Lees-Galloway Iain: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Lees-Galloway Iain: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13731] 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 It gives me a lot of pleasure to speak on the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill. Although it is mostly a technical amendment bill and a bill that is largely uncontentious and has gained almost complete consensus within the House nevertheless it is noteworthy for some of the reasons that members have already discussed. In particular it deals with technology that is rapidly changing over time and therefore legislation has to be able to keep up with that changing technology. Also it deals with an area that is very emotive. It involves a lot of passion often a lot of heartache and a lot of difficulty for families. Knowing that the legislation is absolutely right and that people have clarity about the intention of the legislation is important. As Hone Harawira said we are talking about human life and relationships. It is easy to forget sometimes that despite all these words on a piece of paper or the submissions that we hear in a select committee in a very clinical environment we are actually talking about human life relationships and people and their desire to grow a family. It is important that we get these things right. 
For the most part it seems that the original bill had it right. The amendments being made in this bill are fairly minor given the area we are dealing in. They ensure that current practice is legitimate and is appropriately accounted for in legislation. I was interested to hear from Heather Roy that when the original bill went to the select committee there were submissions from either side of the fence it was a passionate argument and there was a lot of heat in the debate in those days. It was quite different from what we heard at the Health Committee hearing on this bill where the submitters were all more or less of one mind and were looking for us just to tidy up some aspects of the bill as it was written. That shows that people can move on how issues that seem very divisive can settle down and how people can take the path chosen by the Government of the day and see it as being the right direction. It is important to remember when the debate seems quite vehement and heated on a particular issue to stick to our guns and follow a path if we believe and know that is the right thing to do. This legislation has turned out to be absolutely the right thing to do. 
The bill we are debating tonight makes some technical amendments to the original Act mostly on the storage of sperm eggs and embryos. The current 10-year storage limit applies retrospectively and there are some practical problems in the way fertility organisations have been storing those gametes and embryos. Labour passed the original Act when it was in Government and members have acknowledged the work of former MP Di Yates. It is important to acknowledge her efforts in an environment in which this was a difficult issue to grapple with. It is much easier for us to look back on that problem retrospectively but at the time it was a difficult issue and I have no doubt that Di Yates had people lobbying her in all different directions. The fact that she guided such good legislation which needs such a small amount of amendment through the House in that environment is something worth noting. Fertility treatment and reproductive research had been advancing rapidly for some time and Labour was keen at that stage to ensure that New Zealand kept pace with the changes while ensuring that decisions made were consistent with the values of all New Zealanders. 
The use of in vitro fertilisation is growing in New Zealand and tonight we have already heard that around 5 percent of couples use in vitro fertilisation treatment and around 1100 to 1150 babies are born annually using embryo transfer cycles. The first baby born through assisted reproductive means was born back in 1978 which as it happens was the year I was born so it sticks in my mind. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: That explains so much. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: It explains a thing or two I suppose. That is a period of just a little over 30 years; things have developed considerably in that time and it is important that we keep pace. 
The main thing this bill does is to clarify that the 10-year storage limit goes back to when the Act came into force and is not retrospective as is the current practice. Under the current legislation some embryos or gametes could have been destroyed had they been stored for more than 10 years. The Health Committee offered some amendments and it is pleasing to hear from the Minister of Justice that he sees those as sensible amendments and that we can expect them to be supported by the Government. Of course that includes introducing a grace period after the 10-year storage limit which enables fertility clinics to have a small period of time within which to ensure gametes and embryos are disposed of appropriately and not to have to worry constantly about going through the disposal process. Importantly restrictions are placed on what can be done during the 6-month period and the period is only for disposal; no other uses of those materials are allowed within those 6 months. 
Another amendment addresses the possible argument that the storage period established in the bill as introduced would begin when an embryo was created from the stored gametes themselves. That would lengthen the period of time if a stored gamete had been stored for say 5 years the embryo was created after that 5 years and we added an extra 10 years on top of that. It was an area that needed tidying up to be absolutely clear that the storage period is for 10 years and 10 years only. The bill also ensures that where gametes and embryos are stored in other countries the period of time they are stored outside New Zealand is calculated in the 10-year storage limit. Some recommendations were also made on the role of the ethics committee but those have already been well and truly canvassed in the debate this evening. It is important in the Opposition’s view that the legislation has a review mechanism and we expressed our disappointment at the select committee and have done the same this evening that there is still no desire from the Government to include a review mechanism. In an environment where the technology is changing rapidly and because it is an emotive area as well we think it would be appropriate to have a review process in place. Having said that we have confidence that should future amendments be needed the House and committees will work together to make sure that they are done appropriately and in a timely fashion. 
This is a good bill. It reflects an Act that was well constructed in the first place. Some good work has been done by officials to ensure that these amendments are tidy and easily understood by people who are operating within the bounds of the Act. The Labour Opposition is very happy to support its further progress.