Therapeutic Products Bill — First Reading

THERAPEUTIC PRODUCTS BILL

First Reading

Debate resumed from 13 December.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It's a privilege to rise and speak on behalf of the National Party in support of the Therapeutic Products Bill.

As this will be the last time I'll speak in the House for 2022, can I just wish you a merry Christmas. Enjoy a well-deserved break. Also to David Wilson the head Clerk of the House and everyone else who's helped make it a very good 2022.

This bill in the first reading today that will be passed by the end of the 12 speeches will give the public some homework to do over the summer break—especially if the public is interested in the Therapeutic Products Bill, they'll have an ability to make their submissions over the summer break. So it gives them a bit of homework. I've got a feeling this bill will provoke some response within the public. It's quite a big bill. It covers a range of areas. It's quite a substantial bill with 11 parts, four schedules, and over 432 pages.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Hard-working Government.

MATT DOOCEY: This is what the Leader of the House might call an omnibus bill. He would say that they've worked hard to get this bill into the House—on the last day, I might add. This is another bill that they're putting through on the last day, giving the public a lot of work over their hard-earned summer break. I'm not sure whether they want to break up the barbecue conversations. They're a bit worried about what the public is going to speak about over the barbecue, so they're trying to task them with a lot of work putting submissions in.

So for the public watching today, if they are interested in making a submission, this bill is about driving up the quality and the efficacy of our medicines. It's about driving up the quality and performance of medical devices and also the quality of our natural health products.

Now, for those who are avid watchers of the Therapeutic Products Bill, it does come into the House with a very long gestation period. We can track it all the way back to former health Ministers, like the Hon Jonathan Coleman, who kicked off a piece of work in this area in 2014, and, of course, the Hon David Clark, who also kicked off some of the preparatory work for this bill, that has arrived today, in 2018.

Chris Bishop: He started it, and now he's leaving.

MATT DOOCEY: He has started it, and he has signalled he will be leaving, but he will be here for another year, Mr Bishop, so he will see this bill being passed. But he, like others—I mean, Jamie Strange made it very clear he wasn't ready for opposition; he would much rather leave than go into opposition. He was better suited to Government than opposition, I think he said, so he's made his intentions clear that he won't be here to take the opposition benches in 10 months' time.

So this bill will replace the current Medicines Act 1981 and the Dietary Supplements Regulations 1985. Overall, it's a bill that's looking to modernise. The scheme will, of course, align with international best practice. We're not a country in isolation, even though we have felt that at times over the last year. The bill will also futureproof to ensure effective control over new technologies.

Look, I won't take up much more time of the House. We've got a few more things to do this afternoon before the House rises for the year, but I will encourage the many Kiwis who are interested in this very important bill around modernising for better devices, better medicines, and better natural products to make their submission over the summer break. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Associate Minister of Health): I'd like to congratulate my colleague Minister Andrew Little on bringing the Therapeutic Products Bill to the House. It has indeed been long in the gestation, as the member who's just returned to his seat, Matt Doocey, has mentioned. I think my first speech in relation to legislation in this House, or perhaps my second, was on the work we had to do to amend the Medicines Act to enable a provisional approval for the COVID-19 vaccine so that we could use it in the vaccine roll-out in 2021. I think that illustrates the first of four limitations of the Medicines Act that is addressed by this bill that I want to touch on.

The first is that we have no pathway in the Medicines Act to emergency or provisional approvals, and that is created through this bill. There are times in public health emergencies where there are—even though all medicines and medical devices need to be comprehensively assessed, in some emergencies, we'll need to act quickly and authorise products for immediate use. The harm of waiting for full data must be weighed against potential harm for expedited approval with appropriate safeguards in place, and I think this bill provides an avenue for doing that.

Secondly, I want to talk about the problem of surgical mesh and the suffering and pain that has caused for many people. That arises from the lack of an appropriate regulatory regime for medical devices, that is addressed by this bill. It also creates an avenue for post-market surveillance of devices that are implanted.

Thirdly, it allows for the regulation of innovative forms of medical technology, such as biologics that might be some of the—some used in tissue transplant; and others—for example, the procedure called chimeric antigen receptor T-cells transplant that's been developed at the Malaghan Institute here in Wellington. These types of biological innovation are really where medical technology is at, and the regulation and safe use of those is enabled by this bill.

And, fourthly, we sometimes have problems with rarely used medicines, and I was familiar with this problem in the area of tuberculosis medicine. We often had to use medicines that had come off patent and there was no pharmaceutical company willing to sponsor their passage through the regulatory process. There is an alternative means created by this bill.

So my congratulations to the Minister for finally bringing this important piece of legislation to the House. I commend this bill to the House.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I'm very proud to rise on behalf of the National Party and as the member of Parliament for North Shore in support of the Therapeutic Products Bill. I do want to use the opportunity to recognise the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman, former member of Parliament for Northcote, who kicked off this process in 2014. It is good to see that this bill is now in the House. So I acknowledge Minister Little and also the previous Minister of Health David Clark for their work to progress that.

As the prior speaker, the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall, had noted, this is a bill—and I recall we were on the Health Committee and that was very much on the agenda, but because of the COVID implications, obviously, prioritisation was moved to other areas. But it is pleasing to see that this is back in the House, and we are moving through this process.

I think it will bring significant benefit for a number of players across our sector in New Zealand, particularly in terms of the natural health products industry, which has been continually calling for reform in this space for a long time. I think it is clear that this bill will take and has taken on board, and will continue through the select committee process to take on board, feedback in terms of what is required in order to bring our system up to a standard which is considered best in class.

The inclusion around medical devices and also around gene and tissue therapies is also going to be a positive addition in terms of this, and I think that reflects the important role that medical devices play in, particularly, chronic illness management. That in itself will be a benefit for a number of Kiwis.

I'm looking forward to seeing the progression of this bill through the House and through to select committee. No doubt, there will be a large number of submissions in regards to this, and I'm looking forward to seeing this come back to the House in the new year, 2023, where we will be able to progress that through and move from there. On that basis, we commend this bill to the House.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana, Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to speak in support of the Therapeutic Products Bill, one that has a rather lengthy journey to this House. It will be the replacement for the Medicines Act 1981, which is over 14 years old, and associated regulations. There are a number of changes that are proposed in this bill, one of which is around labelling requirements to enable consumers to make informed choices when it comes to particular products.

Members have alluded to the fact that it's suggested that this bill will go to the Health Committee, which has had its final meeting of the year this afternoon. I know that it works extremely diligently and it looks forward to receiving this bill on its agenda. I commend this bill to the House.

Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE (Green): I rise on behalf of the Green Party to support the Therapeutic Products Bill. We note that this bill is intended to replace the current Medicines Act 1981 and the Dietary Supplements Regulations 1985 to provide for that comprehensive, risk-proportionate regulation of therapeutic products. As my colleagues have outlined, no doubt, this covers medicines made from biological components, gene therapies, and advanced cell and tissue therapies; medical devices that are software, production systems, whole organs, and tissue grafts; active pharmaceutical ingredients; and natural health products that are traditional and herbal medicines, and vitamin and mineral supplements—they're used by New Zealanders in every part of their life.

It'll be no surprise that I am a user of such products—shout-out to places like Commonsense Organics that stock quality products. I think this bill is quite important so that anybody who goes into any of these places knows that what they're buying is quality and that what is on the label and the effects that they are meant to have will be exactly what will happen. So we do hope with this bill that it will improve the health of all New Zealanders. Just making sure that the safety, the quality, and the efficacy or performance of those devices and medicines—everything is as it should be.

It's been a long time coming, this bill—over a decade of policy work. So shout-out to all of the officials who have worked over a long period of time to get this—and particularly the consultations that were held a few years ago. We know that there are significant gaps in coverage, and this will, I think, go a long way to overhauling these other pieces of law which do not reflect the world we live in today.

Now, the Green Party considers that decisions made relating to health should be made on the best evidence we have available, and this bill enables us to do that, to provide that framework so people can make the best decisions for them, for their personal health or that of their whānau. It looks like this will be a comprehensive and transparent regulatory regime, and we do note that this bill is considerably smaller and tighter than the original draft that went out for consultation a few years ago.

Now, most of the correspondence that I have received about this bill has been in the area of rongoā, that's holistic healing practices based on tikanga and mātauranga Māori. So that's our traditional, ancient knowledges based in our connection with the whenua, with the environment, and flora and fauna of Aotearoa.

Now, the Greens acknowledge the value of rongoā and affirm that iwi and hapū have intellectual property over that. So we know that there's no specific reference to rongoā in this bill—the regulation of natural health products will impact on it, and it will also capture ingredients which are used in rongoā, such as rākau plant-based remedies.

Now, Te Aka Whai Ora, our Māori Health Authority, as part of the consultation identified that they supported stronger Te Tiriti clauses in this bill, including references to the articles and the specific exclusion of rongoā in this bill. Te Puni Kōkiri, when they were consulted on this, supported that approach just because there's a long history of the Crown seeking to control and limit Māori culture, including mātauranga Māori that informs our rongoā practices.

So this was particularly disrupted by the Tohunga Suppression Act 1907, which criminalised tohunga practices, and it's just one of the many ways the Crown behaved in such a way that fuelled the distrust of Māori and further exacerbated the loss of mātauranga Māori. So we know that the Government will take some care in considering how rongoā is considered within and in relation to this bill, and I understand there's going to be further work and further consultation on this so that we can all support the sustainability of rongoā going forward.

The concerns, though, that were raised by rongoā practitioners about this bill were about limiting the tino rangatiratanga of tangata whenua over their taonga, possibly leading to a Treaty breach, but feeling that their voices hadn't been heard in this discussion and just worrying about the impact of the framing of this legislation and Crown enforcement on tikanga Māori.

As I conclude, I want to do a shout-out to the Aotearoa Rongoā Māori Collective Charitable Trust. They've set up a petition, which is on the Parliament website, to prevent rongoā Māori being monitored under this bill. It's been signed, so far, by over 4,700 people, and the purpose of this petition is, and I quote, "that the Crown keep its promise to tangata whenua to exercise tino rangatiratanga over their taonga as per Te Tiriti o Waitangi Article 2 … After the lifting of the Tohunga Suppression Act … we believe Maaori have exercised absolute sovereignty over traditional forms of iwi, hapu and whanau healing knowledge, spiritual rituals and ethical practices. In our view, the proposed therapeutic products regulatory regime denigrates Rongoaa Maaori."

Now they have spoken, we look forward to hearing from the wider community and the experts in this area, right across all of the issues that are being addressed by this bill, and just how this bill is going to affect them. So today, we support this bill this bill to select committee. I'm one of the members of the Health Committee, where I assume it will come, and I look forward to helping shepherd this bill through the House. Kia ora.

BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise this afternoon on behalf of my ACT Party colleagues in support of the first reading of the Therapeutic Products Bill, and we do so at the first reading to send the bill to select committee so that we can have proper scrutiny of this piece of legislation.

This bill is a huge piece of legislation. I believe it requires at least six months at the select committee, because if you look at it just in physical form, you can see how much it wants to change our regulatory and legislative environment. But I really want to stress the point that's raised in Part 1, that in the equivalent jurisdiction of Australia, where they have a regulator for medical products and all other therapeutic products, there are approximately 2,500 pages of secondary legislation plus regulations of 100 to 150 pages under each of the Australian State's Acts. So getting this bill right is crucial because it will lead to a huge regulatory compliance regime that will have flow-on effects for anybody involved in therapeutic products throughout New Zealand. So we need proper scrutiny of this new regulator through select committee.

We also need to make sure there is adequate time for submissions to be made. I don't want to see this being rushed through at any point. I want submitters to have a full submission process. There will be people shutting down for Christmas. There will be people who have been really stressed with COVID in the pharmacy and medical space and have been really under the pump for the last few years, and they will need a lot of time to actually look through this huge piece of legislation, get their thoughts on paper, submit them to the select committee, and then have adequate time to then come and put their voice to Parliament.

It's crucial that we get this right for everybody and not just the big players that you can expect to see come before the select committee. This touches on natural health products, people who might sell at their local farmers markets, people who might be involved in Chinese medicine in our community, people who might be involved in Rongoā Māori in our community. Everybody needs to know that this is actually happening and they have adequate time to come and submit, because it will change the way that people get their natural health products, all the way up to how you get your hip-joint replacement. So it's very, very important that we have adequate time to scrutinise this legislation.

So what does the bill actually want to do? Well, it's trying to get rid of the Medicines Act and the Dietary Supplements Regulations 1985 to put in place a comprehensive regulatory regime to regulate therapeutic products, which are medicines, medical devices, natural health products, and active pharmaceutical ingredients. That includes medicines made from biological components, gene therapies, and advanced cell and tissue therapies, all the way through to medical devices that are software, production systems, whole organs, and tissue grafts; and natural health products that are traditional and herbal in nature, and all vitamins and minerals supplements. And so, as you can see, it's extremely comprehensive and requires the full time of this House.

I believe, though, that it has missed a trick in one aspect. And we've already seen this play out in the media where the Minister of Health has acknowledged that while the Ministry of Health wanted to see pharmacy ownership regulations changed and liberated, the Minister has no desire to change pharmacy ownership and hasn't put that forward in this bill, even though the Ministry of Health said that it should be, because under the current status quo, pharmacists must own pharmacies. They have to have a majority share in a pharmacy. I don't think that's right. And the ACT Party doesn't believe that's right, because if you look at an equivalent in the medical space of general practice clinics, there is no requirement for a general practice clinic to be majority owned by a general practitioner or somebody with a medical licence. It is perfectly acceptable that you should be able to have the ability for a pharmacy to be owned commercially and operated by pharmacists in the same way that general practice clinics can be owned commercially and operated by general practitioners, and I think that's right. There needs to be more flexibility—because without that flexibility, we don't have innovation. And if we're having people in our communities wanting access to different forms of therapeutic products, we need to know that they are getting them in a way that works in their best interests. So I would hope that at select committee, we will have the ability to talk through that issue and have the pharmacists and other people involved in that industry have the ability to submit.

I also hope that at select committee, we go into depth on a couple of issues that have already been raised with me from people with concern in the industry, and that's the concern of natural justice. You see, this regulatory regime puts in place some pretty serious fines, some pretty serious infringements—up to $1,000,000 if somebody doesn't get it right. And there's the issue of natural justice. Now, people within the industry have asked that there is an ability for a discussion to be had, so that it's not that you have just unknowingly not met all your requirements and you have no ability to explain, and you're lumped with a huge, massive fine of $1,000,000 or five years' imprisonment when you didn't think that you were doing anything wrong, but that you have that ability to have a discussion with the regulator and say that you're sorry, you didn't realise that you had messed up, and you have an ability to make things right. So I think we need to go through that process at select committee and see whether or not there is natural justice in this bill.

The second one is advertising. This one has been a bit of concern because clause 193 talks about not allowing some forms of advertising, and it says, "(1) An advertisement for a therapeutic product means a communication made for the purpose of promoting the product. (2) A communication means a communication made in any way whatsoever (including, for example, by an individual in person, using a physical object, in print, or using any kind of information or communications technology)." And you're not allowed to communicate about therapeutic products that aren't regulated in New Zealand already, and the only people who have carve-out are the Ministry of Health, Medsafe, and Pharmac.

Now, if you think about it from the perspective of a patient advocacy group, what impact will this really have on them? I hope we can flesh this out in select committee. We can think of people who have been, in the last few years, advocating for Trikafta for cystic fibrosis. That hasn't been regulated in New Zealand. We can think of the different types of Spinraza medications or spinal muscular atrophy or ustekinumab for people with Crohn's disease and colitis. These types of medications weren't funded by Pharmac. Is it possible that people who're trying to advocate, for their own lives and their own children's lives, for drugs that have been regulated overseas and not yet in New Zealand to find themselves in breach because they're communicating and advertising for their right to have those drugs and products in New Zealand? I think we need to hear from the select committee and the Government that that won't be the case, because I don't believe that would be right.

The third thing is: whether the costs outweigh the benefits, and we need to make sure with any new regulatory body that we're not imposing such a heavy burden on anybody and, essentially, saying to them that they don't actually want to come to New Zealand and regulate their products here. In the case of some medical technology devices, there might be only a few that get sold in New Zealand, and we want to make sure that we're not putting in place such a burden that they decide to miss our market completely and that all New Zealanders miss out.

So, in conclusion, the ACT Party will be supporting this bill at the first reading, because we believe it needs a say. All New Zealanders need to have their voices heard, and I hope that we have an adequate time at select committee and, hopefully, more than six months.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to take a call as a member of the Health Committee, who will be happy to receive this Therapeutic Products Bill.

As we've heard, the bill replaces the Medicines Act 1981, which is an old bill that both industry and successive Governments have agreed is out of date and requires modernisation, mainly because it doesn't cover many of the products that we now use in modern healthcare delivery.

The bill also makes a clear distinction between natural health products and medicines, it establishes a regulator, and, interestingly, it enables a streamlined regime for clinical trials with greater emphasis on safety and efficacy oversight without increasing administration burden. That is good. This bill is good. I commend this bill to the House.

SPEAKER: This is a split call. I call Nicola Grigg—five minutes.

NICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise along with my colleagues in support of the Therapeutic Products Bill. It is important, we think, to modernise legislation as technology and science evolves to match, and, in this case, we have seen the evolution of modern medicines, medical products and devices and, indeed, practices over the decades. And, as has been pointed out, the current regulatory environment is only one year younger than I am, which is significant. So it is indeed time for it to be updated, particularly with the advent and, indeed, the rise of modern therapeutic products and, indeed, natural products.

A lot has been said about around the intention of this new legislation, in that it aims to provide New Zealanders with assurances that they can be guaranteed the quality and safety and efficacy of whatever the product is that they are using or is being used on them. The bill also intends to regulate how the products are manufactured, how they are tested, how they're imported, and how they're promoted and supplied and also exported. Because we know that the nutraceutical industry, particularly here in New Zealand, is a hugely growing industry and has the potential to become a large export earner for us.

I do look forward to hearing the report back from the select committee as it teases out these issues. We hope that whatever is reported back to the Parliament will align with international best practice and will be futureproofed to continue to evolve with those emerging and new technologies and medicines that I mentioned at the outset. Importantly, this bill aims to help deliver health outcomes for New Zealanders and, of course, to ensure consumer safety and to ensure consumer trust in those products. And with that, I commend this bill to the House.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to take a short call on the Therapeutic Products Bill. As a member of the Health Committee, I look forward to receiving the bill so that we are able to have our deliberations.

The Therapeutic Products Bill is intended to replace the Medicines Act 1981 and the Dietary Supplements Regulations 1985 to provide for comprehensive risk-proportionate medicines, medical devices, natural health products, and active pharmaceutical ingredients.

We understand and look forward to the changes that are being proposed and specifically for the public to make informed choices around labelling. We do look forward to hearing best-practice safety, technology, and innovation. To that, I commend this bill to the House.

Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini): Fa'afetai lava, Mr Speaker. I rise as the MP for Takanini in support of the first reading of the Therapeutic Products Bill, and also as a member who has grown up in my South Auckland garage contemplating with my brothers how we're going to make a difference in our community. This bill will make a difference, and so I am quite happy—I pay homage to my South Auckland garage.

So, as a clinician that still prescribes, I'm happy to see this long overdue bill come to the House. Medicines, medical devices, and natural health products need better regulation and a modernised legislation to sit on.

So, on that note, before I close, I just want to wish everyone a merry Christmas—manuia le Kerisimasi ma le tausaga fou. I commend this bill to the House.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Tēnā koe e te Pīka.

SPEAKER: Are you taking a point of order?

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER: No, I was wanting to take a call.

SPEAKER: That call has already been taken. However, it's not too late to organise—

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Chief Whip—Labour): Point of order. I seek leave for the Māori Party to be given an additional call.

SPEAKER: No. Well—

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): The Labour Party still has one call. So I suggest the Māori Party picks that up.

SPEAKER: That is the only way that that can happen. So—

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Point of order. I'm happy to indicate the Labour Party will split its last call and we're happy to offer half of it to the Māori Party.

SPEAKER: OK. I call Penny Simmonds.

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak in support of the Therapeutic Products Bill. Many speakers before me have said that this bill has had a long and somewhat tortuous gestation period spanning not just years but, in fact, decades. I congratulate the Minister on his fortitude in tackling the matter. I know it's not going to be an easy one for him, nor will it be an easy task for the Health Committee, because, as we know, there will be great public interest in this.

I was in the Health Committee when Todd Muller's sunscreen bill went through, and, at that time, there was, of course, much discussion and much anticipation of this wider Therapeutic Products Bill. So I'm pleased to be able to speak on it at this, its first reading.

The bill, of course, will regulate how products are manufactured, tested, imported, promoted, supplied, and exported. So this legislation will aim to provide New Zealanders with assurances that they can expect about the quality, safety, and efficacy of the therapeutic products.

New Zealand has come late to this, so we will have the benefit of being able to align with international best practice. Of course, the assurance of the safety of products that we use in any form of healthcare is incredibly important to the consumer. Natural health products, as the Minister has said, will be included under this bill to ensure that consumers have the information they need to make those informed decisions when purchasing and using those products. Natural products are not risk-free, and it's important that, although they are lower risk than medicines, they are regulated and people can have assurances about their safety, assurances that the products contain safe ingredients at a safe dose, and assurances that the products are not contaminated and product information is clear and recommended doses are clear and that any health claims that might be made about natural health products can in fact be based on evidence.

So New Zealanders are likely to have a strong interest in the matters that are covered by this bill, and I look forward to how the Health Committee negotiates through the submissions, and I look forward to seeing the bill back in the House. The National Party, of course, supports this Therapeutic Products Bill. Thank you.

SPEAKER: This is a split call. I call Debbie Ngarewa-Packer—five minutes.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Tēnā koe. Tēnā koe e te Māngai, tēnā tātou e te Whare. Ngā mihi kei a koutou mō te tautoko.

[Greetings, Mr Speaker, and greetings to you all in the House. I want to acknowledge you all for your support.]

We stand to rise to speak to the first reading of the Therapeutic Products Bill. Te Paati Māori opposes this bill as it currently is and has concerns, mainly because of the failing, to date, to engage with tangata whenua, particularly, in any meaningful way. We have concerns that the regulation of the rongoā poses huge risk to the protection and restoration of mātauranga Māori and would remove the powerful decisions relating to rongoā from whānau, hapū, and iwi perspectives to the State.

We've been contacted by many of our people over recent months who also are deeply concerned with these reforms and have communicated that to the Government, yet they feel they've failed to listen. Rongoā Māori is a Tiriti-protected taonga. Despite this, aside from requiring the regulator to have the capacity and capability to give effect to the principles of the Treaty, there are no other Tiriti protections in this legislation. If Māori rights under the Tiriti were being acknowledged and reflected in this process, then engagement with tangata whenua could have and should have occurred before the bill was introduced to Parliament, and this would be reflected by Treaty-based protections in the bill.

Minister Little's press release suggests this bill is the result of 10 years of work and a work programme in Government, and yet they've failed to work with tangata whenua on rongoā regulations. This was followed up with another press release from Minister Henare announcing a process to consult with Māori during the summer, while people won't even be paying attention, and told people to submit at select committee.

This only shows that the Government failed to do anything about rongoā until right before this bill being introduced. While we are open to discussions about protecting rongoā through regulation, this needs to be driven by tangata whenua, including rongoā practitioners, kaimahi, or those who have the active consent of our people, at the very least. This bill doesn't protect rongoā at all, but brings civil and criminal penalties into practice, which concerns us. The Crown, from our perspective, has ignored its Treaty partner in this way, which creates, sadly, mistrust amongst our people. It's 2022—nearly 2023. We have the largest Māori caucus ever in Government. We have a Māori Crown Relations unit, and we've had outrage communicated by our people.

So what we want to do is make sure that we have more emphasis on the engagement. There is room to make these amendments, and we do call on this bill to be withdrawn, and, certainly the Order Paper to go back to the drawing board, and to listen to and learn from those who are the tohunga and the experts of rongoā, and I'm not too sure that many of us can take that claim.

So Te Paati Māori, again, don't support this bill, and we encourage that it's changed to protect rongoā Māori, and, most importantly, its tohunga and practitioners. Kia ora koutou.

SPEAKER: I call Sarah Pallett—five minutes.

SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise for the final time this year in support of the Therapeutic Products Bill, and, as a member of the Health Committee, I am eagerly anticipating the many submissions that we will be receiving. I am looking forward to hearing in great detail from tāngata whenua, who will be able to guide us so that we can support and protect rongoā, as we have indicated is the intention of the committee and of this House.

Before I end for the year, I would just like to take this opportunity to thank the Health Committee for its hard work through the year. Across the House, it's been a collegial and hard-working team. But I'd also like to thank the people who don't so often get thanked: our clerks and officials and advisers; everybody who works with us here in the House: Ivan, Peter, Jenny, and the team; and the press gallery, who work so hard. And I would like to wish you, Mr Speaker, a very happy Christmas, and hope that everybody here has a restful, rejuvenating break this year. I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Therapeutic Products Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 117

New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 2

Te Paati Māori 2.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

SPEAKER: The question is, That the Therapeutic Products Bill be considered by the Health Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Health Committee.