Dunne Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Dunne Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:624;Page:19559] 
7.  
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does she agree with the recent comment by Pharmac Chief Executive Wayne McNee with regard to providing access to drug treatments and managing growth in pharmaceutical expenditure that “We are confident that we have the balance right in the interests of New Zealanders.”; if so why? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 In general yes although there is always a need to constantly examine operating practices to ensure that the best interests of New Zealanders are protected and maintained. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Does “having the balance right” in general in the interests of New Zealanders include ensuring that we have New Zealanders who seek access to medications to address bone density HIV/AIDS the early stages of breast cancer chronic obstructive pulmonary disease Alzheimer’s disease osteoporosis diabetes motor neuron disease some forms of cancer rheumatoid arthritis and many others being denied access to those drugs by Pharmac thus creating a position where New Zealanders are the least likely people in any country in the world to be able to access proper medications? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: New Zealanders do have access to very good pharmaceuticals and in fact increased funding has ensured that we provided new or expanded access in 2004 to 15 medicines including new treatments for depression childhood arthritis hepatitis C glaucoma breast cancer and alcohol addiction. During the current financial year new treatments have been added for diabetes chronic obstructive pulmonary disease severe pain schizophrenia raised cholesterol and HIV/AIDS. 
Steve Chadwick 
: What is the Government doing to improve access to drug treatment for everyday New Zealanders? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: From 1July 2005 we estimate that approximately 2 million New Zealanders will pay no more that $3 for most of their medicines. Lowering the cost of subsidised pharmaceuticals is an important means of removing financial barriers to primary health care services for people. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Does the Minister believe that Pharmac has got it right with sole-supply tendering for the flu vaccine where hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders were put at risk by relying on one source of supply; and what will the Minister do to ensure that New Zealand is less vulnerable in the future from a flu vaccine batch failure than it was this year? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Sole supply for the flu vaccine in New Zealand has been the case for the past 7 years. Pharmac is however prepared to look at whether it will have sole supply next year and I support it in looking at that. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I asked a very specific question of the Minister. Does she believe that Pharmac has got it right with regard to the flu vaccine and what will she do to ensure that New Zealand is less vulnerable to a batch failure in the future? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister did address the question. It may not have been to the satisfaction of the member but given the question the answer did address the content of that question. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You have almost like a mantra repeated Standing Order 370 in respect of addressing the question. But I also draw your attention to the full wording of that Standing Order. It states: “… the question asked must be given if it can be given consistently with the public interest.” In respect of Mr Hutchison’s question I think it is in the public interest. You completely ignored that latter part of Standing Order 370(1) and I suggest that you need to take the complete Standing Order in judging whether indeed a Minister has addressed a question in the public interest. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The point is of course that under certain circumstances the Minister may decline to address the question at all because it is not consistent with the public interest to do that. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member is entitled to seek an opinion. If the member does seek an opinion then invariably the Minister responding will give an opinion to the question and that is less likely on occasion to satisfy the member asking the question. So in this instance yes the question was addressed. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Does the Minister share Pharmac’s confidence that “we have the balance right in the interests of New Zealanders.” to the extent of allowing Pharmac to control drug spending for cancer treatments even though this has been described as “potential dynamite” that could change the treatment of cancer in New Zealand? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: With the use of Pharmac we have been able to ensure that we can widen the use of cancer drugs in New Zealand. From 2002 we put in place what is called a basket of cancer drugs that is now uniform across New Zealand and Pharmac believes that it will be able to provide even more drugs to put into that basket. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: How can the Minister continue to stand by Pharmac’s sole-supply agreements when they have resulted not only in last month’s flu vaccine crisis but also over the last few years in shortages of medications for gout of sedatives of essential iron supplements for women and infants of certain antibiotics and of medications for hay fever kidney dialysis heart failure epilepsy thrush rashes and many more? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Pharmac has been operating a sole supply for many drugs since 1997 and the ability to be able to do that has ensured that taxpayers have something around an extra $200 million to spend on drugs. Whether or not there is a sole supplier there will be at times problems with a particular drug. I think Pharmac does a very good job in ensuring that we have high-quality drugs in New Zealand. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Is the contract to purchase further supplies of antiviral drugs that could protect us against a bird flu outbreak a sole-supply contract; if so can the Minister assure New Zealanders that there will not be a delay in receiving supplies of these vital drugs as there was with this winter’s flu vaccine? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I provided an answer to the member regarding the supply of antivirals and the timetable for it. As she knows they are being purchased over a number of months which will ensure that we have a total supply of over 800000 doses by November this year. The tender for that has been done in the usual way. I believe that it is sole supply and it is being provided by a company that is contracted to do it for us. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I specifically asked the Minister whether she can assure New Zealanders that there will not be a delay in receiving supplies of these drugs. She referred to the fact that there was a timetable. She did not answer my question which was intended to reassure New Zealanders that there will not be a delay as there was with the flu vaccine. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I think I can give an assurance in that the flu vaccine had to be specially made because each year the World Health Organization decides what should be in the flu vaccine then we have to go to a manufacturer to make the vaccine. The antivirals are not in the same category. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Does the Minister still consider that Pharmac has the balance right in the interests of New Zealanders when at a time when Treasury projects that the average weekly wage is $554 adult sufferers of aggressive rheumatoid arthritis are paying in excess of $500 a week for medication that in Australia in Britain anywhere in the European Union in the United States and in Canada would be provided free of charge? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Pharmac does recognise that drugs can make a significant difference in the lives of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. In fact in 2004 it approved funding for etanercept one of the TNF inhibitor drugs for children under 18. It is now actively working with suppliers to reach an agreement to enable funding for adult patients and access criteria for adults will be essentially the same as in Australia. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Can the Minister give the House an absolute assurance that she did not take the answer provided to her by officials to Dr Cullen to change a single word in the answer which meant that the effect of the answer was melted down so that Mr Dunne thought he was receiving the answer that he wanted to his question but he was not? If she can give that assurance why should Mr Dunne believe anything that she says or that this Government tells her—in light of Mr Tamihere’s article—and how does he know that he is not being made a fool of again? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I think that the Hon Peter Dunne has dealt with this Government and this Minister long enough to know that he will get a straight answer to a straight question.