Dunne Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Dunne Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:638;Page:8704] 
7. JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
 on behalf of  
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of State Services 
: Does she have confidence that the Government has the necessary support to pass the Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of State Services 
: The Minister has confidence that there will be the necessary support if members listen carefully and rationally to the information provided to the select committee on why the bill is needed and what it actually does. 
Judy Turner 
: Does she hold to the advice she gave United Future last year that she would be prepared to advance the proposal for pharmaceutical and medical devices but leave complementary medicines outside the regime; if not why not? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: That was explored as an option but as it has turned out it would not be acceptable to have such a treaty if complementary medicines were left out. Additionally as the member knows complementary medicines are subject to no regulation at the moment and most people in this House would believe that they are something that is required to be regulated for public safety purposes. 
Judy Turner 
: If support for the bill is not forthcoming what regulatory regime for New Zealand does she then envisage for pharmaceutical medical devices and complementary products given the winding down of Medsafe’s regulatory capabilities? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: If this were not to proceed then New Zealand’s ability to regulate on its own in a way that would be recognised internationally would be much more difficult and much more expensive. Clearly there is a need to regulate complementary medicines. There have been something like 257 cases where complementary medicines have been reported to the centre for adverse reactions monitoring where compounds as disparate as heavy metal and Viagra have been found and in three cases people actually died. Regulation is clearly needed. In regard to the other side of the regulation the current regulatory regime is out of date and does need upgrading. The most effective and the cheapest way and the way that we will be recognised internationally is to do that through the joint therapeutic authority. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Is the Minister saying she went to the Australian Government sought to negotiate to remove the complementary health sector from the legislation and was vetoed by the Australians and does this not suggest that this proposed regime if it went forward would be a completely one-sided regime and that we would have to meekly capitulate to the Australians as the Minister presumably did over that negotiation? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Absolutely not. That is a very silly statement. What the member knows about the joint therapeutic authority is that New Zealand has absolutely equal rights with Australia. Neither country can move without the concurrence of the other country. I compare that with the Food Safety Authority that National was quite happy with—we have one vote out of 10. In this authority we have one vote out of two. And this bill and this authority are subject to judicial review subject to the Ombudsmen Act and subject to the Official Information Act with all those other safeguards so implied. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Is it not a fact that this Government is facing a huge international embarrassment because of the appallingly incompetent handling of this issue by Annette King and Phil Goff and that the Government has introduced this bill and lost its majority in this House for that takeover? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: No the fact is that the National Government in which Tony Ryall was a Cabinet Minister supported this legislation when it was in Government. It moved forward with that and again it has flip-flopped. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the House please hear the Minister’s reply in silence. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: No the— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Immediately after your comments someone—I think it was Wayne Mapp—interjected. I ask that the rules be— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I did hear someone interject. Would the member please leave the Chamber. 
Dr Wayne Mapp withdrew from the Chamber. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Quite to the contrary of what Tony Ryall has said unlike the National Government which never consulted anybody on anything when it was trying to force legislation through the National Party has been thoroughly consulted on this issue all the way through. I have sat in on a number of the meetings where Mr Ryall has received absolute opportunities to ask questions and to have input. [ 
Interruption 
] I have sat in on meetings where— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry but both members will please leave the Chamber. 
Hon Tony Ryall withdrew from the Chamber. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I accept that you have made a decision about the member leaving the Chamber but you can see the problem. It is impractical in the House to say that answers are heard in silence when the member is wilfully and provocatively misrepresenting the facts. How can the member sit there and be expected to be quiet when he was at the meetings Phil Goff refers to and they were not of the nature he is referring to? I just say to you for the next time you ask that questions and answers be heard in silence that we can accept that provided the answers are not provocative. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. The member Mr English is to leave the Chamber too because he also intervened during the answer to the question. The question itself also involved assertions that were made. There was a response to those assertions. The question in which those assertions were made was heard. The answer was not. That is the basis upon which I have made my ruling. Members of the House are getting tired of being unable to hear answers to questions. Would the Minister please respond. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: This Government has set out to try to win the understanding and support of as many parties as possible for this legislation. It is not essentially partisan legislation. It is about the protection of public safety. Everybody acknowledges that and acknowledges the need for change. It is about the creation of a world-class organisation of international standing effectiveness and credibility which we do not have at the moment. It is about protecting New Zealand’s sovereignty which it does and it is about enhancing our closer economic relationship with the Australians which I understood the National Party was strongly in favour of. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Surely the second part of the answer given by the Hon Phil Goff lends a lot of weight to the argument advanced by Mr Bill English. If he had given an answer like that right from the start—a factual clear answer articulating Labour’s political position—it would not have brought the sort of response that came from firstly Dr Mapp then the Hon Tony Ryall. I do not think it will escape the attention of the public that a Minister could sit in the House yesterday using all sorts of profanities then simply stand up and withdraw and still be allowed to remain in the House. We take deep exception to the fact that Ministers can use the opportunity when answering a question to have a good old across-the-board slap at the Opposition while at the same time doing so with your favour. That seems to me Madam Speaker to be most unfair. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: What is really being stated here is that if National members do not like what is going on they reserve the right to behave extraordinarily badly. For a party that seems to regard smacking as the answer to any kind of behavioural problem it seems to me that they are inviting us to come across and engage in some kind of physical correction at that point. It is simply unacceptable to tell you that if people do not like what is going on with your rulings they will behave badly. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Madam Speaker I heard you clearly ask two members of the House to leave. I heard you ask Mr Ryall to leave and I clearly heard you ask Mr English to leave. He is still in the Chamber in defiance of your request. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No Mr English is preparing himself to leave—because I did hear him; he was gathering his papers at the time. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I will leave as instructed. I intervened in an earlier answer of Mr Goff’s but not in the case for which you are ejecting me from the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I am ejecting you for the earlier intervention when the answer was to be heard in silence. I have given you the courtesy of remaining for the point of order while it was being heard. 
Hon Bill English withdrew from the Chamber. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am seeking some clarification from you in response to Gerry Brownlee’s point of order. My understanding of the situation was that when Mr Goff gave his first answer the barracking from back here was so loud that members such as myself were entirely unable to hear any part of the answer and that is why you asked that the House hear his reply in silence rather than as a result of a couple of interjections that Mr Brownlee mentioned. From that point of view I point out that there are members who are getting extremely fed up with not being able to hear answers because of unprovoked barracking from the back. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for that because it is very difficult to hear what is being said. Members up here might be able to hear but the member makes a very valid point—they are not the only members in this House. Everyone has an equal right to be heard. It is very difficult for the Speaker to judge the quality of answers or whether an answer is within the Standing Orders when they cannot be heard. We will now move on. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. When my colleague Mr Brownlee raised a point of order just a brief minute ago a Minister on the Government’s front bench twice interjected quite loudly. It was clearly audible on this side of the Chamber. I put it to you Madam Speaker that since you have asked two of my colleagues to leave the Chamber we can reasonably expect you to enforce rigidly the Standing Order that says members cannot interject during a point of order. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: If that is the case then those also who intervened elsewhere should leave the Chamber. It was not only one intervention. There were several interventions and that is why I did not raise it at the time. But I am quite happy for all those members who interjected at that time to leave. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I seek leave to table— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry there were other interventions on this side of the House during that. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I actually have a very clear recollection of what occurred when Mr Brownlee was raising the point of order. I have to beg to differ with you. When I heard the Minister who has now left the Chamber there were no other interjections. It was very clear; I heard that Minister and that Minister alone on two separate occasions during Mr Brownlee’s point of order. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That may well be true but I heard encouraging support for the point of order of Mr Brownlee. That also counts as an intervention. We have to get some clarity of the rules here. So will those who intervened please leave. The member on the Government side has. I ask the members on the Opposition side who were making an intervention when Mr Brownlee was making his point of order to also leave the Chamber. Members do not seem to be aware of what they are doing. That is part of the problem. I am waiting. I want those members who gave encouragement verbally to Mr Brownlee during his point of order to leave. If we are going to apply the rules strictly—on that occasion there were several interventions around the Chamber which is why I let it go so he could finish his point of order which was obviously an important one. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You have asked any members on this side of the Chamber who feel they were guilty to leave and obviously they have an obligation to do so. But I want to ask for an opportunity for us to hear the tapes because I have a clear recollection of what happened which with respect is different from yours. I suggest to you that it is possible that members on this side of the Chamber are behaving quite honourably by not leaving at your invitation. I would like to verify that by listening to the tapes that are available because I seek the opportunity to verify my recollection of events. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: We do not operate a third umpire in Parliament. I think it would be very very dangerous if we got into that position. The flow of business would be slowed down very dramatically indeed. I suggest to you Madam Speaker that you may well be right in that people were not aware they were making various kinds of noises. If that is so then it is clear at least that it was not a guilty intent on their part. If they were not aware they cannot be aware that they should leave the Chamber either. 
Sue Kedgley 
: In reference to the previous question I seek leave to table a letter from Annette King in which she denies 6 years of requests under the Official Information Act for minutes of the interim ministerial council which contradicts what the Minister said about the body being subject to the Official Information Act. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection.