Delahunty Catherine; Tisch LindsayCATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora anō ki Te Whare. I am delighted to have 5 minutes on this bill. It is not often that Mr Bishop and I agree on things—not often. However today we are in beautiful accord because I think he has put forward a constructive bill that will be genuinely useful to a lot of people and will send out the right signals about how our society and our Parliament value this kind of effort.It is interesting though because it is not very free market is it? Because really the market should decide. So if your organ is failing well you should be able to go out and get one on the market. Hey why would Government step in—according to the pure market ideology which I often hear spouted in this House? However Mr Bishop's bill is actually a lot more constructive than the market. He has done something positive that will allow people to be incentivised to do this because they will have their income protected and that is part of the role of the State. And good on him for standing up for the full role of the State in protecting the interests of all of its citizens. So we are very pleased to support this bill.I also congratulated him on getting the bill selected. I have had five bills selected but for some really peculiar reason—I do not know why—mine have not gone through in the same way with the same consensus around the House. I do not understand this. Mine are equally constructive passionately argued beautifully designed bills but for some reason numbers are the only thing that count around here which is a tiny bit depressing. However I will not give up and I am sure I will have more bills selected. But I just want to wish him all the best for having got this far with this level of consensus.This issue was debated at length in the Committee stage of the House—for some reason it was exhaustively debated in the Committee stage—but I think that it has brought everybody to a very positive place. It is really good to hear for those of us who were not on the select committee how the select committee operated constructively to improve the bill and how much good work those members all did to make this bill better. And that is what is supposed to happen; it is not always what happens. Someone comes up with a good idea. It might be a bit rough around the edges. The select committee listens to the people hears good submissions and makes good changes the Government listens and you get a better result for everybody. I wish that happened every day at my select committee. Sometimes I wonder exactly what is going on when we continue to listen to people who tell us things and then they get ignored because the Government will not listen to them. But not in this case. We have a bill that everybody is happy to support.The bill contains really useful provisions. I am delighted that the Health Committee persuaded the Government—not the Government but the owner of the bill—that we should go from 80 to 100 percent compensation because there are hidden costs. There are huge stresses and there is huge courage involved with people who donate organs. So I think that that is excellent. The wider issue of organ donation is obviously concerning when we look at the statistics. I agree with my colleague Julie Anne Genter that the statistics for a thing like diabetes are appalling. But it is complex culturally. I have met people who are reluctant to see their family members hand over their organs for reasons that cannot be characterised just as selfish or even as disrespecting the wishes of their loved one because their loved one is one of them. The idea of individual rights—the individual right to dispose of your organs is all very well for people who see the world entirely as individuals but it is not so simple when you have a more culturally interconnected view of whanaungatanga for example. So it is not simple and I think that we should be respectful of that.The other parallel I would like to make with this bill is that I hope that the next bill Chris Bishop puts up is for supporting more paid parental leave because it is the same principle. Here we have people at a time in their life when they are vulnerable and when they are contributing something wonderful—a baby or a kidney or a liver. They are all wonderful things. Yet the Government does not seem to see the reason to support paid parental leave to the extent that it really should for the benefit of families yet it is a similar thing. It is about saying that at certain times there needs to be financial remuneration because the person is automatically not able to work. They really need time off work. They are doing something very positive. It is a really critical time in their recovery if they have donated organ. It is a critical time in their life if they have had a baby. I do not see the difference. I think it is the role of the State to provide these things. I look forward to Chris Bishop supporting extending paid parental leave for the same reasons that he put up this excellent bill. Thank you.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call Rino Tirikatene—5 minutes.