Turner Judy: Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures)  Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Turner Judy: Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures)  Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20552] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 It has been rather interesting to hear the debate today because we are talking about a bill that has three clauses. In fact it has only one clause of significance—the third clause—because the first is the title clause and the second is the commencement clause. The third clause covers the extension until 31 December next year of the expiry date of the moratorium relating to the controls on xenotransplantation procedures—which is what this bill is all about. 
United Future believes that scientific development is great. However it needs to occur within an ethical framework. Ethics do not apply just to medical procedures; they also have to apply to the research processes that enable us to get there. This is not a controversial piece of legislation despite what ACT and National tell the House. In fact we are asking for something that we as members of Parliament ask for all the time: an extension on a date. In select committee work we regularly ask to extend the period in which we can consider important issues. We may want to get in additional experts. We may want to retalk to submitters or call for further submissions. There are all sorts of reasons why we may feel that the time frame we have been given is not quite sufficient to do the job properly and we then apply for and get an extension from the House. That is exactly what this bill is about. It is an application to this House for an extension because those working at the coalface of this issue want more time. 
The Bioethics Council is well on task with the work it is doing. I am registered with the Bioethics Council. It sends me data on issues as they come up so that I have the opportunity to submit on an issue if I am interested. I have in my possession a letter from the Bioethics Council that I received on 3 March inviting me should I be interested to make a submission on this all-important area. The letter outlines 16 rounds of meetings—eight rounds of two meetings each—available to people who want to be part of the discussion at a community level on xenotransplantation. The last date on which one could participate in the second round of the last meeting was Wednesday 4 May in Auckland. 
Katherine Rich claimed that groups that wanted to have input did not have time to get their acts together and to participate in those discussions. I cannot see how that was the case as I received the letter on 3 March which must have been about the same time everybody else who was interested in this issue received it. The time frame they had was right through to 4 May which seems to me like plenty of time. 
I was also interested to hear ACT member Heather Roy kind of accusing those of us who support this extension of being party to fearmongering on this issue. Since when did caution turn into fearmongering? I think that caution on these matters is extremely important. 
I want to support two members who have taken a call today. One is Dianne Yates who—I suspect like no other member of this House—has devoted a huge amount of her time as a member of Parliament to issues of a bioethics nature. She has even travelled to Britain in respect of issues that she has been deeply concerned about. She has sponsored a member’s bill on this matter. Possibly Dr Paul Hutchison may come a close second. It was very interesting to hear Dianne Yates’ speech. 
I also commend Barbara Stewart from New Zealand First who gave a very well-researched speech who has really thought carefully about the issue and who sees that it is just a common-sense thing to extend this moratorium a bit longer. In fact the explanatory note states that the date that has been given 31 December 2006 can be extended by Order in Council if necessary. There is huge expectation that it may not have to go as far as 31 December 2006 because work is well on track in that regard. 
The other issue that comes up is about whether we trust scientists and whether by voting for this bill we are demonstrating some lack of trust in our scientific community. The truth is that ethical scientists do not want to work in some sort of unbridled environment. They also know that it is quite possible for their work to run ahead of ethical considerations. They understand and appreciate that the work done by organisations like the Bioethics Council—and even by members of Parliament on this matter—is work that is well done and that at the end of the day actually supports the progress of science. We must remember that it is not just what we achieve in medical science that is important but that it is also important to consider the means by which we get there. The means must be as ethical as the ends. 
I have a particular interest in this issue because I am at high risk of getting diabetes. There has been a lot of mention this afternoon that one of the wonder breakthroughs we are expecting should xenotransplantation be allowed to go ahead is in the area of diabetes. My grandfather was an insulin-dependent diabetic my mother is now an insulin-dependent diabetic and there are certainly signs in my life that if I do not manage my diet and do all sorts of other things then I am headed in that direction too. So I ask myself considering the fact that diabetes is a high risk for me whether I want unbridled scientific endeavour to rush ahead supposedly on my behalf and come up with some fairly interesting solutions to my problem—including the implantation of pig matter into my body—without testing them out. Let me tell members that although it is appalling to have to see my mother inject herself on a twice-daily basis I would rather if that were the outcome for my life end up doing that than be subject to some untried poorly-thought-through medical procedure that may do me a lot more harm than good. 
So United Future is very supportive of this extension. That is all it is. We congratulate members of the medical and scientific communities who work on this issue. We congratulate members of the bioethics community who are continuing to tease out all the issues around this. We are very happy to support this second reading.