9. DARIEN FENTON (Labour) Link to this
to the Minister of State Services
What are the consequences of the Government’s decision to defer progress on the Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill at this time?
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of State Services) Link to this
The consequences are severe, especially for the complementary medicines sector. Last week the Australia regulator imposed strict new rules on manufacturers who seek to export there. Those new rules will result in increased compliance cost for those manufacturers. That would not have happened if the agency was proceeding to be established; the joint sovereignty arrangement would have prevented unilateral actions like that. I believe that petty politicking by the National Party has ensured that New Zealand loses its preferential position and, as a consequence, our complementary medicines sector is taking a serious hit.
Could the Minister remind the House about the progress that has been made on the regulating framework with Australia?
The first joint regulator between our two countries was established in 1995 and regulates our food standards. The framework negotiated meant that New Zealand has one vote out of 10, is founded upon Australian legislation under the control of the Australian Minister for Health and Ageing, and lacks any accountability under the Official Information Act or the Ombudsmen Act. The National Government of the day did not consult with any other political party on that decision, even though it gave sovereignty to the Australian-based regulator. The joint therapeutic regulator, on the other hand, ensures that New Zealand retains its sovereignty. Each country has mirror legislation that is under the control of the two Ministers of Health and is accountable to both partners. The arrangement where 21 million people accepted equality with a country of 4 million people was rejected by John Key and the National Party because he was unable to control his caucus.
Hon Tony RyallAre not the facts here that the very costs the Minister is now claiming are excessive are very similar to the costs that she, in fact, negotiated with the Australian Government, and that her costs would have applied to every manufacturer in New Zealand, not just to those who export to Australia?
The member has been poorly informed, has thwarted the process throughout, and continues to thwart the process. He does not know what it means; he is more interested in politics.
What advice has she recently received on cross-parliamentary support for the Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill?
I received an email dated 13 August 2007 from Michelle Beckett, executive director of Natural Products New Zealand, the peak industry body for complementary products in New Zealand, following a meeting requested by Tony Ryall with her organisation. The meeting, according to Ms Beckett, was greatly pared down from what was promised, with John Key seemingly never invited by Tony Ryall and Bill English not turning up. That left Mr Ryall, who, according to Ms Beckett has “quite clearly, previously indicated his inflexibility”. Ms Beckett said that she and her colleagues left the meeting with a feeling that the natural products industry and complementary medicines had “little importance to the new leadership of the National Party and that this sector is seen only as a political football to be leveraged to any political advantage, regardless of the consequences to what has been a growing New Zealand export industry.”
Has the Minister bothered to object to what the Australians are proposing to do; and has it not always been the case that those companies that wish to export to Australia will have to meet the requirements to get in, and that what New Zealand natural health product companies do not want is the excessive bureaucratic charges the Minister negotiated that would have applied to the rest of the domestic industry and to those who export other than to Australia?
I think that it is a terrible shame that the member shows his ignorance in the House. The costs for the joint regulator are not negotiated by the Minister; they are in the draft rules that are worked through with the industry itself—the draft rules that the member has never read.
Hon Dr Nick SmithNo, the Minister has not approved them; the member opposite is quite wrong about that. The party opposite has never understood it, never tried to understand it, and has played politics with it to the detriment of not only the complementary medicines sector but the medical devices and pharmaceuticals sectors in this country. The member continues to play politics with it today. When are the National members going to get over it? When is Mr Key going to come out with his pen?