Hide Rodney: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Hide Rodney: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8220] 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 Let me first thank the Minister of Health for standing up and taking the brave and courageous stand as a Minister of Health of being on the side of the sick the elderly and our young people over the issue of access to drugs in New Zealand—drugs that make people well—and the price of the drugs that make people well. We face a big decision on this bill concerning my Supplementary Order Paper. Are we on the side of a legislated monopoly or are we on the side of enterprise and freedom? No one is suggesting that one should not have to be a pharmacist to dispense pharmaceuticals but we are asking ourselves whether we should legislate a monopoly on the ownership of chemist shops. The United Future party and the Government are saying that what we have now is nuts. It is nuts because now in order to dispense drugs in New Zealand one has to own the chemist shop. How stupid is that? One can be a dentist without owning the dental facility. One can be a doctor without owning the surgery. Why limit the ownership of chemist shops to pharmacists? Why limit the use of capital? 
Judy Turner 
: You don’t have to own a pharmacy to work in one. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Judy Turner the great hope of the United Future party says that one does not have to own a pharmacy in order to work in one. That is true. But one has to be a pharmacist in order to own one right now and that is what is wrong. Judy Turner shakes her head and agrees. With this bill the Government and the United Future party have made it a bit easier and said that one has to own 51 percent only. Where is the logic in that? Why not 49 percent? Why not 47 percent? Why not 62 percent or better yet why not do as the Minister of Health agrees should be done along with the Consumers Institute of New Zealand Te Puni Kokiri the police and every advocate group of consumers that looks at those issues? Why not come down on the side of the sick the young and the elderly and say “None.”? [ 
Interruption 
] It is all right for David Benson-Pope to criticise the Minister of Health but he can take a call and make his own speech. 
We should do the brave and the right thing. We should join with the National Party vote for the amendments on my Supplementary Order Paper and have a Labour Party caucus stand beside its Minister of Health. We should send a message to the chemist shop owners that we respect their work and their professionalism and that as a Parliament we are not prepared to legislate privilege a monopoly or an advantage of a supplier over the customer—because that is what we are doing with this bill. How pathetic is it that a Parliament of 120 MPs should be cowed by 931 chemist shop owners all scared that someone else might buy into the business employ them and offer a better service. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Why would it be better? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: We should let the customer choose. What is wrong with customers wanting to go and get their prescriptions from a pharmacist at the supermarket? We notice that chemist shops are quite happy to compete with supermarkets for a whole lot of other goods. It will be interesting that the Greens the United Future party and—it looks like—the Labour Party will be sinking the Minister of Health. Members of those parties will be standing up in the Chamber and saying that they favour a commercial monopoly over the sick the elderly the young people and the working families who are the ones who are paying the bills. Let me have someone stand up in the Chamber and say that a legislated monopoly gives cheaper prices and better service. When has that ever happened in the world? 
Steve Chadwick 
: What about professionalism? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Yes what about professionalism? What about a bit of competition and choice?