Ardern Shane: Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures)  Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Ardern Shane: Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures)  Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20553] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 I rise to take a call in opposition to the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill. I do so on a range of grounds. The first one which I think is the most important is that this legislation is not entirely related to xenotransplantation. This bill provides for a moratorium on a range of other scientific experiments. The second point which has been put forward by a number of submitters to this debate so far is that xenotransplantation is relatively new and that it therefore needs to go through more rigorous science before it can be deemed safe. 
I have in front of me a bit of information that suggests that the first xenotransplantation took place in 1682 when part of a dog’s skull was transplanted into a Russian nobleman who had a fractured skull. It seems to me that this technology is not as new as some would have us believe. The reason it has not become a popular and regular event is as some have submitted because the human body generally rejects the transplantation and the person suffers because of the rejection. The body’s own immune system rejects the foreign matter that has been transplanted and that causes either death or some other kind of repercussion. 
There is a huge amount of scientific evidence going back over a long period of time that suggests that these procedures could be safe in some instances—that experimentation has already taken place. I know as will a number of other people in this House many people who have kidney problems and are on dialysis. They have to go for dialysis sometimes daily and it has a horrendous effect on their standard of living and general well-being. 
One person in particular said to me that he would love to be able to allow himself to go forward potentially as—I will not use the words “guinea pig” because we are talking about pig transplantation—somebody who could demonstrate to the wider world that this process has been tested on many occasions. In his view based on all the medical advice he has been given it would be a safe procedure that would give him an extended life and make his standard of living so much better. 
So why should we stand in Parliament today and debate legislation that extends a moratorium on his individual right to make that choice? Why should we do that? On what grounds? We do not have the science to back up the argument to extend the moratorium. It is just not there. There is no conclusive science that states that the procedure is unsafe and that we should not allow it to happen. Why should we do that? We do not have science that suggests that if it were to happen there would be some kind of horrendous repercussion such as the interspecies transplant of some disease. There is no science to back that up. 
Until we allow some of this procedure to take place—and I am not talking just about xenotransplantation there are others types of science that I think are being held back by the sort of Luddite approach that we have in this country—scientists will look at something that is a little bit off the wall and say: “No the regulatory framework that we have in New Zealand at the moment around this kind of stuff is so tough that we won’t bother going down the road of applying for funds or carrying out the science experimentation whether it be with animals or humans with the intent of advancing medical science.” 
I need to remind the House that this is a biological nation. In this country we depend by and large on our agricultural exports. It is on the back of science that we have been able to develop one of the most efficient industries in the world in our agricultural exports. So why do we seem to have now got to the stage where we are very cautious and introduce a legislative framework that goes beyond what most credible scientists would suggest is necessary particularly in this instance? 
I put this forward to the House and I ask Government members: “Why do you need to have another extension?”. They had a piece of legislation passed some time ago that introduced the moratorium. The suggestion at that stage by most who were involved in that debate was that at the end of that period there would be enough evidence to suggest that we would then be able to move on. Yet we are now here again today passing or about to pass I suspect based on those who have spoken legislation that will extend that moratorium out again and it is based on no science that I can find. So unless someone can take a call and prove that what I have said is wrong that is where I stand. 
The first successful organ xenotransplants were carried out in 1963. So I stress the point that this is not new. The reason it has not become more widespread as I said before is because of the difficulty that the medical fraternity has had in trying to find a way to stop the human body from rejecting the transplanted material whether it be a kidney a heart a liver or whatever it might be—and on this paper there are a number of other suggestions of potential organs but the kidney transplant is of course the one that is most spoken of at the moment in regard to xenotransplantation. 
Can I also refer to some of the debate that has gone on about the contrast between New Zealand’s criteria or regulation around this and what happens in Australia. Some have suggested that Australians have taken a very cautious approach to this and that at this stage they are not allowing the kind of development that may take place here if it is allowed to to go ahead. Well there is an interesting counter-argument to that and it is this. Most of the scientists who have exited New Zealand in recent times including those who were involved in the development of xenotransplantation have gone to Australia. Now one has to ask the question: if Australia’s regulatory framework is as tough as has been suggested here today why would one go there? What possible gain could there be? If New Zealand’s approach to science is as open as Australia’s why would one go from New Zealand to Australia if one were a scientist? Yet the evidence is overwhelming that that is what scientists have done. So that is a question that is unanswered for me. 
I can see some Ministers over there now. It is great to see the Minister of Police and I am sure he will be knowledgable on this. I look forward to him taking a call to explain to me why we have had a mass exodus of our best scientists in recent times to Australia when it has been asserted in the House here today that the Australian regulations are the same as ours and that that is the reason why we should not allow this experimentation to take place at this point in time. I am sure a Minister will answer that question. 
The other area I want to touch on is the fact that a large number of people in this country for whatever reason whether it be cultural religious or whatever will not be involved in xenotransplantation and that is their choice. But why should those who wish to not be involved in this transplantation? I refer back to my farming leader colleague from Taranaki—and I will not use his name because I have not asked him whether I can—who is desperately needing a kidney transplant at this point in time. He cannot find a suitable donor and is in a serious potentially life-threatening state of health. Why is he not allowed to be involved—because he wants to be—in what could be ground-breaking science that could solve his problem? 
I ask members of the House particularly Ministers who are involved in the various regulatory areas to find out the percentage of New Zealanders who put on their driving licence that they would be willing to become a donor in the case of a serious accident. They will find that the source of potential donors over the last 10 years for a range of reasons has declined. So what will we do? We know that we can extend people’s lives and certainly improve their quality of life by transplantation but we also know that the potential source of donors is drying up. What will we do about that? Extending a moratorium on something that may be potentially the answer to that problem in my view makes no sense at all.