Alexander Marc: Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures)  Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Alexander Marc: Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures)  Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19767] 
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.