O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I am very pleased like others—the two members before and those to come—to take a call on the second reading of the Financial Assistance for Live Organ Donors Bill. Seeing as it is new news to me I think I might add my voice to that of Poto Williams in congratulating Chris Hipkins and his partner on the birth of—did I hear right Charlie Douglas Hipkins?Poto Williams: That's right.SIMON O'CONNOR: That is fantastic—very exciting news for Chris for his partner for his wider family and I think in some ways for this Parliament; so that is really neat. If I was to try to tie the theme in very quickly this is about life and ultimately this bill in the name of Chris Bishop is a really positive step forward particularly in the area of live organ donation. It is always very exciting for a member of Parliament to have a bill drawn out of the ballot. It is a relatively rare occurrence—I have certainly heard a number of speeches in this House from those who have been here for many many many years that they have never had one—so I think it is very exciting for Chris that he has had this opportunity importantly to guide it through the Health Committee. I want to thank Chris for his leadership in this place and also for his forbearance as the bill has gone through quite a number of iterations to bring it to where it is today.Hon Christopher Finlayson: An hour and half—get on with the bill. SIMON O'CONNOR: Ha ha! It is always a bit of a worry when you get heckled by your own side. The purpose of the bill is ultimately to provide some compensation. What Chris has done in this bill is brought the concept and the idea forward—and over the last few months the committee has worked through all the necessary detail to bring this to fruition. Like Chris himself I want to thank particularly the officials who have worked on this bill—Kris Faafoi: Mr Bishop.SIMON O'CONNOR: —they worked incredibly hard. To be very clear it is to Chris Bishop not Chris Finlayson—although he put out a very excellent section 7 report that the select committee took a long time to ponder. As soon as there is any suggestion—any suggestion—that we are offending the Bill of Rights Act we are in there. In fact I think it should be a relief to the Minister and to this Parliament that we have addressed this concern under section 7 which is ultimately that there could be potential discrimination of beneficiaries although it is on the basis of employment. The long and the short of it is that this bill makes sure that it does not matter whether you are in paid employment or not or importantly whether you are in a mixture of paid employment and receiving a State benefit of any nature. You will not be at a financial loss.What I think I am just trying to get out in the first instance is the enormous amount of hard work that has gone in to take a really good and important idea and turn it into a very good piece of legislation. So once again as with the committee stage I want to thank the officials for their work in the select committee and so on. There are a number of changes that the committee recommended. The most fundamental is that we have moved to 100 percent recompense. The bill when it first came was at 80 percent and it was really thought that 100 percent was the way to go. In some ways it just makes life a lot easier actually. You do not have to be doing various calculations at 100 percent.And it is not capped. We had a little bit of debate over whether we should try to cap this and there was that sort of conceptual question of if someone was earning millions of dollars a year whether they should be reimbursed. The committee gave this a lot of thought and we answered yes" to that question for two reasons. First and foremost this is an altruistic act to give part or all of one's organ—and that should be acknowledged and recognised. The second part is that actually our live organ donation rates are incredibly low and although that it is unfortunate it also provides a particular financial context that made the committee fairly relaxed around what any complications around that might be.Because of the 100 percent recompense we also went into the question of whether it is just for New Zealanders—or is it also for people who could be coming over here. So we have looked at the international side of things as a committee—more of that is in the report for those who want to read it—but we had to tease out elements like that.We also spent quite a bit of time trying to work out which Government agency was best placed to manage this bill. I think it was quite clear from the member who sponsored the bill that this was best held within the Ministry of Health rather than the Ministry of Social Development. There was a lot of discussion around that and the decision was made with the committee that we would put this under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Health. Again this was for two reasons: one this is really seen as a step—not the step but a step—to try to increase organ donations in New Zealand or the openness to it; the second is simply how best to manage it.As someone who has worked within the Ministry of Social Development and Work and Income it is not all that usual to have someone come in and start asking for financial recompense for the donation of an organ. Even though those on the front line of Work and Income have an amazing system called "MAP"—an acronym for Manuals and Procedures—it is so unusual that actually the response that could be given by someone on the front line to this request may not always be as responsive as it could be. So it was felt that this was better managed within the Ministry of Health and would engender a slightly different dynamic for those making the approach. It seemed by and large if you are donating an organ—in this case probably a kidney or part of a liver—that you are going to be thinking in terms of health first and foremost rather than financial assistance and hence going to Work and Income. So we put this within the Ministry of Health.There are a variety of procedures in place too for review. We have tried to make this as easy as possible. Other speakers have talked about the principle of cost neutrality. Again that is trying to make it as easy or unburdened a process as possible for those who are wishing to donate. So cost neutrality is a principle there. Importantly too it is not just about recompense for the time that you are effectively in surgery but also for preparation. I think we understand very clearly as a committee the choice to actually donate an organ means there is going to be preparatory work be that something as simple as having to travel to the particular surgical centre or hospital but also understanding that for some people that could be in fact days or weeks. So again we are just trying to make it as flexible and easy as possible.I think it is quite important even though people can wade through the report and what are a lot more pages of proposed legislation that the underlying hope over and above cost neutrality is a relative simplicity: the understanding that if you as a Kiwi choose to donate an organ while still alive that this should now be a relatively simple procedure in terms of getting financial recompense. That said—I keep talking about financial assistance or financial recompense. Actually it was a fairly important change in the bill—symbolic if you will—that we are proposing the name be changed. We are wishing it now to be called the "Compensation for Live Organ Donors Bill". Again like anything in the Health Committee it is well batted around not in any sense of an argument but more that we tried to tease out the ideas. Ultimately it is a compensation—Jacqui Dean: Almost the best committee.SIMON O'CONNOR: I would actually go and say that it is the best committee but I know that could be controversial to the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee. We thought actually that "Compensation" better reflected what we are trying to do. This is not just a form of financial assistance—or a partial form—this is an attempt at compensation and we are hoping that society at large will understand that.We are trying to futureproof—Chris Bishop in his contribution expressed how there will be the Royal assent and when commencement starts. But it is important that we want New Zealanders in particular to understand that they will not and should not be disadvantaged once this bill is passed and once actual funding comes online from donating. So I think that is important.The other matter I wanted to draw the House's attention to is around ACC. There was some concern raised in the committee that someone on ACC would effectively lose their entitlement and that they would have to be retested for their condition—whatever they are on ACC for—if they went off to donate an organ and they were beginning to receive compensation through this legislation. Through some creative and clever thinking we now have a situation where someone who is on ACC will actually have their entitlement reduced to zero dollars—so there will be no double-dipping—but they will not actually leave the ACC scheme. Their entitlements will continue. This means that once they have recovered post-surgery from donating an organ or part of an organ they will actually be able to just continue back on to ACC without having to go and be retested for their eligibility. I think that was a very prudent and pragmatic step.Finally—because I am conscious of time primarily because of these new fandangle things hanging off the ceiling—Jacqui Dean: They're called "timers".SIMON O'CONNOR: They are called "timers"—yeah a great word for them. There is a lot more work to be done. In fact I just had a constituent—also called Simon—in my office yesterday talking very passionately and keenly around the importance of the wider donation approach obviously not in the live area but from deceased. So about how we can begin to look at the Israeli model how we look at a sort of opt-out system rather than opt-in. There is a lot more to be done but again I just want to thank the member for bringing this to the House and I look forward to it moving through its stages swiftly."