Natural Health Products Bill

on behalf of the Minister of Health: I move, That the Natural Health Products Bill be now read a second time. I thank the Health Committee for its thoughtful consideration of the Natural Health Products Bill. I would also like to give particular acknowledgment to the work of the excellent chair of the committee, Dr Paul Hutchison. The committee has recommended a number of amendments to the bill, which the Government will be supporting. I would also like to thank the members of the Regulations Review Committee, who provided important feedback on some technical aspects of the bill, which has been taken into account.

The Natural Health Products Bill began its parliamentary life in 2011. It was developed by the Government in conjunction with the Green Party, pursuant to a memorandum of understanding signed in 2009. At this point in proceedings, I would like to acknowledge the work of Sue Kedgley and, more recently, that of Mojo Mathers, for the constructive way they have worked with the Government in helping to give the bill its current shape.

The Government is particularly grateful to the Green Party for agreeing to be involved in the development of the regulations that will quickly follow the enactment of this bill. We acknowledge that the bill leaves some material for regulations that some submitters would have preferred to see in primary legislation. The regulations will set out technical detail that is not appropriate for primary legislation. The Government, with the Green Party’s help, is determined to get these regulations right.

The purpose of the bill is to establish a regulatory regime in New Zealand for natural health and supplementary products, in accordance with four principles: first, these products, where sold, must be fit for human use; second, their regulation must be proportionate to the generally low risk of harm they pose; third, they are sold only with information that is accurate and tells consumers about their risks and benefits; and, fourth and finally, claims of health benefits are backed by scientific evidence or evidence of traditional use.

The Government acknowledges that most of these products demonstrably pose little or no risk of harm to the people who use them. However, it is clear that some form of consumer protection is warranted. At the very least, people are entitled to have confidence that the products they buy, with the intention of protecting or promoting their own health, are sanitary, contain all and only those ingredients they purport to contain, and have some chance of doing what they claim. The New Zealand public and indeed New Zealand law would not, for example, tolerate the sale of an air-conditioning unit that did nothing but waft asbestos through a building while failing to cool the air. Similarly, we do not intend to tolerate the sale of products that are not true to their labels, are not true to their claims, and may indeed be harmful.

In all of human endeavour, nothing is wholly effective and wholly without risk. This applies to the promotion of human health in medical science and in the field of natural health and supplementary products. In the case of medicines, many of which are very new chemicals at the cutting edge of science, the Government requires rigorous scientific assessment before treatments are brought to the New Zealand market. Although by no means perfect, this is appropriate. The history of medical science shows that a number of treatments have had to be withdrawn after they were discovered, sometimes by tragic consequences, to do more harm than good.

Natural health and supplementary products belong in a different category. Many of these have been in continuous use for centuries and have never harmed anybody. On the other hand, some of these products have shown little evidence of effectiveness. The challenge is to achieve a sensible regulatory regime that protects consumers, acknowledges people’s right to make decisions about their own health, and does not have a large negative impact on industry.

This bill creates the Natural Health and Supplementary Products Regulatory Authority, as well as an advisory committee. The authority is to oversee the pre-market notification of products. To bring a product to market, a notifier must tell the authority what is in it, and it must consist solely of things from an open-ended list of permitted ingredients. There is also to be a list of forbidden ingredients, which will include prescription medicines and controlled drugs. The notifier must hold evidence, either scientific evidence or evidence of traditional use, to back up any claims of health benefit being made for the product. The notifier must provide the authority with that evidence if it is decided that a claim for a particular product warrants further investigation, and a summary of the evidence must be made publicly available.

There will be a publicly accessible database, created and maintained by the authority, of all notified products. A code of manufacturing practice will apply to all products. The most significant change made to the bill in the select committee relates to serious conditions. As initially drafted, the bill prevented any health claim being made that related to a serious condition. Everyone on the select committee agreed that it was important to make sure people were not discouraged from seeking clinical advice when necessary. This is still the intention of the bill.

What was found during the select committee’s consideration of the bill was that there is no definition of “serious condition” that worked. Either they were too loose and left the way open for excessive claims to be made, or they were too tight and would prevent claims being made about things like the relief of the symptoms of hay fever. The solution we have found is to allow the regulator to publish a list of conditions that sellers will be able to make claims about. This does not restrict any other claim, just ones about specific conditions. We expect the list to be long. We look forward to working with the Greens and the industry to make sure it is comprehensive.

There has been some concern expressed that we have changed the nature of the scheme. We have been told that it is now a pre-approval scheme, rather than easy and simple self-notification. This is not true. Indeed, it is precisely because this is not a pre-approval scheme that we have to do it this way. In other countries that regulate these products, there are pre-approval schemes. All claims have to be assessed by the regulator before they can be made. That means they do not have to be as careful in their definitions, because there is a check on everything that goes to market, but it adds time and it adds expense. The Government is committed to a low-cost, low-compliance scheme, and this bill reflects that.

I take great pleasure in rising to speak to the Natural Health Products Bill. Once more, I wish to pay a tribute to the diligence of the chairperson of the Health Committee, Dr Paul Hutchison. He applied himself assiduously to this piece of legislation and the work of the committee was all the better for it, so I would like to place that on the record. I would also like to place on the record once again—for the second time in about 30 minutes—that this is an example of the Government changing its tune. When the politics ran out, the Government decided to do in office exactly what it had opposed in Opposition. Again, we could have had this area regulated 6 years ago had the Government not decided to play politics with it, regardless of the fact that it knew that natural health products and health supplements were a cause of great concern. So I put on the record that Mr Ryall now considers useful something he thought was abhorrent 7 years ago.

I welcome this. We on the select committee wrestled with this issue, because on the one hand it is really important to have a regulatory framework around anything that is being sold to the public as having some sort of therapeutic effect. Whether it is a cure or a relief of symptoms, the public needs to know that what is on the market for their consumption has been regulated and has gone through a process that determines whether or not the claims that the producer has for that product are justifiable or not. So we found ourselves traversing a wide range of products.

Just to highlight a couple that will perhaps demonstrate to the House what kinds of issues were at stake here, first of all we recommended amending clause 1 to change the bill’s title to read “Natural Health and Supplementary Products Bill”—not just the “Natural Health Products Bill”, but the “Natural Health and Supplementary Products Bill”—because there is an increasing number of claims made for dietary supplements that have caused people concern and have required a closer regulatory oversight than we have had previously. In addition, we have seen various products change in their application over time. The most obvious example of this, and we referred to it in the select committee’s report, is honey. We needed to be able to distinguish between a natural health or supplementary product, a food, and a medicine. With developments with the use of honey, there are different products; different uses for honey that have at different moments the purpose of a food, the purpose of a supplementary product, and the purpose of a medicine. Bandages that are impregnated with manuka honey have a therapeutic function. They have healing properties, and, in fact, Comvita—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: A great local business

—a great organisation—and others are exporting such products hugely, into the Asian market in particular. But honey, as a therapeutic product, is something that has been used for centuries. So as well as being a food, it has been used for medical purposes and as a supplementary product as well. So that just gives some idea, I think, for the House that we were looking at a range of products.

We did not want to arrive at a regulatory system that was ludicrous. It was very easy to end up with a system that meant that teabags had to be regulated if they make claims—as the teabags I use all the time do—about peppermint tea providing clarity, camomile tea for relaxation, linden leaves for astuteness and as a pick-me-up, or about lemon balm, which since the 17th century has been used as a dispeller of the melancholy. Those kinds of traditional uses should not find themselves caught with ridiculous regulation. And so we have arrived, I think, at a regulatory system that is neither cumbersome nor light-handed. We have arrived at a regulatory system that requires people who are making products and laying claim to some therapeutic benefit to be able to justify that. Traditional medicines, including rongoā, are still allowed and, clearly, have a process for regulation, but are not going to be hammered with unnecessary red tape as long as they do not claim to cure things and lead people up the garden path.

In other words, there have clearly been instances that have been brought to public attention where people have had terrible illnesses that some practitioners thought could have been healed by old therapeutic and traditional therapeutic means. Those have not succeeded and people, in the resistance to more modern medicine, have, in fact, died as a result of some of those treatments—or the lack of other treatments that could have worked more effectively. I think that we have arrived at a system that allows for sensible, protective regulation, without being ridiculous about requiring Twinings to demonstrate its claims that camomile is a relaxant agent when people have known that for hundreds of years. Thank you.

It is indeed a pleasure to speak on this Natural Health Products Bill, which is shortly to become the Natural Health and Supplementary Products Bill, which is a far more fitting title. I too would like to acknowledge and thank the Health Committee for the incredibly constructive way that it worked. This bill did require a lot of thought, and, indeed, the committee did contribute very significantly in making changes that, at the end of the day, were consensual, were practical, and were appropriate for this challenging legislation. I want to acknowledge the officials, who were tested on many occasions. I think they had preconceived ideas about many of these things, but they were prepared to wrestle with them intellectually. Finally, I want to acknowledge the 739 submitters—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Name them.

I cannot name them precisely, but many of them were extremely thoughtful.

Put thoughtfully, the bill seeks to regulate low-risk so-called natural health products in New Zealand. The original title sounds simple and easy, but in fact this was one of the most challenging pieces of legislation I have ever had to be involved with in this Parliament. I think that is because the bill literally has to deal with a clash of two important cultures—one being the scientific and the other being the traditional. I am very pleased that the principles of the bill are spelt out clearly in the legislation. They include the fact that natural health and supplementary products should be accompanied by information that is accurate and tells consumers about any risks, side effects, or benefits of using the product, and, secondly, that health benefit claims made for natural health and supplementary products should be supported by scientific or traditional evidence. Having come from a scientific background, I do find bridging that gap to accommodate the idea that traditional evidence might support claims is quite a leap for me personally. But the bottom line is that the so-called natural health products should be safe for public consumption, that compliance measures are kept at a minimum, and that the public do have choice in what they can use.

The committee came face to face with the significant problems of what does indeed constitute a so-called natural health product in the setting that many of these products have synthetic compounds, binding agents, and excipients. Natural health and supplementary products are widely consumed around the world. There are billions, if not trillions, of dollars spent on them every year around the world, whether or not they do good or harm. Some have clear scientific evidence of efficacy, and others have none whatsoever. This caused an obvious divide between many of the submitters on the bill. As I mentioned, significant commercial businesses have been formed where products with no scientific evidence whatsoever have been sold for centuries. However, this whole point about placebo effect and the use of complementary medicines has been accommodated throughout health systems right around the world today because we do know that individuals can get considerable benefit if they think that what they are using is going to be helpful. I always marvel at the fact that the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center’s hospital in New York, which has a tradition of science about it, also has a complementary medicine department associated with it, to recognise the value of some of these traditional products.

The Prime Minister has said that his Government will have science at its centre, and there is no doubt that in any legislation—and, in particular, this type of legislation—a strong evidence base behind policy is fundamental if it is going to be durable. I must say that I consider the submission made by the Chief Science Advisor to the Prime Minister, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, was particularly salutary and worthy of noting. He mentions the original title of the bill, the Natural Health Products Bill, and he does say that “It is unfortunate that the bill has progressed so far with such a misleading title,”. He also goes on to talk about the nature of evidence and how important it is to use the term “scientific evidence” to mean knowledge arising from the scientific process of organised observation and hypothesis testing, whereas anecdotal information, or the opinions and impressions of individuals, does not constitute scientific evidence. He believes that it is very, very important to stress whether evidence on manufacturers’ labels is scientific or traditional, and I absolute concur with that. I am very pleased that we have persuaded those behind the bill that manufacturers will be required to provide a summary of evidence backing up claims. The other point he made was that the New Zealand economy is based on food exports. Increasingly, the food industry is seeking to develop foods and nutraceuticals with proven and regulator-approved health claims. It is now about a billion-dollar industry. It is vital for New Zealand that we are credible in the way we treat these products. It is vital for our exports in this rapidly increasing field. He talked about exemptions and homeopathic issues where there is no accepted scientific evidence that homeopathy is efficacious.

Finally, I just want to make a comment about the Natural Health and Supplementary Products Regulatory Authority. This will have considerable power and its decisions will be all-important. I want to put on record that I would like to see it ensure a strong evidence base behind its deliberations. Quite rightly, the committee amended the composition of membership to ensure there would be at least one member with experience in the manufacturing of these products, and at least one member with experience and qualifications in the field of science. I look forward to the Committee stage of this bill.

I would like to echo the thoughts of Dr Hutchison in respect of the officials and the submitters at the Health Committee. This Natural Health and Supplementary Products Bill was a challenging piece of legislation. There is a range of balancing acts to be achieved in this legislation, and at the select committee we drew heavily on the advice of officials and the large range of submitters who appeared before us, as well, and I thank them for the time they took to work with us. This is an attempt—and I think a very good attempt—to secure consumer safety whilst balancing the scientific view with the traditional view in respect of natural and supplementary products, and I think we have done well to achieve that.

It would be remiss of me not to recognise that on the one hand we could have done this—I think we have now figured out—more like 7 years ago. It goes back to 2006, when Tony Ryall played politics with this piece of legislation and withdrew the National Party support. We could have made progress. We could have secured consumer safety all those years ago, but National, as it so often does, preferred to put politics ahead of health care and the well-being of New Zealanders. That point was actually raised by a number of the submitters who came to the select committee, because they actually felt duped by the National Party. As much as I disagreed with their position that there was no need for this legislation, I could understand why those submitters felt that they had been duped by the National Party, which said one thing in Opposition and then did completely the opposite thing in Government. Those submitters came to the select committee and they said there is no substantial difference between this legislation and what had been proposed by the Labour Government back in 2006. They pointed out the hypocrisy on display from the National Party regarding this issue. They came and said: “We do not understand how the National Party could have held that view 7 years ago and be progressing this legislation now that it is in Government.” Nevertheless, I happen to not agree with those people, and the Labour Party has been consistent with that approach. We did not agree with them in 2006 and we do not agree with them now. We think this legislation is important, and it is great that we have broad support across the House for a sensible regulatory environment for natural health products.

I appreciate the statements made by a number of the submitters that natural health products—and, actually, I like the new title of the bill. I do not know when we are actually going to refer to this bill with the new title, but in terms of the natural health and supplementary products industry, I appreciate that it is a low-risk industry in that the products themselves are low-risk. Where I see the great risk, and I know that the Minister touched on this as well, is when people choose a substance for which there is very little scientific basis to support the claims made around that substance over a more mainstream medical approach. The risk there is that they may not be getting the appropriate treatment for the ailment they have, or they may in fact be putting themselves at greater risk by avoiding using something that we know works, and using instead something for which either the scientific or the traditional evidence basis has not been established.

That is what this bill does. It says that if you are going to put a product on the market and make a health-related claim associated with that product, you have to provide evidence, whether it be scientific or traditional, that this product does what you say it will do. There is still an element of consumer choice here. There is still an element of consumers having to accept a level of risk, because consumers will have to look at the type of evidence available and they will have to consider whether they want to follow a scientific approach or a more traditional approach. That is people’s individual choice, and that has been accommodated for in this legislation as well.

There is one particular aspect of the select committee report that I would like to refer to, and that is the advice that the Health Committee received from the Regulations Review Committee regarding the “Henry VIII” clauses—those clauses that empower the executive to override primary legislation with regulations.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: He died a long time ago.

Sorry?

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: He died a long time ago.

Henry VIII did die a long time ago. That is true, but, nevertheless, we still call these things “Henry VIII” clauses. Such is the sometimes anachronistic nature of Parliament, Minister Bridges. Labour agrees that it is dangerous in the health sphere to allow the executive to override with regulation policy established by Parliament in legislation. It is particularly dangerous, I think, to let the current Minister of Health wield that power, because we know that Tony Ryall will always put politics ahead of health. The idea that Tony Ryall would have the power to override legislation in order to make a political point or to achieve some political point-scoring—we just cannot trust that man with that kind of power. So I agree with the advice from the Regulations Review Committee that “Henry VIII” clauses are not ideal. We have to ensure that this legislation and the regulation established by this legislation cannot be overridden by the executive with regulation.

This bill is well past its time. It is well past its due-by date. It is a pity that, like the Medicines Amendment Bill, it has taken an awfully long time to come back to the House. But I think, actually, one of the reasons for that was the desire to align the Medicines Amendment Bill and the Natural Health and Supplementary Products Bill, because, of course, they actually belong together in a single piece of legislation that could have been passed back in 2006. But it is good to see these bills being progressed in these extended sitting hours—a time for non-controversial legislation that has the broad support of the House. Once again, it is just a pity that National insists on putting politics ahead of health care and consumer safety, and that this bill was not passed in 2006 when it should have been.

The Green Party is extremely pleased to be supporting this Natural Health Products Bill. Like others before me, I would like to thank all of the Health Committee members for their constructive approach on this bill. I would like to acknowledge the issues raised beforehand by Dr Paul Hutchison and by Maryan Street. There were elements of this bill that were quite challenging for us to deal with, and we all had to make a bridge between things like the challenge between scientific and traditional evidence, and the challenge proposed between different categories of food, natural health products, supplementary products, and medicines. But, overall, we are very pleased with this bill. One of the best outcomes for us in this bill is that it ensures that we retain control of setting the rules around the regulation of natural health and supplementary products within New Zealand rather than handing that over to the heavy-handed trans-Tasman regulator, as was originally proposed many years back. I would like to acknowledge the incredible work of my predecessor, Sue Kedgley, who worked incredibly hard on helping put down the foundations for this bill, and her steadfast commitment to bringing in a low-risk regulatory scheme that is appropriate for the low-risk nature of natural health products.

It has been pointed out that we need these sensible rules that protect both consumers and manufacturers so that consumers can have confidence natural health products that they use are safe, that they do not contain toxic ingredients, and that they are not adulterated with medicines such as steroids, as is an increasing concern with some imports. We also need sensible rules so that New Zealand’s reputation as a producer of quality natural health products is maintained. It is equally important that these rules are simple, low cost, and easy to comply with, in keeping with the low-risk nature of most natural health products, and so that consumer access and choice is not unduly restricted by excessive compliance costs. We are very pleased that the Government has agreed to meet the cost of policy and regulatory advice and enforcement, as well as the capital costs for setting up the scheme. A major focus for us was to ensure that the rules balance the need for protection with the risks of the products involved so that we do not end up strangling innovation, as has happened in Australia.

We are particularly pleased that agreement was reached around our requests to include a schedule of approved pharmacopoeia in the bill. This schedule will make the process of approving traditional claims for low-risk conditions straightforward for many natural health products and will help keep compliance costs down. We are also very pleased that products prepared as part of traditional medicine practice on a one-to-one basis have been exempted as each product preparation is unique to the individual. Requiring each product to be notified would have made this practice unviable and impractical. The Green Party wanted to see a clause in the legislation to recognise the Treaty. We are disappointed that this has not been accepted at this stage. We will be moving a Supplementary Order Paper at the Committee stage to amend the legislation to include such a clause.

I also want to acknowledge here some of the concerns that were raised by submitters to the bill about what they felt might be potential impacts. In part some of these submissions were because of confusion with the Food Bill. One common concern that was expressed was around the delegation of powers under clause 45. Some submitters expressed a concern that this would mean that at some point in the future regulation powers would be delegated back to an overseas authority. Officials advised us that because section 41 of the State Sector Act 1988 allows only Public Service chief executives to delegate on behalf of the authority, and they can delegate only to Public Service employees, any delegation of power will be constrained by these requirements. So we are confident that under this bill there will not be any delegation of powers to an overseas regulator.

Another common concern expressed by submitters was that this bill would stop people from making their own home remedies for personal use. These concerns are unfounded. The bill covers the regulation of natural health products and supplementary products for sale and distribution in New Zealand where the term “product” refers to the total product, which includes the ingredients, the packaging, and the claims. This bill does not affect products prepared by individuals for personal use rather than for onsale. So people will still be able to prepare their own herbal remedies that have been passed down through the generations. We are pleased that the Government has committed to ensuring that the detailed regulatory work that will affect much of how the bill works in practice will be undertaken in consultation with both the industry and the public.

It has been an incredibly interesting experience for me working on this bill. I have really appreciated the advice from Ministry of Health officials, who have had to deal with numerous inquiries from the committee on various aspects of this bill as we sought to gain clarification around the boundaries of the different aspects. As part of our memorandum of understanding agreement, the Government has also agreed that the Green Party will be involved in every stage of the development of the regulations, and I am looking forward to being part of this process and working for the best possible outcomes for consumers and manufacturers alike.

I stand today on behalf of New Zealand First to support the Natural Health Products Bill. We are looking forward to the new title, the Natural Health and Supplementary Products Bill, because we believe that that far more accurately describes this bill. New Zealand First supports this bill, as it gives greater transparency to all New Zealand consumers of these particular products. Consumers need to have a clear understanding of what is actually in the product they are buying, and, of course, this needs to be listed on the label so that we can have some confidence in the product. This bill is about protecting consumers’ health, which is something New Zealand First strongly supports. We believe that this bill will give greater confidence to consumers when they go into the health food shop to make the choices that they believe will help them along the way.

It was good to work on this bill in the Health Committee, to have an input, and to see such a collegial, cross-party approach to the reviewing of this bill. So thank you, Dr Hutchison, Dr Blue, other committee members, and, of course, the officials, who came to the committee endlessly. It was through this process that New Zealand First moved forward with its support of the bill. We did have some second thoughts about this bill to begin with and lots of queries, but these were rectified as the select committee process actually went on. Despite this, we are still going to be keeping an eye on the implementation process to ensure that our concerns do not come to fruition.

As Dr Hutchison said, the Health Committee received many submissions on this particular bill—739, to be precise. As a committee, we considered each and every one of them, so it was quite a time-consuming process. Exporters and consumers welcomed the safeguards and the validation of a regulatory system. It was really important to their business. But, on the other hand, some were afraid that this would create costs and barriers for manufacturers of such low-risk products, and these were some of the concerns that we in New Zealand First also shared. It was actually great to see such a large input from members of the public. It shows democracy in full force, as many different groups had their own say on the bill, and they all had many different ideas, which helped construct a bill that will reflect their ideas as well. I think this can also be reflected in the cross-party support for the Natural Health Products Bill and the equal balance of the bill. So now the select committee is confident that the bill will provide consumers with the assurance that the natural health and supplementary products they buy are safe and true to their label. There may be, however, some issues that we overlooked at the select committee. I received a letter from a consumer who thought that we should tighten up some parts of the bill. I hope that that letter was sent to all members of the Health Committee to act on, and as the process continues I will be looking to see whether or not those concerns are actually met.

The Natural Health Products Regulatory Authority is going to be set up within the Ministry of Health, and we in New Zealand First are going to be very interested to see whether the best people will actually be hired for the job or whether the Government is going to hire its mates. We will be keeping an eye on that particular area. The authority is going to be in charge of administering the Act and its regulations, because all of those who wish to import or manufacture natural health products, or those who arrange to import natural health products, are going to need to have approval from this regulatory authority. It will be a relatively straightforward process and not as strict as many of the consumers thought that perhaps it might be. All applications will be recorded in an online register, and the database will contain approved regulators of the ingredients, claims and evidence of health benefits and of manufacturing standards, a list of prohibited ingredients, and the notification of new ingredients prior to marketing. Of course, this is going to be crucial in ensuring that the process runs smoothly. In New Zealand First we did hold some concerns regarding the online database. We are going to be keeping just a watchful eye over that, particularly as we are very aware that the Government has not had the best of luck with its computer systems running smoothly, and all of the recent examples sort of bring that to mind. So it is something—

💬 Dr Paul Hutchison: It’s coming right.

I am pleased that it is coming right. It is something that we will just be keeping an eye on, Dr Hutchison, to ensure that it does run smoothly.

There will also be the appointment of a technical advisory committee, which will be advising the authority on its decisions. We know that the members of the advisory committee will all be highly experienced. They must all have some knowledge and experience relating to natural health and supplementary products—and Dr Hutchison agrees with me. This gives us some confidence that those in charge of the bill, the people who are doing this regulating, actually know what they are doing. This should help the bill heaps.

In the past there have been lots of healthy supplements available in New Zealand that have not had a lot of products listed on the label or sometimes not even listed, and some of these products are totally unknown to many New Zealanders. Many have also contained little or no health benefit to the user, despite the fact that many consumers are led to believe by the advertising that they will be great for your health because they are natural and that we need them. On the other hand, some of these products have also been somewhat risky to consumers’ health, yet the current legislation has never ever made this well known and clear to the consumer, and we are pleased to see that the new legislation will actually help out on this point.

To illustrate the point, we were aware that there were recent cases of natural products that were imported into New Zealand from Asia that were popular and were claimed to be made from a plant growing in South-east Asia. Medsafe eventually discovered that this natural product contained mostly unnatural antibiotics. If at the time of this incident we had had the regulatory authority set up within the Ministry of Health, this product would more than likely never ever have made it into New Zealand and would not have had the opportunity to pose any potential harm to consumers. Also, consumers were led to believe that this product was going to be good for their health because it was an old wives’ tale.

💬 Dr Paul Hutchison: Very deceptive.

Yes. I think it is important to note that the bill does not impede practitioners from continuing to provide their services. This bill does not apply to any supplementary product that is made by a practitioner, because we are very aware that many New Zealanders will often choose to go to an alternative healer rather than to a medical practitioner.

New Zealand First will be supporting this bill, as it provides New Zealanders with greater transparency and confidence in knowing that the products they are buying are true to their label. It will ensure that New Zealanders are safe and that our products overseas are top quality, because we believe that an exporter-driven economy is absolutely paramount. Overseas buyers need to have confidence in these products. New Zealand First is very happy to support this bill.

The question was put that the amendments recommended by the Health Committee by majority be agreed to.