Ryall Tony: Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill — First Reading 
Ryall Tony: Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:636;Page:7070] 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 The National Party opposes this legislation. This regime will be costly restrictive and is unnecessary. We are not prepared to jeopardise the viability of hundreds of small businesses nor the choices of thousands of consumers by supporting this legislation. This legislation is a move that will cost industry and cost consumers. The Australian health products industry is one of the most highly regulated in the world and applying its rules here will serve only to increase the cost of products reduce consumer choice and hurt many businesses. 
There should be regulation of natural health products but not this bureaucratic nightmare. This is a costly regime. We know it is costly because the only way the Government has been able to garner parliamentary support for this bill is to offer a 50 percent subsidy on those costs. If this were a low-cost regime providing the most efficient form of regulation in New Zealand then why is the Government being forced to offer a subsidy in order to get the parliamentary votes from New Zealand First and United Future to get this legislation through? 
Hon Annette King 
: There’s a 50 percent subsidy on animal products which your Government passed. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Annette King might pipe up there but the fact is the only way this Government has been able to garner support is because of its appalling performance in offering this subsidy. 
But I will tell members the most appalling performance here and that is the performance of Annette King as the negotiating Minister. I tell the Government that there is no point in harmonising with Australia if it is to the cost and detriment of New Zealand. Annette King has destroyed the opportunity to have a cross-party approach to the regulation of medical devices pharmaceuticals and natural health products in this country. She completely ignored and denied the recommendations that repeated Health Committee inquiries and reviews have made. She did not consult with any other party in this House. She has treated this bill as if it were a health bill that she could push through just on the sheer weight of her huff and bluff and numbers in the House. The fact is she did not have the support. She had the opportunity to work with other parties in this House to get a regime that would be low cost and would do the job for New Zealand but what did this arrogant Minister do? She ignored it. 
This is how bad it is. In trying to justify her consultation and in trying to justify the fact that she consulted with other parties do members know what Annette King claimed? She said that giving a set of overheads to Richard Worth and another member of our caucus was consultation. She said she consulted with National because she gave two members of our caucus some overheads. That is what she said is consultation. The fact is Annette King has destroyed the opportunity for a cross-party approach to develop rules and regulations that would be good for New Zealand. I cannot believe that the Prime Minister allows Annette King to negotiate such a deal that will be costly restrictive and unnecessary for New Zealand. 
We want to have closer working relationships with Australia but we are not going to do it at the cost of New Zealand business and New Zealand consumers. That should have been the bottom line. That is what we told Annette King and that is why she will not get any support for this bill from National. She missed the opportunity to work with other parties to get a cross-party approach that would reduce costs reduce restrictions and provide benefits to New Zealand. There is no point in harmonising if it costs New Zealand. That is why there will be no support from National for this trans-Tasman therapeutic bill. We are opposing this bill because it is bad for New Zealand. It is selling out the interests of thousands of small consumers in New Zealand. It is selling out the interests of hundreds of businesses. 
I tell the Minister that pharmaceutical companies and natural health products companies all around New Zealand are contacting parliamentary parties to say “We oppose this legislation.” 
Steve Chadwick 
: The member is silly. What a retrograde step. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Thousands of New Zealanders are coming forward. I tell Mrs Chadwick the next mayoral candidate for Rotorua what is silly. What is silly is that Labour has a Minister who had the opportunity to bring together a sensible option for the New Zealand Parliament of low cost low restriction and focus on the necessary. Through her arrogant disregard and her poor negotiating skills we have a plan being put to the country that will not provide what the Government says it will. 
Hon Annette King 
: Yes it is. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: It is not. It will be costly and restrictive and it is completely unnecessary as it is proposed. It will jeopardise many hundreds of small businesses and it will restrict the choices of thousands of New Zealanders. 
I have to tell the Prime Minister that it is a very dangerous thing to put Annette King in charge of this bill—a very dangerous thing. Annette King has not performed at all well in bringing a deal that Parliament can support. She has bought off United Future and bought off New Zealand First with this 50 percent subsidy. Do members know that people are now starting to say that the ministry is beginning to be uncertain about what this 50 percent subsidy counts for. I bet members that United Future and New Zealand First members do not know that. There is now significant debate about what the 50 percent subsidy will actually cover. We have to remember that this is the party about which John Tamihere said it can change a word here and change a word there to change the entire intent of what is being proposed. I tell New Zealand First and United Future members to be wary of anything that Annette King is telling them. 
This Government is missing an important opportunity to provide a regime in New Zealand that is low cost effective and designed to fix identifiable problems. Where is the Government on that? It is nowhere. Where is the Government on addressing the concerns stated repeatedly by the Health Committee about compliance costs? Where is the Government on addressing the concerns repeatedly stated by the Health Committee about the process and recognition of costs? 
Darren Hughes 
: Name one. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I am saying that to the Government. Name one part where it fixes the concerns; name one part of the concerns that it has fixed when it comes to this regime. We think that the Government should take on board the repeated criticism by the Health Committee and deal with compliance costs and the issues that have been raised. 
This bill comes to this House on the back of a sordid little deal with two little parties whereby a Government that says this is a low-cost regime is being forced to subsidise it by 50 percent in order to try to garner parliamentary support. That is not a low-cost regime. It will interfere with the choices of thousands of New Zealanders. This is a Government that believes that the best way that consumers can care for themselves and take responsibility for their care is to delegate all that authority and control to the Government. That is what Government members think. They think that the best way New Zealanders can take responsibility for themselves is to delegate control and authority to the Government. 
We want a health system that encourages New Zealanders to take responsibility for their health and to exercise control over their decisions about any supplements they want to take. We do not want the Government stepping in over-regulating and taking control of those decisions that thousands of New Zealanders exercise every day. Every day New Zealanders are taking supplements. Every day they are trying to protect and improve their health. The National Party says that New Zealanders do not need to have prices go up and they do not need to have unnecessary and restrictive regulation on those choices. 
We want New Zealanders to know that the regime is low cost not restrictive and that their choices will be protected. But this legislation does the complete opposite. That is why as I know the Australians will know this Opposition has repeatedly opposed this legislation and will continue to do so. The Government has missed the opportunity to negotiate a deal that New Zealanders could be proud of because frankly Annette King would not listen would not talk to anyone and would not consult. She was captured by a few bureaucrats and that is why we have a piece of legislation that New Zealanders know is not in the interests of this country. This bill is a sell-out and it will cost New Zealand business and consumers.