Roy Heather: Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures)  Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Roy Heather: Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures)  Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20548] 
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 The Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill is not about xenotransplantation; it is actually about the extension of a moratorium. It has been very interesting to sit here and listen to the speeches so far. We would think that the bill is about suddenly allowing research to happen in this country as I—and I think the National Party—feel that it should. 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 that date the scientific and ethical oversight will return to the controls utilised for clinical trials of medicines contained within section 30 of the Medicines Act and I think that that is what this debate should be about. It should not be about the merit or otherwise of xenotransplantation. 
The reason we have this bill before us now—it has gone through the select committee process but barely touched the table in the process I might add—is that the Government is kicking for touch. It does not want a proper discussion about xenotransplantation in the lead-up to a general election. It does not want those matters to be discussed properly by the public. It just wants to delay this issue until after the election when opposition to it will not be as strong. I think that we should provide—[ 
Interruption 
] No it will be here. The reason of course is that the Government and also the Greens do not want to have this discussion. Some reasoned debate might be heard instead of the one-sided debate we are hearing at the moment. Parties in this Parliament that should know better—of course I do not include the Greens in that—are promoting fear and unreasonable argument around the subject. The Government is kicking for touch; it wants to extend the moratorium so that the discussion does not have to happen before 30 June because as we know an election is before us. This is about political expediency rather than anything else. 
The National Party member made some very interesting and pertinent comments. She said that this bill is about delaying science and that is exactly what it is. We should be having proper discussion. We should be discussing the issues properly and in an informed environment. But this legislation is about delaying science and about delaying New Zealand scientists’ ability to participate in good-quality research that we know has some very beneficial effects—research that will help and will save people’s lives. 
The research as we know used to occur in New Zealand and I have met one of the five people I think it was who has benefited hugely from xenotransplantation research. She was a participant and she is now leading a very productive happy and a healthier life as a result. Without this research she would have been looking at a very different picture. Those critics who are not prepared to enter into the debate properly—those critics who want to keep this moratorium going on and on forever as the Green Party does so that no research can ever take place—should take note of the terrible circumstances in which some people have to live their lives when they could be benefiting significantly from research. 
We have rigorous regulatory regimes in this country. There has been much surrounding research. There has been much talk about the Bioethics Council from several previous speakers and consultation around the country. So if we can talk about those things in a consultative manner why do we not just call for the debate to happen properly? I wonder why the Greens are supporting this legislation to extend the moratorium. Well it is obvious why. But if they say they want to have the debate why do they not oppose this legislation and have the debate properly before the election as Ms Kedgley says she wants to? Why are the Greens supporting the legislation? Why do they not call for the debate? If they are so confident about their cause the debate will be held. Perhaps xenotransplantation will be banned once and for all—which is exactly what she wants I believe. 
One thing we do not do in this country is trust our scientists. We do not trust our research and we do not trust our Bioethics Council to come to the proper resolution when scientific topics are discussed. I certainly trust scientists; I have a great deal of faith in them. But we are now seeing a promotion of fear and unreasonable expectation of what the scientific community can produce in this country. One of the issues that is always put forward when we talk about xenotransplantation is the difficulties with retroviruses. There is much concern about this—quite rightly so—and that is why we must have rigorous regulatory regimes surrounding any research that takes place. 
The New Zealand First speaker spoke at length about retroviruses. I wonder why she as a member of a party that worries so much about immigration omitted to say in her speech that we should be screening all our tourists and immigrants to this country at the border for retroviruses. Do we do anything about tourists coming into this country? Do we test them or screen them for retroviruses? Are we concerned about any pandemics that might result from a retrovirus being carried in by a tourist or an immigrant? No there is not a whimper about that. Maybe the Green member will talk about that; I do not know. But certainly the New Zealand First members who worry inordinately about immigrants and we have heard in the last 2 weeks—[ 
Interruption 
] No no. I am not. I am asking why New Zealand First members did not mention it if they are so worried about it. It seems that they have an unreasonable fear of research but are not worried at all about retroviruses being carried into the country by immigrants and tourists. The reason of course is that the risk is very low but if that is to be promoted as a reason to stop research it should also be promoted as a reason to stop immigrants from coming in. Anyway those members missed their opportunity there. It is a shame I had to point that out for them. 
The Government of course has encouraged our scientists some of the best and brightest in the world to go offshore. I think in particular of the research that was done in this country and I mentioned one of the participants in that research. That research has now had to go offshore where I suspect it will produce some very good results. Unfortunately those results will not be in the name of New Zealanders or in this country. It is a shame that that fear is there. Science in this country is very important it is important for us for the future and the discouragement must be truly frustrating for our scientists. I think that those in the science and research fields must be frequently frustrated but particularly so in this field when knowledge stems from this country. We have very good science departments in our universities but they have barriers put in their way all the time. 
So ACT New Zealand as members will have noted by now opposes the progress of this bill and we will continue to do so in the Committee stage and third reading. We think we should be having a proper debate not a quasi-debate or Clayton’s debate about whether the moratorium should be extended. As I pointed out before this is not a debate about xenotransplantation; it is a debate about political expediency. Other members are not willing to have the debate so close to an election; they want to wait till after the election when they think things will not be noticed in the same way and further legislation can be drawn up. I suspect that the legislation has already been drawn up. It is just being delayed for the benefit of the Government with the election campaign coming up. Last time we had “corngate” of course. The Prime Minister does not want to have to go around the country to debate xenotransplantation. 
ACT will be opposing this bill. We believe firmly in science in progress and in research. We oppose vehemently the delaying of science and the delaying of the ability of our scientists to do good-quality research in this country. This bill denies them the opportunities that they should have in New Zealand. It is about our skilled our best and our brightest being sent offshore yet again. ACT New Zealand opposes the passage of this bill.