Bishop ChrisCHRIS BISHOP (National): Let me just deal with a few of the questions raised by members opposite in the debate on this—in fact on all of the bill because we are taking it all as one question. Let me start with Mr Tirikatene's questions on the bill. He wanted to know why the word or" is used in clause 16(1) of the bill. The reason is that to become eligible for discretionary earnings compensation which is the compensation that would be paid to an eligible donor in advance of an operation—so that is distinct from recuperation post an operation—you have to get through the gateway of being a qualifying donor in the first place. The qualifying donor section which is in clause 10 of the bill which is the key and substantive part is where people become eligible to become qualifying donors or not. If you become eligible to be a qualifying donor you are entitled to that compensation post the surgery post the donation of an organ—typically a kidney as other members have made mention—and you are also eligible to apply to the director-general for some of that discretionary compensation. But the point is that you have got to get through the gateway of clause 10 in the first place. The second question was from Tracey Martin and this was about something that I had not actually considered before which is 3-D printing. What do you do about 3-D printed organs—kidneys? I guess there are two things to say to that. The first is that there is actually an argument that it would be outside the scope of the bill because if you 3-D printed a kidney for example would that be an organ donation? Perhaps not. It could just be one of the advances of modern medicine and it would not necessarily fall within the scope of the bill. Regardless of that and whether or not it is correct Ms Martin will know that clause 4 of the bill which is the interpretation clause provides that a qualifying organ means a kidney or a liver or in paragraph (c) any other type of human organ declared by regulations to be a qualifying organ. In the bill we are futureproofing the advances in modern medical technology. We are giving the Minister through regulations the ability to declare a particular type of organ to be a qualifying organ for the purposes of the bill. So it is a good question but one that I think arguably is outside the scope of the bill but nevertheless it is probably covered.The third question was from Stuart Nash. He was very concerned about clause 9 of the bill about why you would limit it to New Zealand. And actually I think Tracey Martin in her contribution to the Committee and I very rarely say this about contributions from Tracey Martin—I very rarely say this—but I am going to pay her a bit of a compliment. I actually think she answered that question herself. Before I even had a chance to stand up and speak she answered that question herself. Actually Poto Williams in her contribution just before said that overseas health systems have varying standards. We do not know very much about them in the New Zealand health system and actually we want to make sure that this bill is focused on increasing organ transplants in New Zealand. We want to make sure we focus it on increasing the number of people who donate organs in New Zealand. We might be worried about varying standards overseas and that is exactly the point that Poto Williams made and that Tracey Martin made as well. So I think that deals with the three questions that have been raised so far. I thank members for the consensus support I think around the House and I will hand over to somebody else."