Dunne Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Dunne Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:637;Page:7958] 
5.  
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of State Services 
: Why have the complementary medicines and natural health products sectors been included within the scope of the Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 Complementary medicines and natural health products are included within the scope of the agreement with Australia and not within the bill itself which will ratify the agreement. New Zealand’s existing therapeutic products law is outdated and unsustainable and does not adequately manage the public health risks associated with the use of complementary medicines. Serious side effects of complementary medicines including three deaths have been reported to the New Zealand centre for adverse reactions monitoring. Complementary medicines have been found to be adulterated with pharmaceutical medicines—such as Viagra—or to contain dangerous amounts of heavy metals such as lead. It is therefore important to regulate those products so that consumers are assured that their health and safety is safeguarded. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Who or what led the Minister to change her mind and include these sectors when earlier she had indicated that she was prepared to exclude them and to look to some form of opt-in regime? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Negotiations with Australia took place over a number of years. It was raised with me on a number of occasions that what we needed was for Australia to mutually recognise our complementary medicines sector. When I raised that with our Australian counterparts they made it clear that it is not possible to have mutual recognition with a country that does not have a regulatory framework or regulatory regime. There is nothing to mutually recognise with when it comes to complementary medicines so we would need to regulate within New Zealand. We have gone for a First World system not a Third World system. 
Darien Fenton 
: Is it true—as Tony Ryall claimed yesterday—that the Government has ratified the treaty with Australia against the wishes of this Parliament? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No that is not true. The treaty has not in fact been ratified. It will not be ratified until the passage of legislation in both countries. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Can the Minister confirm that once the proposed agency is operational and the transitional period completed an effective traditional remedy or dietary supplement that is not on the approved list will be illegal and not be able to be sold in New Zealand even if it has been safely used for centuries and has had overseas regulatory authorities’ approval such as that of the American Food and Drug Administration (FDA)? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: One of the big issues in terms of this regulator is to ensure that we could have some mutual recognition with other countries. What we will not have now is an agency like the FDA agreeing to anything being safe in New Zealand because there is nothing for it to be able to acknowledge. What we are trying to stop is that in the future we have a country like the United States and its regulator the FDA making decisions for us. What we want is a joint regulator between two friendly nations. We are looking at some countries having to make decisions for other countries because those countries are unable to have the quality assurance themselves. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Has the Minister given any assurances to the Australian Government about the likely fate of this bill; if so what are they? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The only assurance I have given to the Australian Government is that we will introduce the bill in the form that members have seen it and that we will allow the public of New Zealand to have submissions and make their views known on this bill. Out of that a bill will emerge. It will then be at the will of Parliament to decide whether that bill goes forward. 
Peter Brown 
: Can the Minister confirm that New Zealand’s two largest producers of complementary medicines in support of the Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill are in fact Australian-owned and that the third-largest producer Comvita—which I understand served on her advisory panel—is totally opposed to the bill although it would support the regulation of complementary medicines under separate legislation? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No; I can certainly say that some in Comvita would prefer not to have those products regulated in New Zealand. But interestingly enough most of its products are in Australia now and they meet the standards already. I can tell the member that 75 percent of the products available through the normal retail outlets in New Zealand are already on the shelves in Australia and their producers have the advantage of being able to make a therapeutic claim—something that is illegal in New Zealand at present. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. A major part of my question was to ask the Minister whether the two largest organisations in this country were Australia-owned. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Does the Minister— 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I said no I could not. I then went on to talk about Comvita. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Can the Minister understand why New Zealanders are so strongly opposed to her plan to cover natural health products when the Government’s own papers state that 60 to 65 percent of the products that are currently on shop shelves now will be wiped from those shelves under this proposal and when the advice of one of New Zealand’s leading natural health products companies is that the cost of regulating a product will go from $2700 to $64000 under her plan—a plan that she has mucked up completely? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I would much rather have had the opportunity to do something positive than to sit where that member has for 7 years doing absolutely nothing but whinge. To answer the member’s question he has totally misinterpreted the consultation document on fees and charges and I am happy for officials to give him a personal briefing. But this is not the first time the Opposition has misinterpreted an official document. Another example of misinterpretation was that of the Australian regulatory impact statement. Those members opposite got that wrong as well and they were shown to have got it wrong. The member got this wrong as well. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table correspondence that shows that the Minister of Health said handing a set of overheads to a National MP was consultation. 
Document not tabled. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I seek leave to table two documents from an Australian consultant for Valio and Chr. Hansen one pointing out that the indicative cost to register a new natural product would be A$52000 and another one pointing out that there was a 28 percent increase in product annual charges and a 20 percent increase in application fees last year for the Therapeutic Goods Administration. 
Documents not tabled. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This is a point of clarification. I have never claimed that handing out overhead transparencies is consultation. Mr Ryall said that I said it was consultation. Certainly there had been overhead presentations to something like five health spokespeople. I cannot help it if they keep changing them. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. Point of order Mr Brownlee? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: No. When the Minister has finished making her ministerial statement I am happy to respond. 
Steve Chadwick 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Could the Minister confirm— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is this a supplementary question or a point of order? 
Steve Chadwick 
: It is a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Well that is not a point of order; it is a question.