Watts SimonSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Madam Speaker thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on the Therapeutics Products Bill third reading. Isn't it interesting listening to the last speaker sort of saying well rewriting history"? Well if only we could rewrite history and in particular the history of the last six years. But in less than 90 days Kiwis will be able to readjust the future of this country and I am sure they will make a sensible decision. This bill is a bill that National will be opposing that Dr Shane Reti has articulated very clearly I think in terms of the key elements of this bill and why we believe that it is not fit for purpose. It is not only that we have provided critique—we have attempted to be productive in terms of making suggestions around improvements to this bill to the Government as one loyal Opposition should do. However I guess in the consistency that we have become accustomed to with this Government they have not listened and as a result the Supplementary Order Papers by Dr Shane Reti—very sensible and pragmatic suggestions to improve this bill—have been declined and as such our position remains the same: that we will be opposing it. Quite simply if we are in Government—to keep it very simple—we will repeal this bill and replace it with a better option.So in that context let's walk through probably the key five points of this bill and the areas in which we believe it is not fit for purpose. The overall industry and the natural health products industry sector is around $1 billion. I appreciate that Kiwis hear billions and billions being spent by this Government regularly so for those at home just reminding: a billion dollars is a large amount of money and this industry is a significant scale industry. The fact that this legislation is going to increase the degree of regulation and make that more complex and more bureaucratic is a significant issue for the New Zealand economy and is one of the key elements in regards to why we do not support this bill. We've made suggestions in regards to the way in which we see that that sector should be regulated in a more improved manner because the points are noted around the fact that it has been a long time—1981. What was I doing in 1981? Well I'll tell you what I wasn't doing too much because I was quite a young fella at that point but I was here. I don't remember 1981 but—Tama Potaka: Great year—great year.SIMON WATTS: What was that?Tama Potaka: It was a great year.SIMON WATTS: Great year Tama? I was only two years old just for the record. I don't often let the House know how long one's age is but I'm sure it was a great year. But anyway it was the Medicines Act's year of 1981. It's probably not the reason why people remember 1981 but is a reason—of the year of the Medicines Act—and that was a long time ago so we do accept that there needs to be some changes in that regard. But the way in which the Government is proposing to do it is not appropriate. The second aspect is in regards to that this legislation—and this seems ironic; I don't know who's bought a tube of toothpaste from the supermarket. We don't like to talk about supermarkets in this House too much lately do we? The supermarkets are the villains; the supermarkets are the reason why inflation is still sitting at 6 percent today or domestic inflation is sitting at 6.6. It's the supermarkets that are to blame; it's not this Government's policies! Oh no no no it's not this Government's policies; it's the big bad supermarkets! Let's go back to the point around have you bought a cheaper super toothpaste from the supermarket? That's good to see that. So toothpaste and shampoo. Shampoo obviously a key ingredient that is part of everyone's daily life. Tama Potaka: There is no—SIMON WATTS: Tama Potaka I'm looking at that haircut of yours. For most of us it is a daily routine but for some less than others. That's going to be regulated under this bill. Are you serious? Like is this the biggest issue that faces the country today? Is it toothpaste and shampoo being regulated? No I don't think it is. No but this is what's going to happen. That's going to be regulated. It's going to require more authorisations and all that you know—Joseph Mooney: How much is it going to cost?SIMON WATTS: —and that's just not practical is it? It's not sensible. What does it cost? Good question Joseph Mooney good question. Don't know the answer. I'm sure we might hear from the last call from the Labour speaker following me—might cover that point.The other aspect—point three—is around sunscreen right? So Kiwis we all need to make sure we slip slop slap right? You know yes that's very important in terms of the UV but this bill will require market authorisation around sunscreen. Todd Muller the member who brought a private member's bill to this Parliament—which was supported across the House—in regards to making sure that if you sell sunscreen in the supermarket what it says on the tube should be what it does right? That's pretty reasonable from a consumer point of view. The problem is at the moment it doesn't. It can say something on the tube and actually not necessarily do that which is a major issue when it comes to sunscreen. This legislation basically will repeal that piece of legislation and take us back to the bad old days around when you go into the supermarket and you buy a tube of sunscreen it potentially will not do what it says on the tin. How ridiculous is that? I mean it doesn't take too much common sense to think "Really?" I mean are we going back to the fact that we don't know what we're buying? Short answer is—for anyone that's a little bit worried about that—yes that's what's being proposed by this Government in this bill. Again we've tried to be constructive around feedback to fix that but it fell on deaf ears. Again that's consistent with this Government. They are very good at not listening—I can give them points for that but the reality is they should have listened to that advice. The other aspect in the interests of time is in regards to the advertising. One of the other prior members from the Government said we've done a lot about making sure that we sort of strengthen the rules and regulations around advertising for products and making sure that prescription medicines will be advertised directly to consumers. New Zealand is only one of two countries in the world where pharmaceutical companies can actually advertise prescription medicines to New Zealand consumers. The reason why other countries don't do that is because it drives unintended consequences if people go "Geez I love that drug it looks like it might help me fix what I need to do." and they go into the GP and they go "Hey wouldn't mind that drug I saw on TV last night." and they go "Why can't I have it?" It's sort of like—well the GP goes "Well I sort of know a little bit more about medicine than what you do and with respect that's not what you need. You need this."So it creates this whole sort of culture which isn't in the best interests clinically around individuals' health. In our view—I mean isn't this interesting right? You know one would say maybe the Government are looking after their rich mates in the pharma industry right? They're looking after their rich mates in the pharma industry whereas we're standing up for hard-working Kiwis going "You know what we should not be allowing pharmaceutical industries to do major million-dollar advertising campaigns against consumers to try and sell their drugs because that is not appropriate right?" That's where we stand on this side of the House. But on that side of House it's open slather: spend what you like get in there and try and promote these drugs to consumers and that is not appropriate. So we've again said "That's a ridiculous idea it's not appropriate." Again that fell on deaf ears. You sort of get the thematic around this; the consistency around that. The last aspect is around the transition period around medical devices and there's sort of an explosion out there in terms of different medical devices that are coming on to the market. If you think in the diabetes space for example around insulin pumps or you think about other devices—the continuous glucose monitoring sensors that type 1 diabetics are using now—and all this other stuff. A lot of these pumps have artificial intelligence in them now so they talk to the sensors and they adjust the medication to make a better quality of life for those people that have a number of these chronic diseases including cancer as well. But this legislation is going to bring in more bureaucracy into this process. Interestingly enough right—this should be no surprise—is that most of these products aren't necessarily built or designed and made in New Zealand. Actually a lot of them come from overseas. There's been a bit of a rigour through the Food and Drug Administration or other international European on these products. You know do we need to add more bureaucracy to say actually we need to recheck recheck recheck these things and draw out the process? Of course our view is we don't; we just need to get these products to consumers so they can use them. The Government's view is "No no let's throw in a bit more bureaucracy into the process." So looking at the time I'm nearly out of runway but hopefully that gives you a bit of an overview in terms of why we think this is an inappropriate bill why we oppose it and why the fact that the National-led Government on 15 October will repeal and replace this bill."