Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill

, on behalf of the Minister of Health: I move, That the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. This bill was introduced to the House on 5 April 2005 and referred to the Health Committee, with a report due by 28 May 2005. The shortened period for select committee consideration was due to the need for the bill to be enacted before the current controls on xenotransplantation end, with the expiry of Part 7A of the Medicines Act on 30 June 2005. The Health Committee presented its report on the bill on Wednesday, 4 May 2005, and I thank that committee for its prompt consideration of the bill.

Xenotransplantation is the transplantation of living biological material from one species to another. Recent advances in technology have increased the possibility of successful xenotransplantation, and stimulated research in that area. Current controls were introduced in response to potential safety concerns around xenotransplantation. The Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill extends the period of controls on xenotransplantation until 31 December 2006, with the ability for that date to be extended by Order in Council if necessary. I commend the bill to the House.

The National Party is not supporting the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill for a number of very important reasons. The first reason is that we do not believe that the Government has truly evaluated the scientific impact of increasing the moratorium on that kind of work. Time and time again scientists have complained that they are not able to do the work they want to do in order to stay at the top of their game. We are seeing too many scientists leave the country because of the regulations and rules here that do not allow them to be at the forefront of their scientific research, or to ensure they are able to maintain their reputations.

The second reason, which I suppose is indicative of the Luddite approach this Government has taken, is that if there are unknowns the Government has a King Canute, “hold back the tides” style of approach, and it puts a moratorium on things so that work cannot be done. In fact, that is not a way of trying to deal with the situation, at all.

The people involved in that kind of research take their work very seriously; they are not mad scientists. They want to provide new solutions for New Zealanders, many of whom are waiting for life-saving treatments and operations. We need to remember the human face of this particular problem.

In this country we have a low donation rate for organs. We have low donation rates for kidneys and livers. Many, many people are on dialysis, or are facing all sorts of health issues, because they cannot get transplants. There simply are not enough live human donors to be able to give them other options.

Today we heard Judy Turner bring up an issue that, I think, indicates the problems faced by many of those people waiting for organs—the problems we currently have with our renal dialysis units. A growing number of people are waiting for transplants, and they are trying to fit into dialysis units that are already bursting at the seams, particularly in the North Island. Given the rising number of diabetics and people requiring dialysis as a result of obesity or ethnic predisposition to kidney problems, we will be facing a huge problem in this country when it comes to providing renal dialysis for a huge number of New Zealanders. There will simply not be enough donors for those people, and we have to look at other options.

Xenotransplantation, if approached in a very careful way, can provide solutions for many New Zealanders but, as far as this bill is concerned, it is as if the people do not matter. The Government seems to think that the people waiting for those life-saving operations have time on their hands. The Government wants to look as if it is doing something greenish in that area, but it just wants to put science on hold as opposed to letting reasonable people go about their work so that, hopefully, they can provide some life-saving solutions for those Kiwis in the long term.

There has been a consultation process, which I have to describe as a bit of a sham. Up and down the country there was some so-called public consultation, but it was not well-publicised and none of the consultations were well-attended. People who took part in some of those consultations came back with absolutely bizarre stories of people turning up and being concerned that if a person had a kidney replaced with a pig’s kidney, that person would start acting like a pig. That just shows that the level of knowledge out there is absolutely ridiculous.

I am concerned that a number of new reasons are being dreamt up every day to work against what could be a life-saving solution for many, many New Zealanders. The issue of cultural sensitivity has been raised time and time again as an example of why we should tread carefully. Well, I have to say that if people are going to use cultural sensitivity as a way of slowing this work down, they must think twice. People do not have to have kidney transplants or liver transplants if they are totally against those procedures. They do not have to take part in scientific trials if they think it would be to the detriment of their health but, for heaven’s sake, they should not disallow such a procedure for other Kiwis who are quite happy to take the risk because it might make a difference to their lives. The opponents of that work should not stand in the way of Kiwis who have no other options—who are facing death, or such deterioration that their quality of life is hugely affected.

So this bill is nothing more than a delaying tactic. There is no logic behind it, and there is no scientific merit in it, either. There is a lot of hysteria, which has been beaten up by the Government. A lot of populist reasons are given for supporting this bill, but those reasons do not stack up either scientifically or logically, and it seems to me that the Government has forgotten the people in New Zealand who are waiting desperately to get those sorts of operations.

For example, people might take the opportunity to get a pig kidney transplant because they have been on dialysis for many, many years. Anybody who has seen someone go through dialysis knows that it is an incredibly difficult procedure to go through. It is a very oppressive procedure to go through, and it has a huge impact on people’s lives.

So I say to the Government members who are putting this bill forward that they should explain their logic, because I cannot see any. While they are wanting to look as if they are being green and reacting to concerns, I do not see those concerns being raised. Government members are trying to whip up concern by going through this sham of a consultation process, and by dreaming up all sort of reasons why xenotransplantation is a bad idea, but there has been no groundswell of support.

One of the things that a person who attended a consultation pointed out to me was the fact that the consultations were very poorly attended. The public were not well informed that there was a consultation process in place and, in fact, a lot of the different groups that actually speak on behalf of Kiwis waiting for life-saving operations were not even in a position to let their members know to go along and take part.

What we are talking about here is delaying science. What we are talking about here is delaying the opportunity for New Zealand scientists to take part and contribute at the forefront of scientific endeavour. We are seeing nothing more than a Luddite approach to dealing with some serious issues. By all means, let us ensure that good science is being undertaken in this country and that research funded by Kiwi taxpayers is good, evidence-based scientific research. But let us stop pretending that those scientists who work within our Crown research institutes and universities are mad weirdoes who need heavy regulation to stop them going off and undertaking Frankenstein-like scientific projects. It simply will not happen.

While hysteria is beaten up and those sorts of examples are given, we have people waiting for dialysis at a cost of $1,500 a week. We are not able to get good numbers of donors, because the number of live human donors required is simply not available. By all means let us look at other solutions, then, so that we can get those people waiting back into a fully active life, and let us stop pretending that there is some logical reason for holding back the scientific tide.

There is no reason for delay. It seems just a small delay and not a huge amount of time, yet in the scientific world it is a huge amount of time. Time waits for no scientific men or women who are trying to maintain their scientific reputations at the forefront of that kind of work. It is no wonder New Zealand is seen as being a bit of a scientific backwater these days, because so many of our best and brightest have gone offshore so that they can continue working at a level that befits their reputations.

This sort of piecemeal approach to extending moratoriums is not based in logic, and it is certainly not based in science. I do not think it is a compassionate approach to dealing with the growing problem we have in this country—that is, the problem of the number of people facing kidney disease, a problem that is endemic within our society. If we do not start looking at other solutions, some of the systems we have in place will not be sustainable.

Trying to get on dialysis treatment in Auckland right now means facing a real difficulty. It was one issue that came up time and time again when we spoke to district health boards. The rate of increased use of dialysis units is growing at an unsustainable level.

Why are we closing our minds to different alternatives? Why are we pretending that scientific endeavour can be put on hold so that the Government can make political capital out of a very serious issue?

I was extremely disappointed in the Opposition member’s speech on this bill. It showed that she has not read Part 7A of the Medicines Act, and that she has not read the screeds of submission papers made when this moratorium was implemented, or any of the papers that came out of a conference of international experts, held in Boston, on the subject of xenotransplantation. It also showed that she is not listening to the people of New Zealand.

This legislation extends the moratorium on the controls—I point out to the member, Katherine Rich, that this legislation does not ban them—on xenotransplantation of animal to human organs. She is obviously not aware of the fact that since the moratorium has been in place there have not been applications by people asking to do this. So we are not holding back science, because there have not been any applications. Had the member listened during the select committee deliberations when this information was presented, she would have noted that the committee was told that.

This bill is about a moratorium. There is extensive public dialogue about bioethics. There has been a good deal of publicity. I have attended public meetings in my city that were attended by a large number of scientists involved both in medicine and in agricultural research. They know a great deal about the subject. I look forward to the report of the Bioethics Council on this matter, and to more public discussion on the chance of retrovirus infection. We are still not sure, from the research that has been done, whether the pigs that are being used are absolutely clear and cannot transmit a retrovirus. On a day when we are anxious about foot-and-mouth disease in New Zealand, I think that when talking about animal to human organ transplantation we must apply the precautionary principle, as is being done in Australia and Britain.

On behalf of New Zealand First I rise to speak to the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill. New Zealand First supports this legislation, which will extend the current controls on xenotransplantation until 31 December 2006, due to the ongoing concerns about the safety of this experimental technique. We recognise that biotechnology is advancing very rapidly, but we are also aware that bioethics is a very complex field. New Zealand First believes that more research is required before these procedures become an accepted part of transplantation, and that we should proceed with caution until we are sure of our ground. It is an important issue and it needs to be right.

We are also very aware that the Bioethics Council has recently completed the first round of public dialogue meetings in many centres. That produced active participation and debate. I quote from the Bioethics Council’s press release from 15 April 2005 when Chris Nichol, who has facilitated quite a number of these public meetings, said that “people have really got their heads around this one”. He then went on to say: “No single issue dominated the dialogue events, different issues were emphasised in different regions. The Wellington dialogue focused, amongst other topics, on the regulatory framework of xenotransplantation, while Christchurch concentrated on animal welfare, humanness and alternative remedies to xenotransplantation. In Auckland, participants didn’t agree on the status of animals. Some believed there wasn’t enough dialogue discussion in regards to animal welfare, and want to raise it again at the reconvened event in a fortnight. Xeno-tourism has come in for discussion. This relates to people entering New Zealand having undertaken xenotransplantation procedures offshore which are not approved here. The concern is the potential risk to public health.”

It appears from this that public interest in xenotransplantation and the work of the Bioethics Council is very high. I understand, too, that the council will produce a report on xenotransplantation that is to be presented to the Government in August. We will be most interested in that. I believe we should have some trust and faith in the Bioethics Council, and in the people who are responsible for making decisions about those matters.

A number of safety and technical concerns have been identified, and, of course, there are only a very limited number of animal or human studies of possible efficacy. During the select committee process, Ministry of Health officials advised us that the human immune system rapidly attacks and rejects tissue from animals, which means that most xenotransplants fail rather rapidly. I know that scientists are exploring options to try to solve those particular problems. As we can see, it is still a very experimental technique. The evidence indicates that xenotransplantation has the potential to be associated with an increased risk of transmission of a wide range of viral, bacterial, and other infections that are known to occur in the source animals. That means there may be the risk of a new infection jumping the species barrier. We already have one of those uncontrollable infections in the form of bird flu, because, as we all know, there are currently no known antidotes to control avian flu.

I looked on the Internet to find other examples of new infectious diseases that emerged in other species and were transmitted to humans. They include HIV and the 1918 human influenza virus, which was actually a mutation of the swine flu virus. Although we acknowledge that infections may be minimised in the same way as for human infections, we also acknowledge that science does not know of all the infectious organisms that may infect humans. Like any other new disease, those new viruses will be very difficult to identify—they usually take some time—and there may not be effective medications to help the people who actually have those viruses. What about the transmission of those viruses? That will also be very difficult to identify.

I know that Dr Hutchison will agree that it is now recognised that pigs carry an inactive retrovirus within their genetic structure. At this stage, whether that retrovirus can cause infection in humans is totally unknown. Also, those retroviruses may remain dormant in the host for a long time before they actually emerge to cause disease in humans. Although we recognise that there is a chronic organ shortage in New Zealand—as we heard at the select committee, and, of course, from previous speakers—we do not want to see the transmission of retroviruses to humans via xenotransplantation.

At this stage, there is a considerable potential risk to human health, and this is one of the areas that the debate is all about, along with the ethical, spiritual, and cultural issues. We believe that the moratorium needs to remain in place until all the issues associated with xenotransplantation are resolved to a far greater degree than they are at present. When we look at some of the countries we often like to compare ourselves with, we see, for example, that in Australia in December 2004 the National Health and Medical Research Council announced a 5-year moratorium on clinical trials of xenotransplantation. In Canada, clinical trials cannot proceed without the approval of Health Canada. Ministry of Health officials who briefed the Health Committee were unaware of any clinical trials on humans that had been given approval by Health Canada. Again, in the UK there are no trials under way. So the approach that New Zealand is following is in line with that of those countries. We cannot afford to rush in when we have neither the knowledge nor structures in place in our hospitals to assist patients with the problems and challenges they may experience after xenotransplantation.

We have all told the Minister of Health, and we all know ourselves, that our hospitals are stretched to the limit, so why add another dimension that they cannot cope with at this point in time? We really believe that we should not go out on a limb on this matter. Why rush in where angels fear to tread? We need the widest possible views on this issue—more than just the views of those who stand to benefit if the research leads to future benefits for a particular group. It needs to be right. There is no groundswell of support out in the public arena at this point in time.

We are also aware that in 2002 a New Zealand company conducted human trials in Mexico, and it was proposed that some trials be carried out in the Cook Islands. One of the reasons, more than likely, that those countries were chosen is the fact that they do not have the appropriate regulatory authorities to develop guidelines to safeguard the patients, and the people with whom they come into contact. So it is really much easier for those companies to go overseas and carry out their testing. Of course, we have never heard of any results from that testing.

New Zealand First believes that, at this stage, the risk has to be weighed against the possible benefit to the recipients. We believe that the studies are inadequate and do not counterbalance the potential risks involved. Human trials are not justified at this point in time. While the research is at an experimental stage, we believe the moratorium should remain in place.

The Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill is not about xenotransplantation; it is actually about the extension of a moratorium. It has been very interesting to sit here and listen to the speeches so far. We would think that the bill is about suddenly allowing research to happen in this country, as I—and I think the National Party—feel that it should. Without this bill, the existing additional controls on xenotransplantation will end on 30 June 2005, with the expiry of Part 7A of the Medicines Act. After that date, the scientific and ethical oversight will return to the controls utilised for clinical trials of medicines contained within section 30 of the Medicines Act, and I think that that is what this debate should be about. It should not be about the merit, or otherwise, of xenotransplantation.

The reason we have this bill before us now—it has gone through the select committee process, but barely touched the table in the process, I might add—is that the Government is kicking for touch. It does not want a proper discussion about xenotransplantation in the lead-up to a general election. It does not want those matters to be discussed properly by the public. It just wants to delay this issue until after the election, when opposition to it will not be as strong. I think that we should provide—[Interruption] No, it will be here. The reason, of course, is that the Government, and also the Greens, do not want to have this discussion. Some reasoned debate might be heard, instead of the one-sided debate we are hearing at the moment. Parties in this Parliament that should know better—of course I do not include the Greens in that—are promoting fear and unreasonable argument around the subject. The Government is kicking for touch; it wants to extend the moratorium so that the discussion does not have to happen before 30 June, because, as we know, an election is before us. This is about political expediency, rather than anything else.

The National Party member made some very interesting and pertinent comments. She said that this bill is about delaying science, and that is exactly what it is. We should be having proper discussion. We should be discussing the issues properly, and in an informed environment. But this legislation is about delaying science, and about delaying New Zealand scientists’ ability to participate in good-quality research that we know has some very beneficial effects—research that will help, and will save people’s lives.

The research, as we know, used to occur in New Zealand, and I have met one of the five people, I think it was, who has benefited hugely from xenotransplantation research. She was a participant, and she is now leading a very productive, happy, and a healthier, life as a result. Without this research, she would have been looking at a very different picture. Those critics who are not prepared to enter into the debate properly—those critics who want to keep this moratorium going on and on forever, as the Green Party does, so that no research can ever take place—should take note of the terrible circumstances in which some people have to live their lives, when they could be benefiting significantly from research.

We have rigorous regulatory regimes in this country. There has been much surrounding research. There has been much talk about the Bioethics Council from several previous speakers, and consultation around the country. So if we can talk about those things in a consultative manner, why do we not just call for the debate to happen properly? I wonder why the Greens are supporting this legislation to extend the moratorium. Well, it is obvious why. But if they say they want to have the debate, why do they not oppose this legislation and have the debate properly before the election, as Ms Kedgley says she wants to? Why are the Greens supporting the legislation? Why do they not call for the debate? If they are so confident about their cause, the debate will be held. Perhaps xenotransplantation will be banned, once and for all—which is exactly what she wants, I believe.

One thing we do not do in this country is trust our scientists. We do not trust our research, and we do not trust our Bioethics Council to come to the proper resolution when scientific topics are discussed. I certainly trust scientists; I have a great deal of faith in them. But we are now seeing a promotion of fear and unreasonable expectation of what the scientific community can produce in this country. One of the issues that is always put forward when we talk about xenotransplantation is the difficulties with retroviruses. There is much concern about this—quite rightly so—and that is why we must have rigorous regulatory regimes surrounding any research that takes place.

The New Zealand First speaker spoke at length about retroviruses. I wonder why she, as a member of a party that worries so much about immigration, omitted to say in her speech that we should be screening all our tourists and immigrants to this country, at the border, for retroviruses. Do we do anything about tourists coming into this country? Do we test them, or screen them for retroviruses? Are we concerned about any pandemics that might result from a retrovirus being carried in by a tourist or an immigrant? No, there is not a whimper about that. Maybe the Green member will talk about that; I do not know. But certainly the New Zealand First members, who worry inordinately about immigrants, and we have heard in the last 2 weeks—[Interruption] No, no. I am not. I am asking why New Zealand First members did not mention it if they are so worried about it. It seems that they have an unreasonable fear of research, but are not worried at all about retroviruses being carried into the country by immigrants and tourists. The reason, of course, is that the risk is very low, but if that is to be promoted as a reason to stop research, it should also be promoted as a reason to stop immigrants from coming in. Anyway, those members missed their opportunity there. It is a shame I had to point that out for them.

The Government, of course, has encouraged our scientists, some of the best and brightest in the world, to go offshore. I think in particular of the research that was done in this country, and I mentioned one of the participants in that research. That research has now had to go offshore, where I suspect it will produce some very good results. Unfortunately, those results will not be in the name of New Zealanders or in this country. It is a shame that that fear is there. Science in this country is very important, it is important for us for the future, and the discouragement must be truly frustrating for our scientists. I think that those in the science and research fields must be frequently frustrated, but particularly so in this field when knowledge stems from this country. We have very good science departments in our universities, but they have barriers put in their way all the time.

So ACT New Zealand, as members will have noted by now, opposes the progress of this bill, and we will continue to do so in the Committee stage and third reading. We think we should be having a proper debate, not a quasi-debate or Clayton’s debate about whether the moratorium should be extended. As I pointed out before, this is not a debate about xenotransplantation; it is a debate about political expediency. Other members are not willing to have the debate so close to an election; they want to wait till after the election, when they think things will not be noticed in the same way and further legislation can be drawn up. I suspect that the legislation has already been drawn up. It is just being delayed, for the benefit of the Government with the election campaign coming up. Last time we had “corngate”, of course. The Prime Minister does not want to have to go around the country to debate xenotransplantation.

ACT will be opposing this bill. We believe firmly in science, in progress, and in research. We oppose vehemently the delaying of science and the delaying of the ability of our scientists to do good-quality research in this country. This bill denies them the opportunities that they should have in New Zealand. It is about our skilled, our best and our brightest, being sent offshore yet again. ACT New Zealand opposes the passage of this bill.

The Green Party will be supporting the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill. Despite all the rhetoric that we have heard, this bill is, essentially, just a date change. It is an extension of the moratorium so that legislation can be more thoughtfully developed in order, hopefully, that xenotransplantation can be covered by the new human tissue legislation that is being worked on.

Arguably, the legislation surrounding xenotransplantation will be one of the more important pieces of legislation to come before this House, so it is crucial that we get it right and do not rush into it. We are extremely pleased that the Government is spending more time on it and that we are extending the moratorium, so that we can be absolutely certain that the legislation will not be rushed legislation that needs to be changed. Hopefully, we will get it right.

We have heard some extraordinary comments in this debate today, which shows that some members have taken the issue of xenotransplantation extraordinarily lightly. But the truth is that, despite all the attempts made by the bill’s opponents to dismiss the concerns about xenotransplantation, it is an issue with profound ethical and safety considerations. It involves crossing the species barrier between humans and animals—a species barrier that has existed for millennia. Therefore, whatever the opponents say, that raises the possibility of the transfer of disease between species. As Barbara Stewart from New Zealand First has already pointed out, it raises the possibility of the development of crossover diseases from, for example, pigs to humans, and of the development of new infectious, and possibly deadly, viruses.

There is no point in trying to dismiss those possibilities. There is experimental evidence that shows, despite what opponents say, that pig viruses have survived for long periods of time inside humans. Furthermore, as the paper from the Ministry of Health points out, there is the possibility that new infectious organisms that are not currently known will emerge and infect humans. The Ministry of Health points out that those emerging viruses would pose a particular problem because they would be difficult to identify. So there may not be effective therapies against them if they were to develop and had various routes of transmission.

The ministry points out that the porcine endogenous retrovirus is present in the DNA contained in the nucleus of all pig cells. Its transmission from pig cells has been recorded in the laboratory, and that poses a very credible risk to public health. There was no mention made by the speakers from ACT and National about the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) crisis. Barbara Stewart mentioned various others like HIV, etc., but how about the BSE crisis, when an animal disease crossed over to humans? At the time, most scientists dismissed the idea, when it was pointed out, that there was a possibility of transferring that infection from animals to humans. It was utterly dismissed by scientists who, as Katherine Rich said, did not want to hold back the great scientific tide. They dismissed the possibility airily. They said that there was a purely theoretical risk that the disease could cross the species barrier and transfer to humans, and that it was certainly not something that should be seriously contemplated. In that case, the scientists certainly got it wrong. They denied the risks and we ended up with BSE—mad cow disease—which had a huge, huge cost to the British Government and to human health.

The reality is that there is huge scientific uncertainty surrounding xenotransplantation. For example, if we did put pig organs into humans to try to solve the problem of diabetes, which Katherine Rich has talked about, and if we got it wrong and it resulted in the emergence of a new retrovirus, it would be—not to put too fine a word on it—a disaster for humanity. It certainly could open a Pandora’s box. We are in the middle of a bird flu epidemic, and we have heard the dire warnings of what could happen if the disease continues to transfer to humans—it already has—and to mutate. We could be in the midst of a huge epidemic. We have been told that by experts, yet speakers in this debate airily want to dismiss those possibilities. They suggest that this bill is simply trying to hold back the scientific tide by providing for proper consideration and regulatory controls surrounding xenotransplantation.

I was also rather alarmed by some of the remarks made by Katherine Rich. She pointed out, quite correctly, that we are in the midst of a diabetes epidemic. We in the Health Committee have been hearing that there is such an increase in people needing dialysis machines that there are shortages around the country. There is no doubt about that and, at a cost of about $50,000-odd per year to treat someone on dialysis, New Zealand faces a huge problem. But her answer to that huge crisis seemed to be that we must all now get pig organs—set aside our concerns and set up, I presume, huge pig factories around New Zealand to grow pig organs so that we can all use them for problems such as failing organs, as in the case of advanced diabetes.

But hang on a minute! Why would we not look first at human donor organs? New Zealand has one of the lowest rates of organ donation in the world, and we are doing virtually nothing serious to increase it. There is a huge amount that we could and should be doing. Indeed, the Health Committee has recommended strongly that the Government take far more action in developing a register and doing everything it can to increase the rate of human organ donation.

But there is another issue. Yes, we have an epidemic of diabetes—an estimated 120,000-odd people with diabetes and the same number, it is said, with undiagnosed diabetes. But instead of looking at xenotransplantation and pig organs, why do we not look at the causes of diabetes and take some simple steps—we could take them right now; they are under our noses—to prevent the epidemic of diabetes in the first instance? We are told that 90 percent or more of cases of diabetes are type 2 diabetes caused by—guess what—diet and inactivity. So why do we not take simple steps? Why is the National Party not suggesting simple steps like getting rid of the high-sugar fizzy drinks sold in vending machines in almost every secondary school in our land? A high-fat diet is another cause. Why are we allowing virtually all the schools in New Zealand to sell high-fat diets?

We have just done a survey of 50 schools, in which we found that in virtually all of them the staple diet sold in tuck-shops is pies, doughnuts, chips, hot dogs, and sausage rolls. A simple thing we could do tomorrow to deal with the causes of diabetes is to improve our children’s diet—to reduce the amount of fat and sugar they are being exposed to, which we know is the cause of diabetes. Why do we seem incapable of taking simple little steps such as getting rid of the vending machines in our schools and asking the food industry to reduce the amount of high-fat, high-sugar rubbish it is selling as food to our children, whom it is targeting with manipulative techniques? Why are we not prepared to do something simple like that? Instead, according to the National Party, the solution to diabetes is in putting pig organs into humans—embracing xenotransplantation, despite all of its huge known risks. Let us not, according to the National Party, do something simple like improve the food our children are eating and deal with the causes of diabetes; let us just get into high-tech solutions and set up pig factories all around New Zealand so that we can start putting pig organs into humans! How tragic, how short-sighted, and how lacking in vision!

It has been rather interesting to hear the debate today, because we are talking about a bill that has three clauses. In fact, it has only one clause of significance—the third clause—because the first is the title clause and the second is the commencement clause. The third clause covers the extension until 31 December next year of the expiry date of the moratorium relating to the controls on xenotransplantation procedures—which is what this bill is all about.

United Future believes that scientific development is great. However, it needs to occur within an ethical framework. Ethics do not apply just to medical procedures; they also have to apply to the research processes that enable us to get there. This is not a controversial piece of legislation, despite what ACT and National tell the House. In fact, we are asking for something that we as members of Parliament ask for all the time: an extension on a date. In select committee work we regularly ask to extend the period in which we can consider important issues. We may want to get in additional experts. We may want to retalk to submitters or call for further submissions. There are all sorts of reasons why we may feel that the time frame we have been given is not quite sufficient to do the job properly, and we then apply for and get an extension from the House. That is exactly what this bill is about. It is an application to this House for an extension, because those working at the coalface of this issue want more time.

The Bioethics Council is well on task with the work it is doing. I am registered with the Bioethics Council. It sends me data on issues as they come up so that I have the opportunity to submit on an issue if I am interested. I have in my possession a letter from the Bioethics Council that I received on 3 March, inviting me, should I be interested, to make a submission on this all-important area. The letter outlines 16 rounds of meetings—eight rounds of two meetings each—available to people who want to be part of the discussion at a community level on xenotransplantation. The last date on which one could participate in the second round of the last meeting was Wednesday, 4 May, in Auckland.

Katherine Rich claimed that groups that wanted to have input did not have time to get their acts together and to participate in those discussions. I cannot see how that was the case, as I received the letter on 3 March, which must have been about the same time everybody else who was interested in this issue received it. The time frame they had was right through to 4 May, which seems to me like plenty of time.

I was also interested to hear ACT member Heather Roy kind of accusing those of us who support this extension of being party to fearmongering on this issue. Since when did caution turn into fearmongering? I think that caution on these matters is extremely important.

I want to support two members who have taken a call today. One is Dianne Yates, who—I suspect, like no other member of this House—has devoted a huge amount of her time as a member of Parliament to issues of a bioethics nature. She has even travelled to Britain in respect of issues that she has been deeply concerned about. She has sponsored a member’s bill on this matter. Possibly Dr Paul Hutchison may come a close second. It was very interesting to hear Dianne Yates’ speech.

I also commend Barbara Stewart from New Zealand First, who gave a very well-researched speech, who has really thought carefully about the issue, and who sees that it is just a common-sense thing to extend this moratorium a bit longer. In fact, the explanatory note states that the date that has been given, 31 December 2006, can be extended by Order in Council if necessary. There is huge expectation that it may not have to go as far as 31 December 2006, because work is well on track in that regard.

The other issue that comes up is about whether we trust scientists, and whether by voting for this bill we are demonstrating some lack of trust in our scientific community. The truth is that ethical scientists do not want to work in some sort of unbridled environment. They also know that it is quite possible for their work to run ahead of ethical considerations. They understand and appreciate that the work done by organisations like the Bioethics Council—and even by members of Parliament on this matter—is work that is well done, and that, at the end of the day, actually supports the progress of science. We must remember that it is not just what we achieve in medical science that is important, but that it is also important to consider the means by which we get there. The means must be as ethical as the ends.

I have a particular interest in this issue because I am at high risk of getting diabetes. There has been a lot of mention this afternoon that one of the wonder breakthroughs we are expecting, should xenotransplantation be allowed to go ahead, is in the area of diabetes. My grandfather was an insulin-dependent diabetic, my mother is now an insulin-dependent diabetic, and there are certainly signs in my life that if I do not manage my diet and do all sorts of other things, then I am headed in that direction, too. So I ask myself, considering the fact that diabetes is a high risk for me, whether I want unbridled scientific endeavour to rush ahead, supposedly on my behalf, and come up with some fairly interesting solutions to my problem—including the implantation of pig matter into my body—without testing them out. Let me tell members that although it is appalling to have to see my mother inject herself on a twice-daily basis, I would rather, if that were the outcome for my life, end up doing that than be subject to some untried, poorly-thought-through medical procedure that may do me a lot more harm than good.

So United Future is very supportive of this extension. That is all it is. We congratulate members of the medical and scientific communities who work on this issue. We congratulate members of the bioethics community, who are continuing to tease out all the issues around this. We are very happy to support this second reading.

I rise to take a call in opposition to the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill. I do so on a range of grounds. The first one, which I think is the most important, is that this legislation is not entirely related to xenotransplantation. This bill provides for a moratorium on a range of other scientific experiments. The second point, which has been put forward by a number of submitters to this debate so far, is that xenotransplantation is relatively new and that it therefore needs to go through more rigorous science before it can be deemed safe.

I have in front of me a bit of information that suggests that the first xenotransplantation took place in 1682, when part of a dog’s skull was transplanted into a Russian nobleman who had a fractured skull. It seems to me that this technology is not as new as some would have us believe. The reason it has not become a popular and regular event is, as some have submitted, because the human body generally rejects the transplantation and the person suffers because of the rejection. The body’s own immune system rejects the foreign matter that has been transplanted, and that causes either death or some other kind of repercussion.

There is a huge amount of scientific evidence, going back over a long period of time, that suggests that these procedures could be safe in some instances—that experimentation has already taken place. I know, as will a number of other people in this House, many people who have kidney problems and are on dialysis. They have to go for dialysis sometimes daily, and it has a horrendous effect on their standard of living and general well-being.

One person in particular said to me that he would love to be able to allow himself to go forward potentially as—I will not use the words “guinea pig”, because we are talking about pig transplantation—somebody who could demonstrate to the wider world that this process has been tested on many occasions. In his view, based on all the medical advice he has been given, it would be a safe procedure that would give him an extended life and make his standard of living so much better.

So why should we stand in Parliament today and debate legislation that extends a moratorium on his individual right to make that choice? Why should we do that? On what grounds? We do not have the science to back up the argument to extend the moratorium. It is just not there. There is no conclusive science that states that the procedure is unsafe and that we should not allow it to happen. Why should we do that? We do not have science that suggests that if it were to happen, there would be some kind of horrendous repercussion, such as the interspecies transplant of some disease. There is no science to back that up.

Until we allow some of this procedure to take place—and I am not talking just about xenotransplantation, there are others types of science that I think are being held back by the sort of Luddite approach that we have in this country—scientists will look at something that is a little bit off the wall, and say: “No, the regulatory framework that we have in New Zealand at the moment around this kind of stuff is so tough that we won’t bother going down the road of applying for funds or carrying out the science experimentation, whether it be with animals or humans, with the intent of advancing medical science.”

I need to remind the House that this is a biological nation. In this country we depend, by and large, on our agricultural exports. It is on the back of science that we have been able to develop one of the most efficient industries in the world in our agricultural exports. So why do we seem to have now got to the stage where we are very cautious, and introduce a legislative framework that goes beyond what most credible scientists would suggest is necessary, particularly in this instance?

I put this forward to the House, and I ask Government members: “Why do you need to have another extension?”. They had a piece of legislation passed some time ago that introduced the moratorium. The suggestion at that stage, by most who were involved in that debate, was that at the end of that period there would be enough evidence to suggest that we would then be able to move on. Yet we are now here again today passing, or about to pass, I suspect, based on those who have spoken, legislation that will extend that moratorium out again, and it is based on no science that I can find. So unless someone can take a call and prove that what I have said is wrong, that is where I stand.

The first successful organ xenotransplants were carried out in 1963. So I stress the point that this is not new. The reason it has not become more widespread, as I said before, is because of the difficulty that the medical fraternity has had in trying to find a way to stop the human body from rejecting the transplanted material, whether it be a kidney, a heart, a liver, or whatever it might be—and on this paper there are a number of other suggestions of potential organs, but the kidney transplant is, of course, the one that is most spoken of at the moment in regard to xenotransplantation.

Can I also refer to some of the debate that has gone on about the contrast between New Zealand’s criteria, or regulation, around this, and what happens in Australia. Some have suggested that Australians have taken a very cautious approach to this, and that at this stage they are not allowing the kind of development that may take place here, if it is allowed to, to go ahead. Well, there is an interesting counter-argument to that, and it is this. Most of the scientists who have exited New Zealand in recent times, including those who were involved in the development of xenotransplantation, have gone to Australia. Now one has to ask the question: if Australia’s regulatory framework is as tough as has been suggested here today, why would one go there? What possible gain could there be? If New Zealand’s approach to science is as open as Australia’s, why would one go from New Zealand to Australia if one were a scientist? Yet the evidence is overwhelming that that is what scientists have done. So that is a question that is unanswered for me.

I can see some Ministers over there now. It is great to see the Minister of Police, and I am sure he will be knowledgable on this. I look forward to him taking a call to explain to me why we have had a mass exodus of our best scientists in recent times to Australia, when it has been asserted in the House here today that the Australian regulations are the same as ours and that that is the reason why we should not allow this experimentation to take place at this point in time. I am sure a Minister will answer that question.

The other area I want to touch on is the fact that a large number of people in this country, for whatever reason, whether it be cultural, religious, or whatever, will not be involved in xenotransplantation, and that is their choice. But why should those who wish to, not be involved in this transplantation? I refer back to my farming leader colleague from Taranaki—and I will not use his name because I have not asked him whether I can—who is desperately needing a kidney transplant at this point in time. He cannot find a suitable donor and is in a serious, potentially life-threatening state of health. Why is he not allowed to be involved—because he wants to be—in what could be ground-breaking science that could solve his problem?

I ask members of the House, particularly Ministers who are involved in the various regulatory areas, to find out the percentage of New Zealanders who put on their driving licence that they would be willing to become a donor in the case of a serious accident. They will find that the source of potential donors over the last 10 years, for a range of reasons, has declined. So what will we do? We know that we can extend people’s lives, and certainly improve their quality of life by transplantation, but we also know that the potential source of donors is drying up. What will we do about that? Extending a moratorium on something that may be potentially the answer to that problem, in my view makes no sense at all.