Turner Judy: Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures)  Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Turner Judy: Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures)  Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20708] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to speak to the third reading of the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill. I say upfront that United Future is supporting this third reading because this amendment bill extends the expiry date and reflects a desire to put in place sensible legislation designed to facilitate the development of medical science within a safe regulatory framework. The proposal is to have xenotransplantation covered by a new human tissue bill which is well on track to be introduced into the House by the end of this year. 
Missing from the complaints from both National and ACT members was a guarantee that they will welcome that human tissue legislation and allow it to move through the legislative process without any political game-playing. Those sorts of commitments would mean that legislation could be in place well before 31 December 2006. The power to move with responsible speed on this matter could well be within the power of the current Opposition. The National Party which is campaigning to be the Government should include a reassurance in speeches made by its members that the human tissue bill will be its highest priority should it become the Government. 
The issue that has been raised about trusting or distrusting the scientific community is a complete nonsense. Responsible scientists never want to operate outside a clearly defined ethical framework. In fact scientific developments always need to happen within an ethical framework because ethics as we have stated before do not apply just to medical procedures but also include the research processes. As I have said on numerous occasions the means by which we achieve a medical outcome are as ethically important as the end itself. 
If one listens to the Opposition spokespeople one would think that the progress of xenotransplantation is the only pathway forward for diabetics kidney patients and the like when the truth is that there is a raft of other health initiatives such as improving our human organ donation rates in New Zealand that are very commendable and often superior options. 
I would like to mention now—because one does not get a lot of chance—the work of Andy Tookey and the generosity of Peter Jackson in this regard because better registration of human donors and better public health promotion around this issue would make a huge difference to our donation rates. Those kinds of initiatives are ongoing and worthy of development. When we start to see one medical option as the only way forward I think we are in serious strife. 
This amendment bill has three clauses: a title clause a commencement clause and then the one clause clause 3 that is what the bill is really all about. The clause amends the Medicines Act 1981 by deferring the expiry of Part 7A from 30 June 2005 to 31 December 2006. It also allows for that date to be extended by Order in Council should it be necessary. However my expectation—because of the obvious interest across the House on this issue—is that when the human tissue bill comes before the House we will get great support across all parties to send it to the select committee call for submissions and have the whole cause progressed with sensible speed which would mean that this issue would be a non-issue well before 31 December 2006. United Future is more than happy to support this small amendment bill at its third reading.