Turner Judy: Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill — First Reading 
Turner Judy: Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:636;Page:7081] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to speak to the first reading of the Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill. I have to say that this was the very first issue on arriving in Parliament in 2002 that hit our desks. All the letters and emails—and I mean all of them—were from consumers of complementary products. In fact we were so thoroughly lobbied by complementary medicine consumers that it took me some weeks to discover that the proposal actually included pharmaceuticals and medical devices as well. 
I am a regular user of complementary products so I was shocked at the thought that the items I use to maintain my own personal health and well-being could be ripped off the shelves or out-priced from the budget of average New Zealanders. That complementary products could be bought out by pharmaceutical companies and then shut down was the message of fear that I was fed for weeks and weeks. I was told that New Zealand would sign away all say on these matters and our very existence as a nation was under threat. 
So United Future then supported the inquiry called by National’s Dr Lynda Scott to see whether a joint regulator was the best option. We supported the findings of the select committee that New Zealand should self-regulate. However current opponents fail to remember that the recommendation from the select committee was predicated on Australia’s willingness to mutually recognise our regulator so that industry stakeholders would not have the expense of doubly registering products and ingredients. Well Australia will not mutually recognise. Why not? It is because as it pointed out to our officials it cannot recognise a regulator that does not exist and does not have a robust history that it can put its trust in. Because we cannot get mutual recognition in a deal with Australia the recommendation from the select committee is idealistic and unachievable. 
However United Future was keen to stay informed in two directions; firstly that we monitor the ongoing negotiations between the Government and Australia and I thank the Hon Annette King for allowing me to have observer status at her ministerial advisory committee meetings even though during that process I never gave her any reassurance of any future support. I would also like to thank as the Maori Party has Selwyn Katene for his work and advice during this time. I also mention at this time as someone who observed many of those meetings that those representing the complementary medicine sector regularly—certainly at every meeting I attended—advocated very strongly on behalf of small industry players within the New Zealand context. The second area we sought to stay informed on was the ongoing opinions of those within the complementary sector who were intensely suspicious and resistant to the proposal unlike those from the pharmaceutical and medical device sector. 
Until recently our position was that we would support only legislation that did not include the complementary medicine sector and in no way did away with direct-to-consumer advertising. What has changed our minds is that we have now been victims of a barrage of mixed messages from the complementary industry. It is now clear that a large sector of that industry wants this to proceed as it is now largely satisfied with what the deal is as it now stands not as was originally proposed. So United Future is committed to supporting the first reading because we see this as being the only way that the divided camp of the complementary health products industry can use the select committee process to sort out what it wants. We will then revisit our position after we have heard from submitters officials and the committee. 
I say to the consumer lobbyists however that I am singularly unimpressed with the current bully-boy tactics and threats and that they do their argument only harm as they present themselves as fringe extremists not rational contributors. One aspect of the debate on which there has been general agreement from all sides of the argument is that those therapeutic goods currently unregulated in New Zealand should be regulated. Let us remember that it is both medical devices and complementary medicines that are currently unaccountably unregulated within New Zealand. 
To move from an unregulated to a regulated environment is a very scary thing for the people involved because it will require extra costs and those will be passed on to consumers. So the question remains as to how we can appropriately regulate substances commensurate with the risks they pose in a way that is both affordable and that protects consumer access. My growing concern—and something that I am keen to have answered by the select committee process—is that there are some who appear to be taking a very blinkered approach to a New Zealand-only regulator. Also that those in the industry accept that New Zealand manufacturers will have to pay two sets of compliance costs if they want to export their products. Guess who will be picking up the tab on that? It will be the consumers. 
Unlike some of the information that is circulating at present I am heartened by the fact that as this proposal has proceeded and we have now four offices established and recommended. One office will regulate prescription medicines a second will regulate over-the-counter medicines a third will regulate medical devices and a fourth office will regulate complementary health products. Each will have its own regulatory model based on the risks that those products pose. This is not about imposing a pharmaceutical overkill model on to herbs as is currently being touted around the country. 
United Future is very keen to make sure that what we decide is based on facts not on emotional rhetoric. I mentioned this to someone who rang me yesterday. We started out with a very calm and logical discussion and I was very interested in what he had to share. But at one point he then deteriorated into what I call holocaust language which quite frankly I found emotive and unacceptable. We moved right away from the facts of the issue and into emotionalism. 
I do not want to see complementary medicines taken off the shelves of this country or see people lose access to the fine products that they now enjoy and use. I am one of those consumers and self-interest alone determines that I want to see New Zealand get this right. United Future is very happy to support the first reading of this bill so that the debate can be had and the facts can be brought to light.