Kedgley Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Kedgley Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:621;Page:16443] 
10.  
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Is she confident that the Medicines Assessment Advisory Committee had sufficient time and information to properly assess the safety and efficacy of the meningococcal B vaccine? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yes but the Medicines Assessment Advisory Committee was not the only checkpoint. The vaccine was passed by both the vaccine subcommittee which evaluates data interdependently of Medsafe and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency which is the UK equivalent of Medsafe. Advice was also received on the meningococcal vaccine from the World Health Organization. Since the roll-out began the safety of the vaccine has had the thumbs up from the Independent Safety Monitoring Board. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Why was approval for the vaccine given at a teleconference that was so hastily convened that four out of the 11 members of the expert committee could not attend due to the short notice and of the seven members who were actually present the minutes show that an unknown number of them had not even seen the clinical data due to the short notice of the teleconference? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The vaccine was assessed by clinicians from the Medicines Assessment Advisory Committee and its expert vaccine subcommittee independently of Medsafe. In each case the recommendations were made by a quorum of the committee. 
Steve Chadwick 
: Has the Minister seen any reports about the actions of the anti-immunisation group; if so what did they state? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes. I note that the anti-immunisation lobby group was forced to unreservedly apologise to Pfizer for comments that it made that paracetamol medications cause meningococcal disease. I have also been advised that at a recent anti-immunisation meeting there was discussion regarding the lobby’s lack of success in getting traction in the mainstream media. The anti-immunisation lobby has decided to use Sue Kedgley to ask a lot more questions as a way to ensure that it gets more of a profile and more coverage in the media. 
Hon Member 
: It’s all right! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No it is not all right. There was far too much interjection on that question from the Government. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is it not fact that provisional consent is normally only asked for when a vaccine is targeted at a small audience and 90 percent of 1.1 million people could hardly be considered small secondly how is it that a priority application as it was in this case nevertheless took 13 months and thirdly why on earth is the Minister making public comments that this vaccine is safe when no pharmaceutical company in this country is ever allowed to claim that its products are safe? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I base the comments I make not on my assessment but on the assessment of experts. It is not for the Minister to decide whether something is safe but to rely on the advice of those who are competent to comment on the issue. The reason it took 13 months or more is that we wanted to make sure as far as possible that it is a safe vaccination. In fact if members were to ask drug companies about how long it takes to get approval for medicines they would find that it takes a lot of time indeed. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Why was the decision of the Medicines Assessment Advisory Committee made in such a hasty fashion especially when the committee noted that there were outstanding queries about the manufacturing data from Chiron Corporation that still needed to be answered? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The decision was not made in a hasty manner. I wonder whether that is one of the questions that the member has been asked to ask by the anti-immunisation lobby. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Following on from the earlier question asked by Winston Peters can the Minister confirm that the vaccine has been given only provisional approval which means “on a restricted basis for the treatment of a limited number of patients”; if so why has a provisionally approved vaccine already been administered to several hundred New Zealanders and why is it intended to be administered three times to more than 1.15 million children and young people? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: That is done under a section of the Medicines Act. It is a section that allows for an application to be given provisional consent when it is to be used in a limited way. It will be used for people under 20 and it is being used only for the meningococcal B immunisation programme. However I believe that I would probably also use that section of the Act to approve the medicinal use of cannabis because there have been no clinical trials in New Zealand on that although the Green Party has been asking me to approve the medicinal use of cannabis.