Turner Judy: New Zealand Public Health and Disability (Enhancement of Competition) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Turner Judy: New Zealand Public Health and Disability (Enhancement of Competition) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1828] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to speak to the New Zealand Public Health and Disability (Enhancement of Competition) Amendment Bill. Two things are at the heart of our decision to support the first reading. The first is that the bill gives the opportunity for hundreds—probably thousands—of constituents to put forward their cases regarding the choices made by Pharmac that affect their access to affordable medicines. All of us have received very very disturbing letters from people who are desperate for medication. Those people know the medication that they are waiting for is approved overseas by other jurisdictions they hope it will be prioritised and they deserve to have their cases heard. The second reason United Future is prepared to support this first reading is that it is now well known that we have a total commitment to the development of a national medicines strategy and we believe that select committee hearings on this matter could well throw up some very interesting considerations. 
However I want to clarify that the development of a national medicines strategy has nothing to do with restructuring or replacing Pharmac. We believe that the role of Pharmac will become apparent as a proper and comprehensive strategy is developed throughout that process. We are determined not to become captured by individual cases because the need is bigger than just responding to individual cases and to the desire for individual medicines. However in the current absence of a medicines strategy I personally want to commit to all the people who write to us that we will continue to advocate for them and to lobby Pharmac on their behalf to have their cases considered. 
Our support for the first reading of the bill should in no way be seen as a signal for ongoing support should it become apparent during the select committee process that the outcome would undermine the greater good. That greater good involves the chance to put in place an approach to pharmaceuticals whereby instead of asking whether the drug fits within our budget we take a whole-of-Government approach and ask what it would cost the New Zealand taxpayer if we did not supply in an affordable way the medicines needed to treat any given condition. 
The Hon Tony Ryall rightly brought to the House’s attention the fact that expenditure per head of population on pharmaceuticals is currently questionable. We also know that the percentage of Vote Health that is dedicated to purchasing pharmaceuticals is lower than it is in other jurisdictions that we like to compare ourselves with. So the bigger question is the appropriate priority that pharmaceuticals should take in the overall delivery of health services in New Zealand. Can market forces positively contribute to the availability and affordability of pharmaceuticals in New Zealand? Well a discussion should be held on that. Has the evolutionary role of Pharmac become unhelpful to the overall need to respond to new and innovative pharmaceutical options as they come online? Again that discussion must be held. 
Our commitment is to a national medicines strategy. However we see no harm in supporting the referral of this bill through to the select committee—we believe that can only help. But beyond that we would like to see what comes out of the select committee and then decide whether to support the bill any further than this current stage. We will support the first reading of the bill.