Newman Muriel: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Newman Muriel: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15935] 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise to take a call in this debate on Part 3 of the bill. In particular the debate has been discussing the importance of a child knowing the identity of his or her donor parent and of the details being recorded. Clause 46 states that the following details of each donor should be recorded: the donor’s name gender and address the donor’s date place and country of birth the donor’s height the colour of the donor’s eyes and hair and the donor’s ethnicity and any relevant cultural affiliation. In the case of a Maori donor his or her whanau hapu and iwi should be recorded to the extent to which the donor is aware of those affiliations. Finally anything to do with the medical history of the donor or the donor’s parents grandparents children and siblings is required. 
The interesting point that I will make is that the Health Committee has obviously gone into a lot of detail about the right of children to understand their heritage culture lineage and place in the world. I totally agree with that concept but I ask the Committee why there is not the same enthusiasm to provide children with that information about their father if they happen to be born to a mother who decides not to name the father of her child on the birth certificate for some other reason such as evading child support payments and so on. Why has Labour not done something similar to this for the 40000 children in New Zealand today who find themselves in that situation? I find the double standards in this Parliament quite bizarre when we can be holier-than-thou and say how important it is for children who come under the auspices of this bill to have the right to know who their other parent is whereas out there in New Zealand today there are 40000 kids whom nobody seems to care about. I find it absolutely bizarre that on the one hand our New Zealand Parliament can treat the issue with such care concern and consideration and on the other hand it does not give a toss. 
I would like the members of the Labour Party who all appear to be voting en masse for this bill to actually reflect on that issue. The issue is alive for every single child out there who does not know who his or her father is not because of the fact that his or her father is hidden away on the other side of the world and cannot be found but simply because the State colludes with the mother to prevent that child from finding out who the father is. I think that is one of the biggest disgraces in New Zealand today and it is aided and abetted by this Government. Just this week the Government passed a bill to a select committee that dealt with this issue without actually even trying to address the right of those children to know their dads in the way that we see in this particular bill here. I think that it is something that this Parliament should actually be ashamed of. If anybody listened to the families and the children out there who do not have a dad and who know that that is because somebody did not ask their mother to provide the detail on the birth certificate they would realise what heartache there is. Also we have heard about the future genetic problems as children who are related and do not know it intermarry and so on. Those issues are alive and well out there and it has been going on for the last decade yet nothing is being done to fix it. 
I would suggest to the member sitting in the chair Dianne Yates who has obviously persuaded her own party that it is an important issue that certain rights and provisions should be made for children that maybe she needs to extend that influence to the other children who are not captured by this bill. I suspect they are out there in far greater numbers than the children this legislation will affect so I suggest she picks that up as an issue that she can help to pass on to her colleagues. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 270 in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to clause 42 be agreed to.