Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Well how ironic is it that the Associate Minister of Health says that we wouldn't be here today were it not for the Rongoā Māori submitters on this bill. Well I would add to that we wouldn't be here today if the Government had listened to the 97 percent of the 16500 submitters who were in opposition to this bill for good reason. And all the Minister of Health could say was that there was misinformation in dismissing the legitimate concerns of those thousands and thousands of people who the select committee heard.The Associate Minister says it's a win for democracy. Well I remember a day when the Labour members would be up like meerkats if a National Government had introduced a bill as bad as this. In fact they never did. They were up like meerkats when we introduced good legislation and they would drag out committee stages under urgency. But in the hours that we have been debating this bill credit to the Associate Minister—he has skin in the game—he has made a material contribution to the debate. The only one—apart from Dr Verrall who has—apart from probably the odd I move that the question be now put." We haven't heard a dickie bird from the Health Committee members from Labour or any other member of the Labour caucus and I reckon that's because they know it's a bit of a dog.It's certainly what they heard in the select committee and most of those concerns were ignored. There's a pattern emerging here: there's a tendency when faced with a choice—as there was with this bill and the regulatory impact statements articulated them—between different levels of intervention in a regulatory sense. Between no intervention on the one hand and deep deep intervention on the other—with a range of options in the middle from minimalist to a more hands-on approach—this Government goes to the extreme bureaucratic end and this is the product of that attitude. It is a pattern because this Government believes that activity is a proxy for outcomes. We see it in the DHB reforms we see it in the polytech reforms we see it in three waters. As long as we look as if we're busy and make everybody else busy we must be making progress. Well nothing can be further from the truth.In two main areas there has been I think significant regulatory overkill—that in the area of medical devices and in natural health products where there was a choice that the Government had to have a lighter-handed regulatory environment. It's not as if the status quo is light-handed or overly risky. In fact as a former CE of a surgical hospital with hundreds of pharmaceutical products thousands and thousands of medical devices from tongue depressors to perfusion machines to beds—they are all regulated already. The idea that this is going to make people safer or reduce risk simply because we overly burdened suppliers and providers with more regulation needs to be challenged. We have to manage risk—there is no question about that—but the question in this policy setting is: are the reductions in risk justified by the increases in cost and bureaucracy? Will there be less risk? Probably. Will there be more cost? Certainly. Are those costs and processes and delays justified? Well we'll see but I don't think so.The Minister talks about the COVID response; that the COVID response—according to her—would have been better had this regime been in place. Well I would say two things about that: the COVID response would have been a lot better had a different Government been in place. But I'm not convinced that it was the regulatory environment—it wasn't the regulatory environment that caused millions of rapid antigen tests to be wasted millions of vaccines to be left unused significant delays when the Minister of COVID response told us New Zealand was going to be at the front of the queue and then wasn't. That had nothing to do with the Medicines Act—that had everything to do with management. [Interruption] Oh they're up like meerkats now. They don't like it when the facts are repeated back at them. But those delays had nothing to do with regulation. They had everything to do with talk but no action because that is emblematic of this Government.Now nevertheless like a good Opposition should the National Party has tried to improve a poor piece of legislation. To some degree there were some improvements made in the select committee but my colleague Dr Shane Reti in the select committee process pointed out the overregulation of the natural health products—the requirement for exporters to get authorisation even if their product is not sold here in New Zealand cosmetics such as shampoos and toothpaste being overly regulated the duplication of the sunscreen regulations this Parliament passed only a year ago the fit and proper persons requirements being too stringent and a number of other things.National and the ACT Party have proposed sensible amendments to improve the bill and they were rejected. That is the prerogative of the House the prerogative of the Government. But I think the reason this bill isn't better is because it was National and ACT that were the people proposing the improvements not because the improvements did or did not have merit. They are blinded by the fact that somebody else thought of them. They weren't the only ones they were what the 16500 submitters were talking about—and 97 percent of them did oppose it but there were constructive suggestions and many of them were left on the cutting room floor. For that reason this bill is going to pass into law in much poorer shape than it could have.But that is actually inconsequential because in three months' time when there is a new Government there will be a new approach to regulation one which is lighter-handed but effective at managing risk commensurate with the costs that go along with it. As a consequence this will be consigned to the dustbin where it belongs."