Hutchison Paul: Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures)  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures)  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20592] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 The Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill is an indictment on the Labour Government and its approach to science. I note that in effect the bill extends the moratorium on xenotransplantation in New Zealand until 31 December 2006 and allows that date to be extended by Order in Council if necessary. That is what is being said. 
There is no doubt that a moratorium is a very crude and unthinking approach to science. I note that the Ministry of Health’s report to the Health Committee stated that in February 2002 the Government identified biotechnology as a growth sector for New Zealand in its growth and innovation framework. Here we have an unthinking Labour Government that has basically demonstrated in its attitude towards science that it has been coerced by the Greens to take an approach that is not evidence-based. That is a huge worry. 
I note that the report of the Health Committee—I was not present at the time but my views were well known—signed by the chairperson Steve Chadwick states: “We resolved to call for public submissions on this bill as we considered that the bill content was straightforward and uncontroversial.” That does not reflect the views of the National Party. The bill’s content certainly is controversial. For the chairperson of the select committee to state without reference to other members of the committee that it is uncontroversial is absolutely inappropriate. 
The report goes on to state: “Some of us consider that certain organisations should have been consulted on this issue”. I made a specific request in writing that there be consultation with the scientific community. There are members of the scientific community who are particularly interested in progressing xenotransplantation in New Zealand but who have been prevented by this Labour Government from doing so. 
The report goes on to state: “Others of us would prefer to see the outcome of the consultation being undertaken by Toi te Taiao: the Bioethics Council before considering detailed legislation in this area.” We know that Toi te Taiao is indeed wending its way at snail’s pace through its considerations of xenotransplantation. One of the things that worry me greatly about Toi te Taiao is that it does not seem to have a sense of time in terms of the rapid rate at which biotechnology is progressing throughout the world. It is absolutely impractical to think that a moratorium in little old New Zealand will in any way affect what is going on around the rest of the world. 
I note that the ministry in its submission to the Health Committee went through the situation in various countries and what they are doing. Australia may have taken a Luddite approach just like that of the Labour Government of New Zealand but Canada has certainly taken a far more progressive view. Public consultation on xenotransplantation has occurred there and Canada’s view is that xenotransplantation should be progressed on a case by case basis according to the merits of each case. The United Kingdom Xenotransplantation Interim Regulatory Authority which was established in May 1997 has taken the stance that the authority reviews applications for clinical trials on a case by case basis. 
Here in New Zealand however the Labour Government has taken the easy way out. It has been coerced by the Greens and has put in place a blanket unthinking moratorium while at the same time it goes on with the rhetoric that the biotechnology industry in New Zealand is very important for our economy. We do know that there has been one— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Before I call the next speaker I note that the previous speaker was not really talking about the title. He was talking more about the bill as a whole. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: The debate isn’t on the title is it? It is on the part. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: It is on clause 1 the title. Because members have been used to having wide-ranging debates on title clauses I did not really want to interrupt the member’s speech to point that out. But if members so wish they can have a wide-ranging debate and put the bill as one question. Is that what members want?