Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures)  Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures)  Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19758] 
Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures)  Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I move  
That the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I will move that the bill be referred to the Health Committee for consideration that the committee present its final report on or before 28 May 2005 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 191 and 194(1)(b) and (c). 
 Xenotransplantation is the implantation of living biological material from animals into humans. The Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill extends the period of the current controls on xenotransplantation until 31 December 2006 with the ability for this state to be extended by Order in Council if necessary. The current controls were introduced in response to concerns about the potential of threats of xenotransplants transmitting new infections to recipients and to the wider community; the adequacy of regulatory review processes; and the cultural social and ethical issues associated with xenotransplantation. The current controls allow xenotransplantation trials to be considered and approved by the Minister of Health but require strict criteria to be met before an approval is given. No applications have been made to the Minister of Health under the current provisions. 
Without this bill the existing additional controls on xenotransplantation will end on 30 June 2005 with the expiry of Part 7A of the Medicines Act. After this state the scientific and ethical oversight will return to the controls utilised for clinical trials of medicines contained in section 30 of the Medicines Act. Section 30 controls were previously identified as being inadequate and despite further information on xenotransplantation being published I am advised there is still a need for additional oversight of this controversial emerging technology. 
Existing controls cannot be extended further under existing legislation hence the need for this bill. Ongoing controls are needed on xenotransplantation because it is still only an experimental technique. It is unclear whether this technique would be successful within humans. There is also a risk of transmitting viruses from animals to humans. There are only a small number of animal or human studies of possible efficacy and it is far from clear whether a transplanted animal organ would function properly in a human. 
Evidence indicates that xenotransplantation may be associated with an increased risk of transmission of a wide range of viral bacterial and other infections known to occur in the sourced animals. There is a theoretical risk that xenotransplantation could increase the risk of new infections jumping the species barrier from animals to humans. In view of concerns about the safety and efficacy of xenotransplantation similar jurisdictions—including Australia Canada and the UK—have stringent controls on xenotransplantation. To my knowledge there are currently no clinical trials under way in those countries. In December 2004 the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council announced a 5-year moratorium on clinical trials of xenotransplantation. New Zealand would be going out on a limb if we allowed these controls to lapse. I commend this bill to the House. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this very important bill the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill. 
Opposition Members 
: This is the next Minister of Health! 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Those members are absolutely right. This bill is a serious indictment on this Labour Government’s integrity and its attitude towards science. In essence this bill is the continuation of a blunt instrument that the Labour Government put on science in order to stop xenotransplantation in New Zealand back in 2001—now the Government wants to continue it until 2006. 
This bill is a serious indictment on Labour. The Prime Minister her health Minister and her science Minister all say they are committed to science and are committed to economic growth. We have a classic situation in which they have said: “Let’s focus on biotechnology as one of the main strands of economic growth in New Zealand.” yet they have created in this country some of the most difficult hurdles to the carrying out of biotechnology in the Western World. 
We know that the Government’s own biotechnology task force has said exactly that—that the regulatory regime in New Zealand is very difficult and that it is forcing top New Zealand scientists to do their work overseas or to leave. I shall give two examples. The first is the Huntington’s chorea trial that was basically founded at the Auckland School of Medicine. The reason it did not continue in New Zealand was that it cost too much and would take too long. Consequently it has gone to Adelaide. That is a tragedy for New Zealand science a tragedy for New Zealand biotechnology. 
It is hugely important to have a complement of scientists in New Zealand who are capable in the new genetics. If we do not we will not even recognise the problems until they have got here and an example of that scenario was the varroa bee mite. We had only one bee scientist at the time and the disease was endemic in New Zealand before it was recognised. It is vital that we have a complement of scientists who are competent and capable in the various biotechnology techniques involved with genetics in order to be able to pick up on things at the time and also to be able to use the huge power of the new genetics and genomics to the betterment of New Zealand. 
There is no doubt that in areas such as agriculture and horticulture it is vital but also it is vital in the area of medicine. Yet we have seen this Government putting on a blanket stop using the crudest and only method it knows—that is a moratorium. In the order of six cases of xenotransplantation have been carried out in New Zealand until the abrupt stop was put to it by Labour and the Greens. I note that there was an application going through the process—a fairly stiff regulatory process that we had in New Zealand at the time—but it was turned down by an amendment of this Labour Government. As it turned out Mai Chen a very well-known lawyer and a submitter to the select committee at the time believed that the Supplementary Order Paper brought in by this Government was literally a constitutional outrage. The firm Diatranz did not even have the opportunity to have its application heard. 
It is extraordinary that only last week it was revealed in the newspapers that one of the individuals who had a transplant of pig islet cells intra-abdominally by way of laparoscope had of his own volition a further laparoscopy in February this year. It was fascinating to hear that the islet cells were still producing insulin. He was thrilled by it. The scientific community was thrilled by it but it has been deeply disturbed by the fact that right around the world other such cases have been replicated and are showing huge promise. The major problem this Government was worried about was the pig endogenous retrovirus which is inherent in the line of cells that was being used. We heard last week in Parliament through the Royal Society lectures on science that there is now a pig islet cell strain that is free of the retrovirus giving huge hope for this area. We also heard from Dr Bruce Scoggins the chief executive officer of the Health Research Council of New Zealand. He now says that there is undoubtedly a place for xenotransplantation in New Zealand. There is no reason why we should not at least have the opportunity for people to apply for xenotransplantation experiments in New Zealand where we do have a very rigorous regulatory regime so that at least we can get in place the decision as to whether the risk management is appropriate. But this Government has said that it is not interested in science; it will just put down a blank blunt instrument. I can see members of the Government over there shaking their heads. 
This is the Government that says it is interested in economic growth in biotechnology and in moving New Zealand along—and what does it do? It puts in place massive hurdles that have prohibited progress in one of the most potentially important areas for New Zealand and the recent Huntington’s chorea trail is not the only example of that. There was—I think it was in 2001—the AgResearch application for transgenic cows. That in itself cost AgResearch something like $600000 and took 2 years before it was finally able to get on with it. Again the Government has unnecessarily placed a huge inherent hurdle on New Zealand science almost certainly because it has listened to the Greens taken notice and taken an absolutely Luddite approach to an area that is so important for New Zealand. 
There is no doubt that the technology here is innovative clever and can be used for a whole variety of reasons. There is no doubt that New Zealand should be at the forefront of this sort of innovative clever biotechnology. The very wrong thing to do is to put in a moratorium. One would hope that any Government that professes to be interested in the knowledge economy would at least put in place a regime whereby any applicant can go through a rigorous risk management process and then have the experts decide—not politicians such as this Labour Government has produced—whether this very important technology can occur in New Zealand. 
What happened to Diatranz? It had to go offshore—it literally went to Australia. I accept the fact that the Australians have also had a somewhat Luddite approach to their regulatory regime in this particular instance. But in a vast variety of other areas their regime around biotechnology and genomic research is much more enlightened than what we have seen under this Labour Government. That is why many of our scientists are going over there. That is why the Huntington’s chorea trial has gone to Adelaide and that is why I am saying that this particular moratorium is totally unnecessary and an indictment on the Labour Government. 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak on this bill. I am appalled actually at the rather arrogant attitude of the Opposition spokesman on health. The moratorium in this bill is very clear. If the member had listened to the Minister he would know that the provisions that allow for the extension of the moratorium for 1 year are for two reasons—and the member needs to listen to this. The provisions here for xenotransplantation will be covered under the Human Tissue Bill which is yet to be referred to the Health Committee. Also we want to conclude the consultation from the Bioethics Council. It is for those two reasons alone that we seek an extension to the current moratorium. 
I support this bill and I know that the member for the Opposition realises that it was incredibly important that we set up the Bioethics Council. It would be disgusting to pre-empt any decision just because they are scientists and just because this technology is sorely needed and not go through the consultation under the Bioethics Council. We are a Government that is prepared to wait. The scientific research is going on overseas and for that reason I support this bill. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of New Zealand First. We have had a very interesting debate from all parties. As far New Zealand First is concerned we will support the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill going to the Health Committee. Quite obviously a high-powered debate is being undertaken at technological levels. We recognise that biotechnology is one of the most important economic aspects for New Zealand’s future and we must be involved in the biotechnology economy. 
This is a relatively short bill and the matter can be considered by the select committee relatively quickly. We look forward to all those interested parties making submissions to the select committee and New Zealand First will take note of what they have to say. So in the meantime we support the bill going to the select committee. 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 The National Party as my colleague said will not support the bill because we do not see the need for a moratorium. We believe that we already know a lot about the science and that this is a very blunt attempt to hold back the sea. The Government can pretend all it likes to be King Canute but science will continue to progress and to provide solutions for many New Zealand families that are waiting for xenotransplantation technologies to be developed and to be available here. 
We have seen Willie Terpstra and her family go offshore to get the treatment she could not get here. Many New Zealanders watched that story and saw how much that technology made a difference to that New Zealander’s life. Who are we to stand in the way of that? Four members of my family have been on renal dialysis. Three of them have had transplants and one is currently waiting for a transplant. I can tell members on the Government side of the House that if the technology existed to transplant a pig kidney a baboon kidney or any kind of kidney that would keep my family member alive and off renal dialysis then that would be fine by me. 
We need to remember the human face of this argument. Labour can pontificate about the cultural issues and sensitivities yet people are waiting for life-changing treatments. We need to trust the scientists who are very careful sensible and ethical in the work that they have done and are doing. We know that the moratorium will not stop the work being done. It will just send our scientists offshore so that the work can be done there. Is it any wonder that we are seeing a brain drain of scientists right now? There are simply too many hurdles and barriers in their way when it comes to New Zealand science to do leading-edge work. There is no logic behind this decision. There is no reasoning or detailed scientific analysis for the extension of this moratorium. In fact there is no indication that it will work at all except to shut down an area of work and opportunity in New Zealand when a lot of New Zealand families are waiting for the technologies that can arise as a result of this kind of work. 
It was interesting to hear the member opposite talk about arrogance. I think it is arrogance to stand in the way of some life-saving technologies that can make a difference to some New Zealanders’ lives. Unless one is in that situation and really knows what it is like to face those sorts of family difficulties one does not know what one is talking about when pontificating about cultural sensitivities. 
I have had a look at some of the work put out by the Bioethics Council and I have to say that it is an absolute load of tripe. Constituents of mine have been involved in the consultation process in Dunedin and have been subjected to handholding exercises where people ask questions about what happens if someone takes on a pig kidney and suddenly starts to behave like a pig. That is absolute rubbish. There is no scientific base to that sort of discussion. There is no knowledge or detailed understanding of this extremely high-tech scientific area. 
So I think that holding back the tide here does not do the best for New Zealanders. It does not do the best for the many Kiwi families who are waiting for all sorts of solutions to very many debilitating diseases and health conditions that keep people from living full and active lives. It is very easy I think for the Government to bring up some basically extremely spurious reasons why this moratorium should be continued but there is no logic to it. There is no reason or scientific base. I do not think the Government has listened to a lot of the groups—the patients and the families—who are waiting for some of these lifesaving techniques and technologies. 
I worry that so many of our best scientists are going offshore. There are a lot of areas where one cannot do leading-edge research now because of the regulations and hurdles that have been put in place. The scientists in those areas have brains that are easily exportable. They can go offshore and get better salaries and greater continuity in their incomes and careers rather than stay here and see artificial barriers put in place that disallow them from doing good scientific work. I do not think there are any mad scientists in New Zealand. There is a group of scientists who want to do some studies in an area that I think will make a huge difference to the lives of a lot of New Zealanders. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: A lot of them are under stress though. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: My colleague says that some are under stress. That is no surprise. I think some members opposite wish that John Tamihere would be xenotransplanted into another party. But as he says that he will die a Labour man despite apparently humbling himself before the caucus today—although he does not retract any of his comments—it seems that that will not be the case either so they should think about putting a moratorium on John Tamihere. That might do them a better service than trying to put up artificial barriers that will just cause loss of life and remove opportunities for New Zealanders to have access to some of these technologies that will make a difference to their lives. 
Darren Hughes 
: Is this the same woman who got sacked? 
KATHERINE RICH 
: Until Darren Hughes faces a parent on dialysis or a family member who is looking for a transplant of some kind he should keep his mouth shut because he has no idea what it is like. He can pontificate about the cultural sensitivities of xenotransplantation but just wait until he sees a dialysis patient in his constituency office who says: “Your rules are standing between me having a life and not being able to continue.” Then I think he might change his tune—once he understands the human face of these decisions. 
The Government is trying to hold back the tide of science. It is quite Luddite to pretend that science will stop its work in this area. It is only New Zealand that will stop work in this area while the rest of the world will continue to provide opportunities for science. Science will march on and provide some life-giving solutions to a lot of people who are waiting for these opportunities—who are waiting for the second chance at life that might come from a pig kidney a pig liver or some other transplanted organ. 
So it is all very well for members opposite to be theoretical about this moratorium and pretend that it will not have an impact. We know that it will. Many many New Zealanders will be worse off because the Labour Government thinks it can hold back the scientific tide and deny a lot of New Zealanders many lifesaving solutions that will make a difference to their lives and allow them to continue—if of course we have any scientists to continue this work once this moratorium is over. As we know not many scientists who go to the United States or to the UK make the transition back into New Zealand. A few have but not many come back once they get used to research grants good salaries better conditions continuity in their work and better opportunities. We are worse off because we lose those brains—those people who could do a huge amount of work within our Crown research institutes here in New Zealand. 
Finally I tell Government members to remember the human face of this problem to remember that they will have constituents coming into their offices saying: “Why are you against something that could have made a difference to my life?” and to remember that this moratorium is nothing short of Luddite. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to support the first reading of the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill. What an extraordinary speech we just heard from Katherine Rich! Speaking as someone who actually graduated from university with an honours degree in science I can say that all my friends who left this country to do science overseas did so under a National Government after Labour had left office. The most important thing to them was that they had low employment conditions or wages that were not worth staying for and the institutes that they worked for were severely underfunded. So it is a bit rich to hear the National Party complaining about the brain drain. 
We are talking about an area of science that we as a Government are still not convinced should go ahead. We are talking about experimentation on human beings. I find it interesting that Dr Paul Hutchison is very quick to attack the Government about the efficacy of testing pharmaceuticals but is saying that we should be injecting animal cells into humans right now without ensuring that firstly the technology will work and secondly it will not cause the transmission of infections or viruses that at their very worst could cause a pandemic. If a pandemic had occurred that might have been caused by a retrovirus Katherine Rich in her former life in this Parliament would have been the first to attack this Government and ask how many more invalids beneficiaries there would be as a result of this Government allowing the use of techniques that were not tested and that we were not sure of. 
We need to be secure about this technology because it will not help the New Zealand scientific community if something goes wrong and we do not take all the necessary precautions. Biotechnology of which this area is a very small part is also a very small part of science. I am sure that many scientists who are out there working very hard get sick of the focus on this area. Science in this country needs to have an international standard that is recognised overseas. Sure our scientists will go overseas—and a lot of them will come back because that is the nature of the international science community. It does this country and the biotechnology industry absolutely no favours to push ahead using technology that has not yet been proven safe and that we as a Government are not yet prepared to go ahead with and see used on humans. As the Minister of Health says we do not do it with pharmaceuticals and we certainly should not be doing it with xenotransplantation. 
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 ACT New Zealand will oppose the first reading of the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill. I would like to support the comments made by the two National Party speakers. The previous speech by the Labour member was extraordinary. Supposedly based on science she said that this Government is not prepared to risk the citizens of this country. Let us get real about this. The reason this bill has come before us now under urgency is that the Government is kicking for touch. An election is coming up and the Government wants to play it safe. If we just read the explanatory note of the bill we see that the Government is very clear about what it wants to do. The explanatory note states: “It is proposed in the long term that xenotransplantation be covered by new human tissue legislation and therapeutic products legislation.” To allow time for that legislation to be drawn up the Government wants to extend the moratorium. Let us get real here: this bill does not address the real issue. Extending the moratorium just kicks for touch and avoids a confrontational issue—something people feel very strongly about on both sides of the fence. It is just about political expediency: about not offending anybody in election year and about putting off dealing with the real problem until a much later date. 
The National Party members both spoke with a great deal of authority—particularly Dr Hutchison—and with a great deal of passion about the problems experienced by many people. 
Hon Annette King 
: I would be quite happy to go back to being a dental nurse. 
HEATHER ROY 
: The Minister of Health Annette King who is sitting over here has interrupted and interjected all the way through this debate but we know the value she puts on lives. It was not acceptable for a single person to die while on the waiting lists when she was the Opposition spokesperson on health but now suddenly it is perfectly acceptable to have several die. No longer do we have to worry about whether people on waiting lists may die—no. But we are certainly not prepared to help to save the lives of people who have no other option but to consider xenotransplantation in order to cure their ailments. 
In this country we have rigorous regulatory regimes. We should be encouraging—[ 
Interruption 
] There is nothing wrong with physiotherapy as a profession and I would suggest that a qualification in physiotherapy may actually be a superior qualification to that of a dental nurse—but let us not go there. I have actually come to the House to debate xenotransplantation because I think that the issue is very important. The Minister of Health may want to laugh it off and think she is doing a good job by extending a moratorium. In fact she is not. The extension is about political expediency as I said. She just does not want to offend anybody in election year. She is worried about the people in Rongotai who may or may not vote for her. As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted we have rigorous regulatory regimes in this country to deal with research and we should have some faith and put some trust in the Bioethics Council and in the people who are responsible for making the decisions about those matters. Those people are experts unlike the Minister of Health and unlike myself. I am unwilling to stand up here and say that we should not do this research because it is the wrong thing to do. I think we should put some trust and some faith in the scientists of this country—the very well-qualified scientists like Moana Mackey who has decided for whatever reason to change careers. We should put some faith in the people who are experts and let them do the deciding not the 120 members of Parliament who have absolutely no knowledge—except for Moana Mackey of course—about xenotransplantation. 
We may be worried about retroviruses and the member from Labour quite rightly raised that matter. But I ask whether we worry about tourists coming into this country and bringing retroviruses with them. Are we worried about the pandemics that may arise? Are we so worried about tourists bringing retroviruses in that we screen tourists? No we do not. Are we so worried about immigrants coming into this country spreading retroviruses and perhaps as Moana Mackey said causing a pandemic that we bother to screen them at the border? No we do not. So why are we so worried— 
Peter Brown 
: We would. 
HEATHER ROY 
: New Zealand First is worried. I am pleased to hear its members are worried about something. No we do not worry about tourists or about immigrants so why are we worried when we have to jump through hoops in order to do research in this country about xenotransplantation and the spread of retroviruses? We should undertake absolutely rigorous watertight risk analysis before we proceed with that research and we should put some trust and some faith in the experts. 
Many members will remember the fiasco about the environment surrounding the issue of transgenic cows. It took 2 years of jumping through hoops getting approval and doing the right things—and it was $500000 later—before anything could happen. That sent a very pertinent signal to the scientific world with regard to genomic research in New Zealand. It was a very powerful signal that said: “Don’t bother coming to do any research here. You guys you scientists whom we have trained we will train you for export just as we are doing with our doctors our nurses and our health professionals. We are training you here in this country and giving you a very good training and we want you to go overseas”— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will please not refer to the Speaker. 
HEATHER ROY 
: We want scientists to go overseas and do their work there because we do not want to do any of that very nasty biotechnology work here in New Zealand. So that is exactly what has happened of course. Our scientists our best and our brightest our very well-qualified scientists particularly in biotechnology have headed off overseas. And who can blame them? There is nothing for them here in New Zealand. So New Zealand scientists who are known for their innovation and expertise will no longer be doing anything here in New Zealand; they are being sent offshore to do their research there. That is a huge loss not only to the scientific community here in New Zealand but to New Zealanders and to those patients who made informed decisions about whether they should have some research done on themselves. I have met one of the people who had some xenotransplantation research done and she is living a very productive happy and healthy life as a result of xenotransplantation. But that will no longer be the situation. Nobody else will have the opportunity to have that done here because our scientists have been sent off. The moratorium is to be extended and that is another lost opportunity for the people of New Zealand for the scientists of New Zealand and for the scientific reputation of New Zealand which in the past has been a very good one. 
ACT opposes this bill. We think we should deal with the real issue. Let us not pretend that the legislation is not ready to be drawn up. Let us not deny that the moratorium is being extended only because there is an election coming and the Minister of Health is worried about her votes. Let us not pretend that we are not ready to address the real issues. People in New Zealand are ready to address them and it is only the arrogance of their Government that suggests otherwise. Let us not kick for touch; let us have the real debate and the real discussion. Let us see that legislation— 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Ha ha! 
HEATHER ROY 
: I do not think that this is a joking matter as the Government does. Let us discuss the real issues for once instead of just kicking for touch yet again. I do not want to see our scientists go offshore; I want to see them come back to New Zealand. But what is here for them to come back to? Very little! We have systems in place to deal with these things and we should deal with the risk analysis. People are quite right to be concerned about retroviruses. But we have the expertise here to address that issue and the research should be allowed to happen. ACT New Zealand says we should address the real issues and deal with them here and now not put them off yet again. How many more times does that have to happen? Let us treat our scientists our well-trained scientists with the respect they deserve. Let us deal with this issue right now and not put it off. ACT will oppose this bill for that very reason. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party rises to support the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill which is essentially just a date-change. It is an extension of the moratorium so that legislation can be more thoughtfully developed in order ultimately for xenotransplantation to be covered by new human tissue legislation and therapeutic products legislation. Possibly there is no more important legislation this Parliament will consider than that covering xenotransplantation. It is crucial that we get that legislation right and do not rush into it and the Green Party is absolutely delighted that the Government is spending more time on it and is extending the moratorium so that we can give more thought to the legislation in the hope that we will get it right. 
Despite what has been said xenotransplantation is an issue with profound ethical and safety considerations. It involves crossing the species barrier between humans and animals that has existed for millennia. In that sense it involves tampering with the very basis of life and whatever our opponents say it does raise the possibly of disease transfer between species of crossover diseases from for example pigs to humans and of new infectious and possibly deadly viruses. There is no point in just dismissing those possibilities because there is experimental evidence to show that in some cases pig retroviruses have survived for long periods inside humans. We have all heard of the great panic about the possibility of bird flu emerging in South-east Asia. Why with that possibility looming would we rush to transfer something from animals into humans when that could raise the possibility of outbreaks such as mad cow disease and bird flu and of untreatable diseases? That is the reality. Some members of the Opposition will try to dismiss that but it is the truth and we need to acknowledge the truth. We cannot rush into legislation in this area. We need to take the time to get it right. 
There are many unknowns in the field of xenotransplantation and nobody really knows what the implications of it are. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Why would bird flu be transferred through pigs? 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: Maurice Williamson is interjecting but he does not know what the implications of xenotransplantation are and nor does anyone in this House. So it is essential that all the issues are thoroughly investigated and that there is wide-ranging consultation and debate before any approvals are given for clinical trials. Let us not repeat the mistakes made with regard to genetic engineering by trying to introduce a new highly risky and controversial technology when there has not been a proper public debate on it or even a proper regulatory regime put in place. I believe that consultation is taking place on the issue. That is good. Let us not rush in where angels would fear to tread—let us tread very warily on this very important issue. 
Diabetes is the issue that most people raise when they talk about xenotransplantation. Of course it is a very difficult ethical and scientific decision to weigh up the possible benefits of xenotransplantation to individual diabetes sufferers against the possible risk it poses to the whole population. But the truth is that everyone likes a quick fix—a technological solution. Putting pigs’ organs into humans sounds like a great quick-fix solution to for example diabetes—that is the issue that has been most frequently mentioned in this context. But instead of looking at doing something as radical and with such political risks as xenotransplantation why do we not look in the first instance at the causes of diabetes and at some simple steps that we as a population could take which are right under our noses to try to prevent diabetes or reduce the epidemic of diabetes? Yes there is an epidemic and a huge increase in type 2 diabetes—about 127000 New Zealanders now suffer from diabetes—but why do we not look at the causes of that rather than try to think of quick-fix solutions? 
We know for example that a high-sugar diet is one of the causes of diabetes. A high-fat diet is another. We know that but what are we doing about it? We are doing very little. We allow children in taxpayer-funded schools to have access to vending machines. Cash-strapped schools use vending machines to sell high-sugar drinks in order to try to eke out a little bit of extra money. I am told that a big school can get about $12000 a year if it has a vending machine. So we allow the sale of high-sugar high-fat food which we know contributes to diabetes in our schools simply in order to help cash-strapped schools to earn a little money. We know that fast-food companies like McDonald’s sell high-sugar drinks and are synonymous with chips and burgers which are high-fat foods. So what are we doing to try to discourage our children from eating the sorts of foods that contribute to diabetes? We are participating in the marketing campaign of McDonald’s by putting its symbols on mobile dental clinics. We are getting fast-food companies to pay for essential public health services like mobile dental clinics. How crazy is that? On the one hand we want to rush around and engage in xenotransplantation—putting say pigs’ organs into humans—but on the other hand we are not prepared to do something as simple as take steps to reduce the amount of high-fat high-sugar food that our children are eating which we know contributes to diabetes. 
Indeed this Government— 
Dail Jones 
: This isn’t very relevant. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: It is extremely relevant because one of the main things that has been mentioned about xenotransplantation is that it may offer a cure for diabetics. So it is entirely relevant that we should consider what we can do to try to reduce the incidence of diabetes rather than simply look at a high-tech solution at the end of the line. Frankly it is shocking that the Government allows a fast-food company to use its marketing symbols on mobile dental vans and allows such companies which sell the food that we know contributes to diabetes to fund core health services. If they did not sell the food that contributed to diabetes then it might be an interesting proposition. But that is the reality. Coca-Cola burgers and chips are the staple sorts of foods sold by those companies although some improvements are being made. Therefore we need to look much more widely at the whole issue of how we tackle diabetes. 
In the meantime we are pleased to support this bill. The Government is saying that we should get the legislation on xenotransplantation right and not rush into doing something about which there is such huge scientific uncertainty. If we did put pig organs into humans in order to try to solve the problem of diabetes and if we got it wrong and it resulted in a retrovirus—such as the equivalent of a new form of bird flu or of bovine spongiform encephalopathy—it would be a disaster for humanity. It would open Pandora’s box. There is no more important legislation that we should spend time on getting right than the legislation on xenotransplantation. We strongly support this bill. 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise to debate the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill. But before I get on to the substance of the bill I will refer to a few things that have struck me as being rather odd about the previous speaker. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: A few things? 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: A lot of things actually! The contribution of fast foods to diabetes leaves out the most important ingredient of all. It is not in the bun it is not in the meat and it is not in the lettuce. Guess what? It is personal responsibility. Nobody shoves that stuff down people’s throats; they choose it for themselves. If they cannot decide what their diet should be they should not look to capitalist organisations which are there simply to provide a service. The fact is that if those organisations can turn a profit— 
Sue Kedgley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take personal offence at being described as “odd”. I would like the member to apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Will the member desist from using terms like that. The member has taken offence. 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: I shall desist from calling her odd. Capitalist organisations like McDonald’s should be congratulated on opening institutions like Ronald McDonald House. If those institutions were not available who would then provide those services? The fact that McDonald’s can get leverage from their products to fund those institutions is not a bad thing—they fulfil a service. I for one am very grateful as are many parents who have used Ronald McDonald House for the money the company forwards to help parents and children in times of absolute need. It is outrageous that members of this House would shoot themselves in the foot and shoot the good Samaritan ethic in the foot by suggesting that it is a bad thing altogether. That is absolutely nuts. I suggest and I might be in trouble for saying so that a bit of inter-species transplantation might be exactly the ticket for not only that member but the whole Green Party. While this amendment is a short one— 
Sue Kedgley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I know what the member is going to say—it relates to Standing Order 116 “Personal reflections”. The member will withdraw. 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: I withdraw. Although the amendment is a short one at its heart is a significant and complex question of whether living cells tissues or organs from animals and other organisms should be used to treat humans—an issue that United Future believes needs to be publicly debated and the wide-ranging implications for society of such procedures needs to be thoroughly understood. This bill does not stop science—it gives us a pause. It gives us an opportunity to rethink things and it allows the public to come in on the debate. No group in society scientists included should be favoured by having its views aired and pushed forward over and above those of everybody else. We have to work together on an approach that benefits all of us. Having this bill to extend the moratorium date does just that. It does not stop science—it proceeds nevertheless. All we are doing basically is giving ourselves a bit of time to look at what the legislation is all about. 
United Future awaits the results of the Bioethics Council’s consultation on xenotransplantation. That is a work in progress. We need to give that time to come through—it will not be far away—and then we can debate sensibly the issues from both the scientific and public interest points of view. United Future wholeheartedly supports the process of course. We need to hear from New Zealanders regarding their views on decisions that will shape the boundaries between what is scientifically possible and what is beneficial for the social and ethical future of the country. It needs to be put in perspective. Giving the OK to one group of people and shutting everybody else out of the debate does not do that. 
In order to allow this debate to run its full course and also to have time to fully consider appropriate legislation United Future supports the extension of the current controls placed on xenotransplantation procedures provided for by this bill until 31 December next year. It is clear that science needs to have some sense of direction. It cannot work with a stop-start sort of approach. I understand that and this bill does do a little bit of that unfortunately. But it is nevertheless an opportunity to look at the further reaches of what kind of scientific achievement we will end up with in New Zealand. 
We need to have the debate but we need to do it sensibly. We need a conclusion to this process because we cannot continually hold off science just for the next year the year after that or the year after that. People need to know what amount of time they have to start applying to science vis-à-vis money and investment into the procedures they are trying to look into. We believe though that it is essential to have the momentum to ensure that this matter is fully debated so that interested groups on both sides of the issue can have certainty in the near future. 
United Future will support this bill only at the first reading and going to the select committee. Thereafter it will depend very much on what the public debate is all about and on how that progresses seeing the balance needed between the scientific interest and the public good. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour—Napier) 
: 
 I support the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill being referred to the Health Committee. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.  
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Maori Party 1. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I move  
That the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill be referred to the Health Committee 
 for consideration that the committee present its final report on or before 28 May 2005 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions during any evening on a day in which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 191 and 194(1)(b) and (c).  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Maori Party 1. 
Motion agreed to.