Hutchison Paul: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Hutchison Paul: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:16348] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I will continue on from the excellent speech made my colleague Dr Lynda Scott who was talking on Part 4 “Enforcement and miscellaneous provisions”. There was some concern as to the transitional provisions and powers that the Director-General of Health might have in relation to the advisory committee pending its establishment. I think one of the concerns was that here was an individual who was not elected and could take on powers that were inappropriate. 
It is important to point out again the fact that human assisted reproductive technology in New Zealand has been operating very successfully and without any major problems for over 20 years without specific legislation. One of the great strengths has been the fact that all the fertility clinics are required to be members of the Australasian reproductive technology group which in itself is a policeman of standards and requires extraordinarily high levels of accountability. Over the years that body has closed down clinics and has required individuals to stop practising. For instance one individual in Western Australia was known to over-stimulate the ovaries of women which consequently managed to produce many eggs. That practice subjected women to having multiple births which would obviously endanger both them and the resulting babies and it was firmly from within the group put on its head. 
I know that the clinic I worked in had some small statistical analysis accounting that we had failed to do. It was a very minor thing but we were threatened with closure. We were given a period of 6 months in which to right this which we did for a whole variety of reasons including the professional reputation that was so important. I want to assure the Committee that there is this 9-month interim period where the Director-General of Health is deemed as the advisory committee which should not cause any problems. In fact I think it is extremely unlikely that that would be the case. 
It is also important to realise that in clause 65 “Powers of authorised persons” there are some very clear powers in terms of enforcement whereby the authorised person can enter the place inspect the place make copies and also search and seize. It is very important to have the right balance in relation to these powers because clearly if authorised persons have the possibility of searching and seizing in vitro gametes embryos or in vitro foetuses it is hugely important that they have very judicious reasons for doing so. However what we do not want in this country is the possibility of a mad scientist in some corner of Kaitaia or deepest darkest Dargaville carrying out illegal operations and clearly clause 65 will ensure that that does not happen. 
Clause 66 of course goes on to refer to the entry of dwelling houses where the same powers of searching and seizing can take place if they are justified. In the miscellaneous provisions we turn to clause 72 and the regulations and regulating powers that the Governor-General may by Order in Council make.