Kedgley Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question No. 3 to Minister 
Kedgley Sue: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question No. 3 to Minister 
[Volume:617;Page:13307] 
3.  
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Can she confirm that Pharmac has expressed its “severe reservations” about some aspects of the proposed joint trans-Tasman agency to regulate therapeutic products; if so what were its reservations? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yes. I expect officials to have free and frank discussions on important issues to ensure that the best decisions are made. The letter the member mentions is 2 years old and since then significant progress has been made. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Can the Minister confirm that Pharmac has repeatedly warned the Ministry of Health in recent years—and indeed even in the Health Committee this morning—that under the joint agency there could be significant cost increases in some medicines and a reduction in the number of generic medicines approved and available in New Zealand? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Pharmac has raised a number of issues with the ministry and I am very pleased to say that it has worked through most of those issues. I am aware that at the select committee this morning Pharmac said it was in total support of the establishment of a joint therapeutic regulatory agency. 
Nanaia Mahuta 
: Can the Minister confirm that officials are working on developing those joint therapeutic agency rules and that Pharmac will be involved as part of that process? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes the Ministry of Health and Pharmac are working together to consider crucial operational issues. As the focus moves to finalising the rules I expect that they will come to an agreement on them. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Has she seen the national interest analysis and the regulatory impact statement about the joint agency both of which predict significant increases in New Zealand in compliance costs for manufacturers of complementary medicines higher prices for consumers and some brands being taken off the market; if so why is she pushing ahead with that proposal? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Because the impact report also points out that the cost of New Zealand continuing to have a single sole regulatory agency will be hugely expensive as well. Going into a joint regulatory framework with Australia over time will be much better for New Zealand both in terms of cost and access to pharmaceuticals. 
Heather Roy 
: Why has she ignored Pharmac’s concerns including those in a consultation document and I quote: “The perceived benefits from a joint agency could in Pharmac’s opinion be achieved without combining the New Zealand and Australian regulatory authorities. By amending our current laws the advantages of a joint agency can be achieved without the need to compromise fundamental advantages of the current New Zealand system.”? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I certainly support the work of Pharmac unlike the National and ACT Opposition. As long as we are Government we certainly will ensure that Pharmac remains in place. Pharmac has had a good input into the regulations around the joint agency and its views are being considered as we make the rules that will apply. 
Judy Turner 
: Can the Minister advise when the legislation that will implement the trans-Tasman therapeutic goods treaty will be tabled in the House? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No I cannot at this stage. It has not yet gone through the Cabinet process. As soon as it does I will be happy to share that information with the House. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Has the Minister seen Pharmac’s submission to the Health Committee that states that the joint agency could result in a de facto extension of the patent term of drugs in New Zealand for up to 5 years which will affect our ability to have generic drugs and will cost the New Zealand taxpayer up to $135 million over 3 years? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes but I am also aware that the treaty will allow New Zealand the flexibility to develop its own rules on specific issues. The treaty will be flexible enough to accommodate the areas of difference on patents. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Has she seen the Australian Government’s regulatory impact statement that states it is likely that New Zealand pharmaceutical and dietary supplement companies will shift their operations to Australia if the joint agency goes ahead and how does she believe that will benefit New Zealand? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: There are very few pharmaceutical companies in New Zealand now. In fact most of them have shifted off shore. However that has not stopped the supply of drugs. Is it not interesting that I have been told off in this House for not having the same number of drugs available in New Zealand that there is in Australia? Today we have been criticised for going into a joint agency treaty that will allow us to speed up the approval of drugs. I do not think that members know what they are talking about. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Why is she proposing to delegate statutory regulation-making powers to an unelected and unaccountable managing director of the agency who will be able to give orders and make rules that will have a direct effect in New Zealand but without recourse to the New Zealand Parliament and who will have powers of search and seizure; and why is she agreeing to give up our sovereignty in that way? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: In no way have we given up our sovereignty nor will we give up our sovereignty under a joint regulator. The member knows that. She constantly repeats that claim but she is wrong.