will repeal and replace the Medicines Act and address wider issues with its relevance and application. The amendment today brings forward some of those planned changes.The bill does not affect existing requirements related to safety quality and efficacy of the medicines in assessment of the therapeutic benefits and risks. Also the bill does not affect the ability for conditions to be imposed on the use of a medicine where these are justified and consistent with the reasons for granting provisional consent. The bill will validate existing provisional consents including the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine. Validation will ensure that medicines currently granted provisional consent continue to be available to New Zealanders where there is deemed to be a clinical or public health need. I commend this bill to the House.
Verrall AyeshaFirst ReadingHon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Associate Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister of Health: I present a legislative statement on the Medicines Amendment Bill.SPEAKER: The legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: I move That the Medicines Amendment Bill be now read a first time.SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.
Medicines Amendment Bill — First Reading
Medicines Amendment Bill — Procedure
McAnulty Kieran; Mallard TrevorBUSINESS OF THE HOUSEKIERAN McANULTY (Chief Whip—Labour): Point of order. After consultation with the other parties I seek leave for the first reading of the Medicines Amendment Bill and the third reading of the Medicines Amendment Bill to be read without debate.SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that process? There appears to be none.MEDICINES AMENDMENT BILL
Mallard TrevorURGENCYSPEAKER: I call on—Hon Chris Hipkins: Mr Speaker.SPEAKER: —the Hon Chris Hipkins.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Normally you would say Mr Speaker The time for the debate has expired." That's what I was waiting to hear. But anyway. I move That urgency be accorded the passing through all stages of the Medicines Amendment Bill. The need to pass this bill under urgency has been widely canvassed. It follows a High Court decision yesterday about processes to grant provisional consent to some approved medicines. The ruling draws into question the approval process for among other things two contraceptive medications; two flu vaccinations; the COVID-19 vaccination; and an electrolyte solution which is used in our hospitals. The bill removes the ambiguity that the courts have drawn into question. It means that those things can be continued to be used and it ultimately addresses the issue for the future.SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.Motion agreed to."
Urgent Debates Declined — COVID-19 Vaccination—Controller and Auditor-General Report on Nationwide Roll-out
Mallard TrevorURGENT DEBATES DECLINEDCOVID-19 Vaccination—Controller and Auditor-General Report on Nationwide Roll-outSPEAKER: I've received a letter from Chris Bishop seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the report of the Controller and Auditor-General on the preparations for the nationwide roll-out of the COVID-19 vaccine. This is a particular matter of recent occurrence. There is no ministerial responsibility for the report of an Officer of Parliament because they are the responsibility of the Speaker—Speakers' rulings 201/6 202/1 and 202/2. However the Government including the ministry's response to such a report could be the subject of an urgent debate application. Unfortunately that request was not made. However it may be some consolation for the members to know that when considering an application for an urgent debate—or whether it's relevant—it is relevant whether there are other parliamentary means of discussing the subject. In this instance the member lodged an oral question his leader asked supplementaries on it and there is the opportunity in the general debate to raise it. The Budget debate commences tomorrow and is very wide ranging; it will offer the member an opportunity to debate the report and the Government's response to it. For those reasons the application is declined.
Motions — Recognition of the State of Palestine—Leave Declined
SpeechSPEAKER'S RULINGSMotions—Seeking Leave to MoveSPEAKER: I do want to remind members of the processes involved in seeking leave for notices and that is—and it's been ruled on a number of times now—that members are to before the House sits ascertain whether leave is to be received or not for those notices and to seek leave to move something when a member knows permission is not going to be given is disorderly. It's not a debatable matter.
Ghahraman Golriz; Mallard TrevorMOTIONSRecognition of the State of Palestine—Leave DeclinedGOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you Mr Speaker. I seek leave of the House to move member's motion No. 8 in my name on the recognition of the State of Palestine without debate. SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action? There is objection.
Mallard TrevorPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: Members no papers have been presented. A petition has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.CLERK: Petition of Daniel Roberts requesting that the House urge the Government to recommend that Waka Kotahi install a roundabout at the intersection of State Highway 2 and Sharp Road in Katikati.SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. A select committee report has been delivered for presentation.CLERK: Report of the Justice Committee on the Family Court (Supporting Children in Court) Legislation Bill.SPEAKER: That bill is set down for second reading. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of bills.CLERK: Ngāti Maru (Taranaki) Claims Settlement Bill introductionMaritime Transport (MARPOL Annex VI) Amendment Bill introductionMedicines Amendment Bill introduction.SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading.
Dean JacquiWEDNESDAY 19 MAY 2021The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Almighty God we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests we acknowledge the Queen and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom justice mercy and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.
Tuesday 18 May 2021 - Volume 752
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill (No 2) be now read a first time.Ayes 87New Zealand Labour 65; ACT New Zealand 10; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Maori 2.Noes 33New Zealand National 33.Motion agreed to.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is That the Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill (No 2) be considered by the Health Committee.A party vote was called for on the question That the motion be agreed to.Ayes 85New Zealand Labour 65; ACT New Zealand 10; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 33New Zealand National 33.Motion agreed to.Bill referred to the Health Committee.
Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill (No 2) — First Reading
VoteDEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is That the report of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee on the International treaty examination of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement be noted.Motion agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) Legislation Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 108New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 12Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is That the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) Legislation Bill be considered by the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee.Motion agreed to.Bill referred to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee.
Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) Legislation Bill and International Treaty Examination of the RCEP Agreement
VoteCHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that Debbie Ngarewa-Packer's amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 26 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 12Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 108New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Amendments not agreed to.Part 1 agreed to.
Building (Building Products and Methods Modular Components and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 77New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 77New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Clause 1 agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 be agreed to.Ayes 77New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Clause 2 agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 3 be agreed to.Ayes 77New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Clause 3 agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Hon Scott Simpson's amendments to clause 4 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 36 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Amendments not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 4 be agreed to.Ayes 77New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Clause 4 agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Jan Logie's amendments to clause 5 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 34 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 10Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 108New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Amendments not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 5 be agreed to.Ayes 77New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Clause 5 agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Jan Logie's amendment inserting new clause 5A as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 33 is out of order as being outside the scope of this bill.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 6 be agreed to.Ayes 77New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Clause 6 agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the Schedule be agreed to.Ayes 77New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Schedule agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment.
Holidays (Increasing Sick Leave) Amendment Bill — In Committee
VotePart 2 agreed to.Schedule 1 agreed to.Schedule 2 agreed to.Schedule 3 agreed to.Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2 agreed to.Progress to be reported.
Overseas Investment Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee
VoteCHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that the Hon Eugenie Sage's amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 37 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 53New Zealand National 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 65New Zealand Labour 65.Amendments not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that the Hon Michael Woodhouse's tabled amendments deleting clause 25 and inserting new clauses 8A and 25A be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Amendments not agreed to.Part 1 agreed to.