Hutchison Paul: Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures)  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures)  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20602] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I was somewhat astounded to hear the shrill attitude of the chairperson of the Health Committee towards what she stated was an uncontroversial bill. This is a hugely controversial bill. As Mai Chen said several years ago when the Labour Government slapped a moratorium on it and prevented a New Zealand biotechnology firm—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member will be heard. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Thank you Madam Chair. I am afraid that Jill Pettis carries on an avian-like cacophony of nonsense perpetually and it would be nice for her to chirp down. 
We heard from the chair of the Health Committee that one body alone the Ministry of Health came to the Health Committee. Well that is fine; the Ministry of Health has to do what the Government says. We specifically asked for other submitters to come before the committee and I can think of some very important submitters that would have helped Parliament and the members of the committee to have a much more rounded and scientific approach to this bill: for instance the Royal Society Diabetes New Zealand the New Zealand Association of Scientists the New Zealand Biotechnology Association and interested consumers groups that have involvement with kidneys and hearts. Instead what did the Health Committee’s Steve Chadwick do? She denied an open debate on this very very important subject while she underpinned it by saying in her report that the bill was uncontroversial. 
Well it is controversial and as I said earlier on Mai Chen an eminent New Zealand lawyer said several years ago that it was a constitutional outrage that this Government prevented Diatranz from putting its point of view to the Government by denying it from having its application heard through Medsafe. 
We know from the Ministry of Health submission that in more enlightened jurisdictions like Canada and the United Kingdom those applications are being taken on a case by case basis which is what should happen in New Zealand. [ 
Interruption 
] As I have been at pains to try to point out to that rather noisy chairperson of the Health Committee a wide spectrum of techniques and procedures is associated with xenotransplantation. 
The very fact that the pig endogenous retrovirus is now no longer present in some cell lines has been a massive breakthrough in this technology. It gives every reason as was endorsed by Bruce Scoggins the Chief Executive of the Health Research Council that we should be endorsing and looking at this technology in New Zealand and not putting it on the back burner through a blanket unthinking moratorium as this Labour Government would have us do. 
Also as I have pointed out the Royal Society made the very important point that this technology will stand in line as being hugely important along with stem cell technology. We should be treating it with an evidence-based scientific approach and not with the blanket moratorium that the Labour Government is determined to have. 
This Labour Government keeps talking about biotechnology being the focus with which it will gain its innovation and economic progress. But what does it do in reality? It actually imposes some of the toughest regulatory hurdles in the developed world on to this sector to the extent that a constant stream of New Zealand scientists and science is going overseas every day. Only 2 months ago we heard of the tragedy of the Huntington’s chorea transgenic sheep experiment which is being carried out through Auckland University. The university was forced to go to Australia with it because it cost too much and it took too long to do it in New Zealand under this Labour Government’s rules.