Ardern Shane: Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures)  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Ardern Shane: Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures)  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20602] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 It is interesting to listen to the debate from both sides of the Chamber including the contribution made by the Health Committee chair. But the question that still remains in my mind which was raised by Heather Roy from the ACT party is why would we not listen to somebody like Professor Roger Morris from Massey University who is a world-renowned expert in this area? Why would we not listen to that gentleman? I visited Professor Morris in his rooms in Massey University a while ago to talk about biosecurity issues. One of the amazing things that he said to me with regard to the Government’s complete failure to control the multi-systemic pig virus disease that took off in this country which was a complete biosecurity failure was that the most important part of that failure was overlooked. That was not the argument that I was putting forward which was that it was a tragedy for an important export industry in this country but it concerned the important medical point that was lost—that is the pig herd in New Zealand is the first detection point for some kinds of potential diseases that may come into this country. Like humans pigs are very susceptible to diseases of various kinds. So if something were to come into this country we would find it in the pig herd before we found it anywhere else. 
Here we are today extending a moratorium because the Labour Government believes that there is risk or danger in xenotransplantation yet at the same time it has allowed through this country’s borders a major virus that has affected the pig herd. The argument put forward is that some of those diseases may be trans-species. Of course that sounds like a credible argument to a layman. But why not listen to scientists and experts who have looked at the issue and come to an absolute conclusion on it? Why not listen to them? The only conclusion one can come to is that as usual if the Government happens to be a Labour Government it must not let the facts get in the way of its own view of the world. Clearly this is a classic example of that. 
I question the Minister in the chair Damien O’Connor as to why Dr Bob Elliot and Diatranz went overseas. It is a simple question. Why did they not stay here? There was a leading New Zealand scientist who had some frontier work going on—something that New Zealand is known for around the world actually and something that has built the economy of New Zealand. We have been leaders in a range of fields particularly in biotechnology and in the agricultural sector which has had the strongest growth in the economy despite all the previous Labour Government’s protests that it was a sunset industry and that we would soon move out of that sort of nonsense into something more sophisticated. Despite those comments that is the area where we have had the strongest economic growth in this country based on the back of biotechnology. Why did Dr Bob Elliot and Diatranz pick up their roots and clear off overseas? The simple answer is that this Government could not see the worth of people like Dr Elliot and the work they did. It introduced silly little bits of legislation like the one we are debating today and made it so difficult for Dr Elliot that he could not operate here. 
My second question to the Minister in the chair and to anybody else on the Government benches who would care to take a call asks whether or not it was a recent occurrence in this country that a Seventh-Day Adventist family was actually taken to court because it would not allow its young infant to have a blood transfusion that potentially could have been lifesaving—the medical opinion was that it was lifesaving. The Ministry of Health under the Labour Government took that family to court and prosecuted it for stopping that process from taking place. The ministry described it as an elective option of the child. I ask the Minister which it is: on the one hand he is saying that we can stop science on the basis of culture religion and science—although there is no science to back up the argument in terms of the process of xenotransplantation—and on the other hand we have prosecuted a family that held to its religious and cultural beliefs to the point that it sacrificed one of its family members because it felt so strongly about the issue. The Government cannot have it both ways. Which is it? Will we have a blanket ban on any kind of science?