Rich Katherine: Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures)  Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Rich Katherine: Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures)  Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20711] 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 I agree with the last speaker: let the scientists get on with their work. Let the scientists decide what science that they do. We have heard a lot of talk in the House tonight much of which I do not agree with. We already have frameworks in place. We already have ways of doing science in this country that are ethical well-managed and well-regulated. Judy Turner from United Future said we needed an ethical framework within which to undertake this kind of work. We already have that within the various Acts and regulations that we ask scientists who undertake science in this country to work under. 
Judy Turner also asked that the National Party have some pretty weird priorities when it comes into Government. She asked that our No. 1 priority be legislation to do with human tissue. I have a message for that member: when we become the Government our priorities will continue to be the main areas that Government should be concerned with—health education and the economy. I am not saying that what we are debating here tonight is not important but those are the areas that should be the No. 1 priorities not individual pieces of legislation like this. She also said that she thought this bill was sensible. I challenge her to stand opposite someone who is desperately waiting for a new treatment or for some life-saving operation and explain to him or her why these delays are a good idea. We do not agree. 
The National Party does not support the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill that we are debating tonight. Even though it has only three clauses and looks like a very short technical bill the implications are quite far-reaching. The implications will be huge for the scientific community and they will be huge for people who are interested in the outcomes of xenotransplantation. 
Sue Kedgley made some comments in her speech about her disbelief that I would support this kind of bill. I have one message for that member: pig kidneys—bring them on. Four members of my family have been on dialysis. Another 10 are waiting in the wings. It costs the State about $1500 per week for their treatment. Many of them would be more than happy to have a pig kidney if the technology came to fruition. 
We are not presenting this as being a panacea as being something that is a magic bullet for all medical conditions but it is another option. It is really important that we do not try to limit scientific endeavour because while we do that in New Zealand other countries do not. Many of our scientists are already making the choice to go to the UK Canada and other areas where this kind of research can be conducted. So it is not to be presented as something that is easy. I am not a scientist but I know that most Kiwis when they are in the position of having to weigh up their medical options are smart enough to decide whether they can live with the risks. 
Heather Roy made a very pertinent point. She quoted a leading scientist who described one aspect of xenotransplantation as being as risky as going to the zoo. He then went on to say that going to the zoo is not risky either. I do not think we have heard enough of the scientific debate. These are the sorts of things I would dearly love to have asked officials and experts when the bill went through the select committee process. Yes we had access to Ministry of Health officials but we were not able to ask many other groups or experts who I think could have advised the select committee as we made our decisions. We did not ask the National Kidney Foundation we did not ask Diabetes New Zealand we did not ask anyone from the Medical Association. My colleague Paul Hutchison made a specific request that we invite submissions on this bill but that was rejected. So it went through the select committee process at breakneck speed. 
The report from the Health Committee is misleading in my view. The bill is described as non-controversial when in fact there were huge controversy and debate when this issue came up. It is not a minor technical bill. The implications are huge. We are looking at delaying scientific work. When has the answer to a problem of not having all the information been to delay work? I totally understand that we do not know everything about this technology and that there are some very fair concerns about it. But those concerns can be managed by scientists and by people who want to take part in trials who can make up their own minds. We cannot halt the scientific tide and expect the problems to go away. There are issues to be worked out with the technology and some of the comments made about retroviruses etc. are valid. But with the technology and the pace it is moving at there are ways to make sure that cells or organs are taken from animals that have been bred specifically for transplants and that we take the necessary precautions to make it as safe as possible. 
I heard David Cunliffe speak on the bill. I was concerned about some of his comments also. He wanted to give the impression that the National Party had been hoodwinked by one company Diatranz and that we were raising these concerns simply because we were bothered about one corporate that had to make a decision to leave New Zealand to continue its diabetes research. That is not the case at all. If anything we have been trying to put a human face on the problems that will be created by this bill—the people who are waiting for lifesaving operations and treatments. In some cases the treatment might not be lifesaving but a huge change to a patient’s enjoyment of life might result from getting treatment that is far more substantial than having to take insulin every day or dialyse every 3 to 4 days. We need to remember that a lot of people are waiting for these kinds of treatments and operations. When we create more and more barriers and hurdles for scientists to overcome it makes it a lot more difficult for them to carry out this sort of work in New Zealand. Many people in this House have spoken to scientists who now struggle to get the work done in New Zealand. Not only do they spend a lot of time putting together applications and getting projects turned down but once they start the work they have to get through so many barriers that some areas simply are not worth it. It is better for them to go offshore. That is why many of our best and brightest have voted with their feet and gone to continue their scientific career elsewhere. 
In my view this bill is really a Luddite approach to science. It is a Luddite approach to finding solutions for many Kiwis who are very interested in the outcomes of this work and who do understand that there are risks that can be managed. Those Kiwis are interested in progressing science so that over a period of time new solutions are found for people who need them. It is a very expensive issue for New Zealand right now. Diabetes is epidemic within this country. We have a growing problem of shortage of space in renal dialysis units. Unless we look at alternatives we will find things become very very difficult for our citizens. 
Sue Kedgley pretends that a huge number of human organs are available in this country. That is not the case at all. We have a huge shortage of them and many families do not have access to the tissues and organs within their own families either. So to just bat this issue away and pretend that the science is too complex is a bit naive. The people who are involved in medical research of this kind take their responsibilities very very carefully. A strong ethical framework that surrounds this kind of work already exists. A number of regulations that scientists are required to follow in order to carry out this work are already in place. 
This bill is not about logic. There is no logical or scientific basis for putting this moratorium in place. This is more about delaying progress. It is a real shame that Labour is not serving those who are the human face of the issue.