Wall LouisaLOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. I would like to start by just reminding the House of the title of this bill when it was first introduced. It was called the Financial Assistance for Live Organ Donors Bill and now it is called the Compensation for Live Organ Donors Bill. What I would like to do is to congratulate Chris Bishop because I know he sat on all the Health Committee hearings. I know that there were others involved in the Financial Assistance for Live Organ Donors Bill but actually Chris is responsible for the Compensation for Live Organ Donors Bill. That is actually a significant point and I want to acknowledge his leadership in working with the Health Committee. I think it is really important because other people have said that this has come from others but actually the bill that we have before us did not come from anyone else. It came from a lot of hard work and focus by the member in charge of the bill.I would like to reference a Stuff article I have just seen. It is dated 5 July 2014 and it had a lot of comments from a 27-year-old called Matt Heal who donated to his 68-year-old grandmother Sharon. Sharon was receiving dialysis and had been told that if she could not find a donor she was going to pass away. Matt put up his hand and he said—this is what was quoted in the article—that it was his good deed. He did not have any kids and this was an opportunity to pay back to his grandparents who had given him so much. But he noted that he was being paid $206.21 per week by Work and Income and that did not cover half of his mortgage. His grandparents assisted him through that process and that instigated Sharon writing to Minister Ryall who actually referenced a bill that Cam Calder had in the ballot. That was the Financial Assistance for Live Organ Donors Bill. It noted that the proposition of that bill was to pay 80 percent of a person's wage. So essentially it was about treating donors as having had an accident and going through our ACC system. As you can see from the iteration of the beginnings of that bill in the House today we have moved so far away from the proposition that this is an accidental relationship between a donor and the person who receives the donation. I actually want to talk about the relevance of this piece of legislation to different parts of our society and our community. I found some statistics from a discussion paper titled Ethnic cultural and religious differences in relation to deceased organ donation". In 2015 there were 442 people who needed an organ donation—who needed a kidney actually. Of those 170 were European. Europeans are 64.4 percent of our population and 38.5 percent of those needing a kidney. Māori—93 needed a kidney; 16.6 percent of the population and 21 percent of the people needing a kidney. Pacific—108 needed a kidney; 7.3 percent of the population and 24.4 percent of those needing a kidney. Asians—63 needed a kidney; 9 percent of the population or 14.3 percent of people needing a kidney. The "other" group was three people. They are 2.3 percent of the population and 0.7 percent needing a kidney.Corresponding to that were those who had actually donated. Of the 273 donations that were noted in that particular document Europeans were 218 80 percent of donors; Māori were 29 11 percent of donors; Pacific were 9 3 percent of donors; Asians were 10 3.5 percent of donors; and "other" were 7 or 2.5 percent. So the relevance of this piece of legislation to Māori and Pacific communities actually cannot be underestimated. I do not think we have really focused on that that this is a piece of legislation that is going to disproportionately provide I think better opportunities for our Māori and Pacific members of society.What is the relevance of that? Well kidney organ donation—in 2014 there were 139 kidney donations. Of those 72 were live donors or 52 percent. The reason I highlight these statistics is that I think they are really important now in engaging with our Māori and Pacific communities who disproportionately need these live kidney donations. I think by removing the financial barrier and the financial burden it is going to provide more opportunity for live donations from our Māori and Pacific communities. I think we are going to see a significant increase because a lot of the barrier has been financial. In fact the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons created an incentives workshop group in 2015 and that was their biggest finding: that the financial burden of organ donation was the biggest disincentive. So congratulations to the House; we have addressed that issue.The other thing that they highlighted though was that careful consideration and testing of potential financial incentives for organ donation should also have been considered. They estimated that out-of-pocket expenses averaged about $5000. That is for transportation lodging childcare and lost wages. We have not gone that far. I think that ethically compensating people is seen as the line in the sand but potentially that is something we should be keeping an eye out for in terms of its relevance.I am part of Diabetes Action Month so for the last 3 weeks I have been "stepping" every day to try—initially—to be part of a fitness challenge. I have managed to do that—that has become part of the finals week challenge. I am part of a group called the Diabetes NZ FitBit MoveMeant Challenge and I have got my Fitbit. At the moment I am averaging over 25000 steps a day. The reason that I put my hand up—actually with Minister Coleman Minister Lotu-Iiga and my colleague Jacinda Ardern—and said "Yes I want to be part of this issue." is that over 260000 New Zealanders have diabetes. That is a heck of a lot of New Zealanders—59 percent European and "other" 16 percent Māori 12 percent Pacific non-Indian Asian is 7 percent and then Indian is 6 percent. The relevance of those statistics actually replicates in some ways the relevance of this piece of legislation.What we have been trying to do is to highlight how we can address the issue of diabetes in New Zealand and the best way to mitigate diabetes is actually to get moving. It is to do your steps and do some exercise. What I have read just recently is an article in the British Medical Journal that says that after you eat you should walk for between 5 and 15 minutes. I think culturally some of our natural inclination is to eat and have a moe. Some people eat and have a cigarette but actually what we should be doing is eating and walking. If you eat and then walk for 5 to 15 minutes what it does—and maybe Mr Shane Reti can explain the biology. We have got to decrease the blood sugar level and the best way to do that is to get the body moving and processing the food that we have just eaten. I have actually changed my habits through doing this Fitbit challenge. Now after I eat I will walk for between 5 and 15 minutes. That is one of the things that I have now integrated into my routine. The other part of it is about making healthy choices. I would not normally do a commercial for a business but Pita Pit has joined Diabetes New Zealand and it is all about making healthy choices. Pita Pit now has a range of diabetic products so that when people go into their shop and want to eat better they actually have some guidance that says: "If you're a diabetic these are the best diabetic options for you." What I am hoping is that through pieces of legislation like this it is actually going to create a space for a lot more conversation about how we prevent needing donors in the first place. We want a healthy society we want a well society and we want people who have got information so they can make informed decisions about how they live their lives. My final mihi to the Diabetes New Zealand whānau is: thank you for all the work that you do. I really appreciate it because by involving me you have provided an opportunity for me to get some information and to actually change my life. Nō reira tēnā koutou katoa."