Dyson Ruth: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Dyson Ruth: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:666;Page:14099] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 It gives me great pleasure to speak in support of the progress of the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill. Getting through the name of the bill we are currently considering reminds me that the speakers on the previous legislation had they been confronted with debating a bill called the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill would not have got away with their 20-second calls because it takes longer than that just to say the name of the bill. 
This is one of those unusual situations where the original legislation which was the cause of a lot of debate and a lot of serious consideration in this Chamber was to my recollection supported unanimously. This bill just amends that legislation. We have had the same degree of consideration for this bill. It has not been a party political issue at all and I was really pleased at the proper consideration that the Health Committee gave it. I pay tribute to the chair of the select committee Dr Paul Hutchison and the other members. I think we all took this issue seriously. I found it quite frustrating on some occasions. Some really interesting debates were raised during the submission process that were clearly out of scope but we all wanted to debate them anyway because they were interesting. We restrained ourselves and I think we should get gold stars and probably a week’s leave— 
Michael Woodhouse 
: A chocolate fish. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Is that in addition to the gold star? 
Michael Woodhouse 
: I’ll put a gold star on the chocolate fish. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: A gold star and a chocolate fish for our restraint in not getting into the other issues! 
From a serious point of view it was really important that we did not open the debate up broadly because this is a contentious issue. We did not want people to have expectations of changes in the overall regime of this legislation rather than just the specific technical amendment it seeks to achieve. 
I have a serious question for the Minister in the chair Dr Jonathan Coleman who is an Associate Minister of Health. He has a lot of experience—not necessarily in this specific area but certainly in the health area—rather than the Minister who is in charge of the bill the Hon Simon Power. He may not immediately be able to answer this question but I tell him that it is a serious one. Before I put it I ask him to flick through the bill as amended by the select committee and reported back to the House. As I said this is unanimous. This is not a point-scoring exercise; I want to hear the answer to this question from the Minister’s perspective. Did we get it right at the select committee? From the Minister’s perspective have we now clarified the one single point that this amendment bill sought to clarify? 
The reason I am concerned about it is that there was no politicking in it and no argument about it—we all wanted to get it right—but we have nearly rewritten the whole amendment bill. The bill seeks to clarify beyond doubt the situation making clear the storage period—it has other amendments as well but this is the most important one—of sperm eggs and embryos. That is important in terms of the requirements for fertility clinics to use them or dispose of them. I ask the Minister to reflect on my first question: have we got it right and does this now make it really clear what the storage period is in terms of when it starts and therefore when it will finish? 
If it does the second question is how we got it so wrong when the Minister introduced the amendment bill in the first place. What caused such a significant change of opinion between the bill as introduced and the bill that is now being reported back to the House? I have no doubt at all about not only the sincerity but also the competence of the officials. I think they worked really diligently with a committee that was genuinely interested in the goings-on and with submitters who had no ulterior motive actually but to get it right. Some of the submitters had different views about what might have been the outcome but interestingly enough of the submissions we received not a single one opposed the intent of the bill to clarify the 10-year period. All of the submissions we received either supported or did not oppose the intent of the bill with regard to the clarification of the 10-year storage period. 
Doubt was also removed about the roles of the relevant committees in extending the storage limit. That was another quite difficult area for us to work through. We sought to clarify the specific role of advisory committees and what their mandate was and also the role of the ethics committees. 
This area as members would understand has a lot of human emotion attached to it. A large number of couples are unable to conceive other than through in vitro fertilisation treatment. It is important that the law is clear so that we never ever put a couple in the situation where their expectations about the significant procedure they are about to undertake are interfered with because of something that is not clear in the law. Having that sort of tension laid on a couple in this situation would be totally unacceptable. 
As I said I would like the Minister to consider that genuine question. I am delighted that the Hon Simon Power is now in the position where he has relieved himself of the public duties that he was attending to to the point where he will be able to take a call in this debate. For his benefit because the battery may have been a little flat on his transistor radio as he walked into the Chamber I will repeat what is a genuine question for the Minister responsible for this legislation. I want a response to this question from his perspective: did the Health Committee get it right? We made substantial omissions amendments and insertions to this legislation during a very rigorous process at the select committee. We had highly competent and attentive officials. Members of the select committee paid a lot of attention to the submissions and worked really hard to get it right and we want it to be right. So I would like the Minister to say whether he is satisfied having read every amendment that we have made that the select committee is reporting back the bill in a way that makes him confident that the lack of clarity in the original legislation is now made crystal clear. 
The second part of that question is why if we got it right the bill that the Minister introduced got it so wrong. On every page of this bill— 
Michael Woodhouse 
: Oh that’s harsh. That is very harsh. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Not from the Minister’s point of view. I want to know what happened in the process. It is a technical bill and it seems odd that significant amendments have been made to every single part of the bill. The parts were amended withdrawn or replaced. I ask what happened in that process. Was it because some submitters who came before the select committee read the legislation entirely differently from the way that the Minister and his officials had read it? Did they have completely different views about what was meant? We did hear that; National list MP Michael Woodhouse will testify to that in his contribution I am sure. Some submitters read the legislation and had quite a different view about it than the view that we had. Human understanding and perception could be a big part of that. 
I am keen in the remaining few minutes of our opportunity to further amend this legislation in the Committee stage to make sure that if any further amendments are needed we make them now. I have not seen the Minister presenting any Supplementary Order Papers to the Committee and I am encouraged by that. I assume that means he is satisfied in which case he has only one question to answer. That question is what happened from his perspective between the introduction of the bill the submission process the consideration and the outcome which is so different from the legislation we had in the past. 
The final point I make is one that is disappointing. In a bill like this—particularly where there is no political debate; there is no party political difference on this legislation—it would be very helpful if—