Therapeutic Products Act Repeal Bill

Members, we now come to our final debate—clauses 1 and 2. This is the debate on the title and commencement.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for foreshadowing earlier that I have an amendment in relation to this part of the debate. There could be one around the actual title of the bill. Often, as we all know—well, not often; the title should always be what it appears to do, and I guess you could say that this is a repeal bill; it simply does that. It might be that others might consider that there needs to be something in brackets to, effectively, sense the trigger for the reason for the appeal, and there would be plenty of options there. When I reflect on some of the contributions that have been made and what it will mean—i.e., perhaps “(Not Taking Community Health Seriously)”, “(Delivering for Those That We’d Like to Deliver for)”.

I have an Amendment Paper which is related to clause 2, which is the commencement clause. As we see currently, it is proposed that this repeal bill will come into force on the day after Royal assent. If Royal assent is received today, or whether it’s received perhaps next week, it’ll kick in thereafter. What I am suggesting is that the words “on the day” be replaced with “12 months”. This gives a 12-month window for the Government to think about the potential implications of this particular bill.

The Minister has talked about the fact that, yes, there is a little bit of work that’s happening, but there’s not much really to be gained in delaying the Royal assent for this. We on this side, certainly in Labour, disagree. By providing a 12-month window to allow for some of the issues to be worked through—when I reflect on some of the issues around surgical mesh and other medical devices, particularly those that are unregulated, a lot can happen in 12 months. This could—if this amendment is adopted or agreed upon—lend itself alongside a suite of work that the Government might be doing to ensure that any changes are not just timely but are able to take into account any changes in innovation and technology.

Firstly, I’d be interested in the Associate Minister of Health’s thoughts around that. I really don’t see how this could—I know that sometimes when you look at a longer period of time, you could talk about that creating a bit of a delay. Well, when this already has implications listed in the principal Act to come in in late 2026, a 12-month period—even if Royal assent is given at the end of this calendar year—it would still be the end of 2025. That still provides a lot of time leading into the 2026 calendar year for the Minister to perhaps think about how that might work. Now, it might be that the Minister believes that the Royal assent, once given—that this should just come in, because it does provide a different time frame, but we’d be interested to hear from the Minister around why a one-year period would be unsatisfactory in this context.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the member Tangi Utikere for his amendment. Unfortunately, the 12-month delay would mean that we wouldn’t be able to implement the dietary supplement lift and shift into the new Food Act, and I think that the opportunity for that sector to develop their export markets and respond would be highly disappointing for no real benefit. As we’ve said, the repeal is about providing some clarity in the work programme ahead. I see no benefit, so won’t be supporting the amendment.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to first, again, check in with the Associate Minister of Health—and I know that the Minister talks about commencement date, and we also support our colleague Tangi Utikere’s amendment around some of the delay.

Hearing from what the Minister is saying, I wondered if the Minister would consider, for example, putting in a delay around the commencement date for the bill itself but then separating out in saying that clauses 4 to 6 could be coming into effect after Royal assent, if the amendment 239 from the Minister is a genuine concern from a natural health product perspective and from an export perspective. I wondered if, then, the Minister, let’s say, would make that kind of adjustment—and I don’t know if Tangi Utikere, our colleague, would be open to that, having those two being separated out. Again, I think the Minister is looking at two—we can possibly have both and look at two separate issues, one in terms of export; one in terms of the reassurance from medical products and also a pharmaceutical perspective.

Just coming to the title of the bill, I think, in terms of the title—and we hear from the Minister what the Minister is trying to get at with this bill—it generally does provide uncertainty for us to see this bill being dropped at this particular moment without a clear steer of where we’re going as we’re discussing this committee stage. I wondered if the Minister would be open to considering this to be the “Therapeutic Products Act Repeal Delay Bill”, just because we are seeing that delay in the process.

Also, I really want to round up what the Minister’s saying in terms of Amendment Paper 239, and particularly in the context of exports. I think for me, as the Green Party’s trade spokesperson, it also brings a different level of concern, which is the concern that we’re seeing with the US Food and Drug Administration and also potential non-barrier tariffs or additional sanctions if we don’t have a particularly tight or up-to-date amendment when it comes to exports of our products. Would the Minister then consider the title of this bill as the “Therapeutic Products Act Repeal (but Potentially Creating Sanctions on Export) Bill 2024”?

I move, That debate on this question now close.

One more. Last one, but make it relevant and quick.

And quick? Well, I’ve got four minutes and 55 seconds of relevance that I’m happy to share with the Parliament. Madam Chair, thank you.

Look, I take the point that my colleague Dr Xu-Nan has raised, and I’ll be very open to making those changes if he is aligned to support that. The 12-month time period that I’ve identified—I have heard what the Associate Minister of Health the Hon Casey Costello has said, but I do think that there are significant considerations. The Minister has talked about the implications for international—what’s the word; not “negotiations”—obligations that exist, particularly in the health supplement or dietary supplement sort of frame. I invite the Minister to reflect on the consideration of all the other changes that are impacted.

I accept what the Minister has said in her response—that there are international considerations there—but, Minister, surely that needs to also be weighed up against all of the other things that, effectively, you are gutting as a result of this repeal bill through the Parliament? The commencement is very important, in terms of when it comes in. I don’t know whether my colleague from the Greens wants to initiate that particular change or not. If he has, I’m happy to support that; if not, well, then we’ll stand where we are with the original Amendment Paper, but I do invite the Minister to reflect on not just the international obligations and commitments but all of those other things that are also important as well.

I note that there have been no other contributions and the Minister has not responded to the title. My question to the Minister when it comes to clause 1, which it the title clause—I know I had identified a few options there. My question to the Minister is: is she satisfied that the title as currently provided for, the Therapeutic Products Act Repeal Bill, is an accurate title for this bill? We haven’t heard from her around that. It might be that her view is that simply calling it a repeal bill is appropriate. In light of that, though, has she thought about the various contributions that have been made in the committee today, and, if so, has she perhaps changed her mind and would she like to consider a different title? We haven’t heard from the Minister around this.

It might be that she is somewhat persuaded by the comments and submissions that have been made by members of the committee; if not, well, then we’ll hear that, but I don’t think there are any other Amendment Papers on there. Madam Chair, I thank you for your kindness in allowing me to take a call—not exhausting all of my time allocation.

Ha, ha! Sorry, I just think it’s worth clarifying, because the previous member talked a lot about international obligations and I have, at no point, talked about international obligations. What I have talked about is international opportunities for New Zealand’s market. I think that’s the consideration here. I just wanted to get some balance into that commentary: that this is about creating opportunity for New Zealand’s export market, and that’s the reason for it.

The question is—

💬 Tangi Utikere: Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I just started voting.

💬 Tangi Utikere: No, but there were members seeking the call.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Carlos Cheung.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that Tangi Utikere’s tabled amendment to clause 2 to replace the words “on the day” with “12 months” be agreed to.

The question is that clause 2 be agreed to.

Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Therapeutic Products Act Repeal Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

The Therapeutic Products Act Repeal Bill is set down for third reading immediately.

Third Reading