Ardern Shane: Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures)  Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Ardern Shane: Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures)  Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20713] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 I rise to take a call in the third reading of the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill. I do so with some bemusement because the very honourable retiring member from Invercargill Mark Peck got up and gave a very good speech on the reasons why we should not support this bill tonight. Unfortunately the very junior Government whip sitting next to him forgot to tell him that it was actually one of the Government’s bills and that the Government was supporting it. Mr Peck will vote for it in a minute when he gets the chance. I thank him for shedding a bit of light that one or two of the Labour caucus members once they get out from under the ether of socialism and go down south to the fresh air and clear their heads can come back to Parliament and talk sense about what needs to be done. I am with him 100 percent. This is a pro-science debate and an anti-bill debate because the bill delays science. It is that simple. 
Tomorrow in Parliament we will hear Dr Cullen present the Budget. There will be a lot of backslapping and people will talk about the amazing things that will come out of that Budget in terms of it being pro-growth pro-science and pro-development. Tonight in Parliament we are debating a bill that delays science and denies scientists the opportunity to experiment and potentially to produce something that would be beneficial to a large number of people. That is an oxymoron. A Government cannot claim to be pro-growth pro-science pro - economic development and pro-health and vote for such a bill. The two just do not and will not square. I look forward to the honourable member taking another call to explain to me how they do square because I am absolutely astounded by it. 
I want to say to the member that there are a number of experts who have submitted to this debate and this process. One of them Professor Bob Elliott has been talked about in a couple of other debates earlier on along with his company called Diatranz which has developed a unique and world-leading technology to help people who suffer from diabetes—something that is a major health problem in this country. He has been forced along with his company to go offshore—to Australia. He was one of the 600-odd New Zealanders who depart from this country every week. I say to members opposite that this country’s economy and Dr Cullen’s Budget tomorrow are able to exist because of the leading edge biotechnology science that has been a hallmark of this country particularly in the agricultural industries but also in the medical field. This bill is yet another example of how a Luddite Government with its head in the sand will stand in the way of that kind of development. 
I suggest that the members talk to the likes of Professor Bob Elliott and Professor Roger Morris a well-known expert who is hired all around the world. He spends more time out of New Zealand than he does in New Zealand. Although Professor Morris’ skills are recognised internationally back here the Labour Government does not need the advice of somebody like him; it already has its own advisers who just say “Yes sir no sir and what do you want us to do next sir?”. I ask members to listen to the likes of Professor Morris who is a world-renowned expert. He will tell us that pig-tissue transplantation—xenotransplantation as it is known—is something that could hold the key to a range of problems in terms of the medical fraternity. He will also tell us that having a very healthy pig herd in this country is the best way to detect any kind of disease that potentially may infect the human population because pigs are the closest species to humans in terms of that kind of detection. So I ask members to have a talk to him. It is as simple as that. If members ring him up I am sure he will give them a briefing on some of this stuff. 
He has said that the kind of technology that is being proposed in terms of xenotransplantation—and it is not some loony field of new development—is safe and there is no science at all that can tell us that it is not. That is the interesting question. The test that has to be measured is whether it is unsafe. That is what the debate is about. Are we sure that it is unsafe? How can one tell that it is unsafe if there is no science to say that it is unsafe? We know that motorcars are unsafe but we all drive them. We know that an earthquake can kill thousands of people but we still live and work in the capital of New Zealand which is on a fault line. We know a range of things that are unsafe but in this case there is no science and no evidence to say that it is unsafe. 
Yet tonight we are debating the extension of a moratorium so that scientists can presumably go offshore and carry out experiments to develop our technology somewhere else. One of the worst things happening in this country at the moment is that some of the best inventions in the world in a range of scientific areas are being taken offshore because they simply cannot work and survive under the regulatory framework in this country—whether it be tax or whether it be moratoriums on this kind of experiment. 
So I say to members that xenotransplantation is not new. It has been around for a long long time as I have said in every debate in this discussion so far. The first xenotransplantation took place in 1682 on a Russian nobleman who had a fractured skull. That is going back a bit. The first successful organ xenotransplant took place in 1963. The problem has always been as has been mentioned throughout the debate that the human immune system rejects the new material. That is the problem. 
To allow science to find a way around that problem I would have thought would be hugely beneficial not only for medical science but for a range of other potential science experiments as well as producing potential intellectual property that could be worth millions of dollars to New Zealand. But no not with the socialists in charge. If someone wants to muck around with that sort of stuff that does not sound as though it will fit into their little corner of thinking then that person must take it offshore. They will not allow it in this country. 
What we are debating here tonight is legislation that effectively kicks science for touch for a little bit longer until the Government can get past the next election then it will be able to have a look out there and see whether it can round up some votes from the United Future party or whichever party might turn up. In the meantime it will put it in abeyance. The Green Party will certainly not allow the bill to move forward so the Government will kick it out for another few months—that is the politically expedient thing to do—and see whether it can cobble something together at the end. 
Mr Peck’s speech earlier reminds me of the occasion when I was a new member when we were relying on Alamein Kopu’s vote for a piece of legislation. She supported it but the last person who spoke to her disabused her of the notion that she should support it. Halfway through my speech she changed her vote so for half my speech she was for it and for half she was against it. That is one up on Mr Peck who spoke in favour of the bill but who will now vote against it tonight. 
Some interesting things have happened in Parliament. This tonight is not one of them. This bill is another socialist measure to kick the scientists offshore. There is no basis to the argument that has been put forward and we in the National Party will not support the extension of the moratorium.