4. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) Link to this
to the Minister of State Services
Why has she left the Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill on the Order Paper despite admitting yesterday that the Government does not have the numbers in Parliament to pass it?
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of State Services) Link to this
The bill will remain on the Order Paper because the opportunity to arrive at a sensible and workable compromise still exists, but not in the time frame available to meet the Australian Government’s need to introduce and pass the mirror legislation to our own before its forthcoming election.
How has that Minister managed to mess up this major policy, when as long ago as 2004 National started telling the Government that it would support the bill if the Government dealt with the concerns originally set out in the minority report on the select committee hearings on the original treaty—a report tabled in this House 3 years ago?
In relation to dealing with the issues raised in the National Party minority report, I tell the member that I replied in detail to Dr Brash, when he was leader, on all the actions taken in that minority report. But I say to this House that I think that Mr English has a bad case of amnesia—or, otherwise, a cover-up with bluff and bluster—because I happen to know that Mr English, as Minister of Health, was one of those who agreed, in fact, to take urgency over setting up a joint regulator. And I have many other documents to show that the National Party, from August 1997, wanted a joint regulator to be set up, misleading the people of Australia and the Australian Government about what it really wanted to do. I think that Mr English had better go back and look into his documents to see what he was saying then.
Darren HughesHas the Minister seen criticism of her that she failed to consult with the National Party; if she did, what consultation took place with the National Opposition regarding this proposal and how does that compare with any consultation a New Zealand Government in the 1990s had regarding the establishment of the Australia New Zealand Food Authority?
I met with many and varied National health spokespersons on at least six occasions. There were also discussions with the changing leadership of the National Party and many further briefings by officials throughout the development of the proposal. In comparison, when National was in Government it did not bother to consult over the establishment of the Australia New Zealand Food Authority, which set the standards for our food safety, and which was a considerably weaker arrangement than the one we managed to negotiate for therapeutic products. I will leave it to the public to determine which party—
Madam SPEAKER
Sue KedgleyDoes the Minister agree that following the parking of the bill, the priority now is to consult with the dietary supplements industry and all parties in this House on a cost-effective New Zealand - based regulatory system, which can assure New Zealand consumers that dietary supplements are safe and true-to-label without imposing crippling costs on industry or undermining our sovereignty?
What happens from now is very much in the hands of the Minister of Health. But I think it is important that the Minister of Health also listens to a large majority of complementary health product manufacturers in New Zealand, who were not listened to because of the voice of a minority. I happen to agree with Dr Pippa McKay, who said today that it is a shame that some people demand that food be regulated for safety reasons but somehow naively expect that labels on complementary medicines from an unknown source should be believed. She said that this is Third World politicking; the needs and the interests of the majority have been over-ridden by a tiny, self-interested minority generating misinformation, and I agree with her.
Why is it that the Minister is blaming everyone but herself, when she had the choice to take action many times—for instance, in January of this year, when National’s leader, John Key, stated that National would support the legislation if complementary medicines were removed and, in fact, discussed this option with John Howard, the Australian Prime Minister?
It will be interesting to see what John Howard said to John Key. Even though I know that John Key says that he has a father-son relationship with Mr Howard, I suspect that Mr Howard would have said the same as he said to the Prime Minister of New Zealand, which is that the negotiations over a joint regulator included complementary medicines and that, in fact, they were interested in a second-tier arrangement as proposed—first of all, I have to say, by Gordon Copeland before he became a National member and is no longer allowed to vote for the thing he proposed. A Supplementary Order Paper was proposed by the New Zealand First Party, which was sensible, and work was done with the ACT party in an honourable manner to look at a way in which we could compromise. But what we never got from the National Party was any compromise at all.
Why did the Minister so doggedly pursue legislation that would have set up an Australian-based regulatory system, which would have decimated New Zealand small businesses, undermined our sovereignty, increased compliance costs, reduced consumer choice, made many dietary supplements illegal even if they had been safely used for centuries, and allowed the dietary supplements industry in New Zealand to be taken over by a handful of Australian companies; and how did she believe that this was in New Zealand’s best interest?
What I believed was in New Zealand’s best interest is the truth. What we have just heard from the member is some of the misinformation that the complementary medicines sector in New Zealand—80 percent of which wanted to be in a joint regulator—has had to put up with for years. First of all, the member knows that it is not Australian-based. Eighty percent of the products on the market in Australia are on the market in New Zealand, so how could two-thirds be taken off the market? Sadly, the list of misinformation goes on. I would like to believe those manufacturers who said they wanted to be in this joint regulator because it is good for their businesses and good for New Zealanders—and why should not New Zealanders have the best?
Can the Minister confirm that all this carry-on today is just bluff and bluster from someone who miscalculated and embarrassed her Government because she thought she could do the deal without National’s support—in fact, she thought she could do it without the small parties’ support—and in the end found she could not?
No. I believe that the National Party was once an honourable party that spent 3 years working with the Australian Government on a joint therapeutic agency, and I am happy to table some documents so that the rest of New Zealand can see what it was doing in Government. I believe that the work it had done was good work. I picked it up and said that we ought to continue with it. What I did not reckon on was that John Key was unable to persuade Tony Ryall to support it, even though he did try. He was rolled by Tony Ryall. National members know it, and they have told other people that that is the truth.
Keith LockeDoes the Minister agree that the failure of the Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill shows up a major flaw in our constitutional system, whereby Governments can sign us up to treaties that do not have majority support in Parliament?
Treaties become actionable only when they are ratified. This treaty has never been ratified, even though Tony Ryall told New Zealand it had—another thing he got wrong in this respect. This treaty is signed with Australia. It is not ratified—and it will not be ratified—until this Parliament agrees to the legislation.
Can the Minister confirm that Murray McCully wrote to Phil Goff on 12 May 2006 setting out National’s concerns, that Tony Ryall wrote to her on 12 September 2006 setting out National’s concerns, and that Don Brash met with Annette King, Phil Goff, and the Prime Minister in July 2004 and then wrote to them on 7 July 2004 setting out National’s concerns; and does she now regret that she did not listen to the other parties she needed to work with to get this legislation through?
That was a very one-sided list of who wrote to whom. It would have been nice to hear some of the replies that Dr Brash and others received from me, including replies that set out what we intended to do to address their concerns. In fact, a reply to Dr Brash dated 6 November 2006 sets out in quite a lot of detail exactly what we would do to help ameliorate some of the problems National saw with the legislation, including, in some detail, a support package to industry, as one of National’s major concerns was the cost of compliance. That support package provided support that the Australian industry never got, but which the Australians agreed to. It was provided to the National Party. National members talked about it. Half of them wanted to go with it and the other half did not, but John Key could not push it through. It is a failure of leadership by a man who talks big behind the scenes but does not deliver when it comes to the mark.
Can the Minister confirm that the answer to the substantive question was that she has left the bill on the Order Paper because there is still the opportunity for sensible discussion; and how does she think she is going, after this question time, in getting the cooperation of the parties she needs to pass a sensible bill?
I do truly believe that there are some sensible people in the National Party. I believe, for example, that Dr Lockwood Smith is one of those. I know that Dr Lockwood Smith is one of those people, along with Tim Groser and others, who understand the importance of our close relationship with Australia. In fact, I am pleased to say that Dr Smith, in his own statement just before the last election, after which National left power, set out why he thought it was important to have such an arrangement. So I think there are people over there capable of working with the Government, and I want to pay a tribute to the parties here in Parliament who have worked in a sensible way, who have worked constructively, and who have worked to look for the best interests of New Zealand at heart. I believe there is still an opportunity to do that.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
Can I ask the Minister whether she has been briefed on the sources of funding for the campaign in opposition to this agreement, whether in fact the major source of funding is a Christchurch pusher of benzylpiperazine—someone who has made a fortune from that—and whether in fact this source has donated to the National Party, as well, in a vote for drug pushing?
I am aware that a party pill manufacturer in Christchurch who also makes complementary medicines has been a major funder of a campaign against this legislation. I do not know whether he has provided funds to any political party, but there does seem to me to be an unholy alliance between some parties in this Parliament and those who have a lot of self-interest in making sure that there is very light-handed regulation indeed.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. We are up to just question No. 4 and the barracking from one part of this House has been terribly noticeable since the first question. I do not know what makes these people think they are special, but they have been out of Government for a long, long time, and will probably be out of Government a lot longer if they carry on the way they are. But my point is, how can they get away with this barracking day in, day out, in the middle of this term? They have not learnt one lesson despite your admonishment over and over again. I think, with respect, you should start throwing a few of them out of the Chamber for a few days.
Gerry BrownleeI do not need any assistance on this, Mr Brownlee. The barracking was coming from all sides of the House, not from just from one side of the House. But I think the member has a useful point of reminder to us all that, in fact, members have a right to be heard.
I seek the leave of the House to table a copy of my International Treaties Bill, which would require a parliamentary majority before a Government agrees to a treaty.
Ron MarkI raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Whilst you were on your feet responding to a point of order and giving a judgment and a ruling, you clearly heard an interjection from the National side of the House. You, for reasons known only to you, paused, decided not to act on that, and continued. Could I suggest that such continued favourable treatment in one direction or another leaves minor parties with a view, or a perception, that there is favour being given to the National Party. It may well be that you decided that that interjection by the National Party member during a point of order, and during a judgment in which you, the Speaker of the House, were on your feet, was worth ignoring. But such a decision leaves minor, or alternative, parties in this House with only one perception. I would like, please, for you to explain why you did not throw that member out of the House.
The member’s comment is a reflection on the Chair. I ask him to leave the Chamber please. The Speaker is, in fact, the person—[ Interruption] That member who just laughed will please join Mr Mark as he leaves the Chamber.
I seek leave to table a list of the submitters to the Government Administration Committee on the bill, which shows that a great majority of health product producers were against this bill, not for it.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You asked for the member of Parliament who laughed during that period of your comment to leave the House. Mr Mapp left, but it came from back here as well.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I want to be very careful about trying your patience, given what has happened—
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
The point of order is that during your ruling Mr Bennett interjected.