Roy Heather: New Zealand Public Health and Disability (Enhancement of Competition) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Roy Heather: New Zealand Public Health and Disability (Enhancement of Competition) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1832] 
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I thank the many members in this House who have made a very positive contribution to this bill today particularly the National Party United Future and the Maori Party who are supporting the bill. The Minister had many questions for me and it is a pity that his office repeatedly refused me an appointment with him so that he could have gone through them with me prior to today but I guess that is the way things are with the Labour Government. The Minister sought a great deal of advice it would seem but what is more telling than who he sought advice from was who he did not seek advice from. There was no Treasury advice no industry advice and—most telling of all—no advice from patients: the people who actually matter and who at the end of the day are those who are suffering. 
These are the facts. The reason for implementing this exemption from Part 2 of the Commerce Act is long gone. Our health system has had several iterations since 1993 and there is no good reason now for this exemption to remain. New Zealanders do not have ready access to the medicines that are most effective in treating their diseases and illnesses. Countries that we like to compare ourselves with particularly Australia are doing much much better than we are. I do not know who is giving the Minister advice. He seems to think we are doing wonderfully well here but we are not. 
Kiwis have very limited choice in pharmaceuticals unless they are in a position to pay the full price for them themselves and doctors have very little choice when prescribing. One way to rectify this situation is to allow more competition in the pharmaceutical market place by removing Pharmac’s exemption from Part 2 of the Commerce Act and by supporting this bill. Reference pricing sole supply and doing deals with pharmaceutical firms are all anti-competitive strategies used by Pharmac. They result in less choice less competition and in the longer term inferior treatments and poor access to the new medications that other countries enjoy. Cost containment should not be allowed to compromise access and availability of quality health-care. 
This bill was never intended to attempt to fix all of Pharmac’s woes as Sue Kedgley seemed to think it was. This bill is in fact for a full exemption from Part 2 of the Commerce Act. Now it may be that a partial exemption is an avenue worth exploring; something that Pharmac might find a little more palatable and that would allow it some protection from the litigation that it fears. I urge members to vote for this bill to go to a select committee so that this exploration can be undertaken. 
I have to say that I am extraordinarily disappointed with the stand that New Zealand First has taken on this bill today. New Zealand First used to be a party that believed in the market. New Zealand First members used to believe in the exploration of ideas and submissions made at select committees by people who were affected but it seems that they have now become just the poodles of the Labour Government prepared to take anything that the Government says unquestionably and to promote it. 
In September 2000 Dr Joel Lexchin and the Hon David Caygill—a former Minister of Health of course—authorised a report to the then Minister of Health Annette King on Pharmac’s operating policies and procedures. The report noted that Pharmac says it does not take advantage of the exception but its authors said that they were not in a position to judge. They questioned whether Pharmac should continue to enjoy a full exemption. Their recommendation which was made at the end of that report—something that the Labour members failed to express in this House; at section 53 but perhaps those members did not read that far—was that careful consideration should be given to these issues and that an examination should be undertaken as to whether the current exemption from Part 2 of the Commerce Act should currently exist. Unfortunately Minister Annette King ignored that advice but 5½ years later this Parliament has the opportunity to undertake that examination by passing this bill at its first reading and sending it to a select committee. 
A thorough examination is called for. Public submissions and those from professional groups and Pharmac itself would shed new light on issues that have arisen in the rapidly changing world of pharmaceutical research and development. Like everyone else in the economy Pharmac should be subject to the court’s jurisdiction and the central planks of economic policy. People’s lives and their quality of life are affected significantly by Pharmac and the decisions it makes. Regulation that makes it impossible for New Zealanders to gain access to medication that improves their quality of life and in some cases saves lives does not belong on our statute book. For this reason I commend the bill to the House. I urge all parties in this House to send this bill to a select committee so that the exploration and the examination of this now defunct exemption can be explored properly.