Benson-Pope David: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Recommittal In Committee Third Reading Procedure 
Benson-Pope David: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Recommittal In Committee Third Reading Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:16836] 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 It is with considerable pleasure that I rise today in support of the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill which is a member’s bill in the name of Dianne Yates MP for Hamilton East. The enactment of this bill will mean that for the first time New Zealand will have a comprehensive regulatory framework governing assisted reproductive procedures and research. The rapid pace of science and technology in this area means that it is becoming increasingly important to have the robust and flexible framework contained in the detail of this bill. 
The most important part of the bill is the clear identification of activities that are simply unacceptable in this country. Such activities include human cloning for reproductive purposes the implantation of a human embryo into an animal and vice versa genetically modifying embryos using gametes from foetuses for reproductive purposes and sex selection for social reasons. These activities are at the extreme end of the spectrum of assisted reproductive technology and will be prohibited outright. Prohibiting such activities will place New Zealand on a par with other countries that regulate assisted reproductive technology. 
The bill also contains a robust and flexible regime for considering whether New Zealand human assisted reproductive procedures are acceptable and for keeping current procedures under review. It does this by establishing a ministerial advisory committee and an ethics committee. The ministerial advisory committee will comprise experts and lay people. It will also include a person to articulate the interests of children. This is as a result of the proposal by Judy Turner which received the support of the majority of the House. The ministerial advisory committee will consult the public and provide policy advice to the Minister of Health on new reproductive procedures. Guidelines issued by the committee for permitted activities will set the parameters for the decisions of the ethics committee when considering individual applications. The ministerial advisory committee will also keep current procedures under review and monitor the health and safety impact of those procedures. 
The framework is robust and is not as some suggest reliant on guidelines. Regulations can also be made on any assisted reproductive procedure or research. Where decisions are made that the risks of an activity outweigh the benefits or that it is ethically unacceptable for use in New Zealand the legislation will be amended so that the activity is added to the list of prohibited activities. 
It is important never to forget the very real human impact of assisted reproductive technology. One of the most significant features of this bill is its world-leading national information-keeping scheme for people born as a result of donated eggs or sperm. This scheme reflects New Zealand’s experience of the consequences of closed adoption and recognises the importance of knowledge about one’s identity family and genetic heritage. Fertility service providers will be required to collect retain and pass on certain information about donors and donor offspring to the Registrar-General of Births Deaths and Marriages who will maintain a register. Donors donor offspring and guardians of donor offspring will be able to access information about one another subject to certain conditions. Information can also be shared about siblings who have the same donor. 
During the Committee stage of this bill I was pleased to support the proposal of Dr Hutchison MP to extend this regime by creating a register of information supplied voluntarily by doctors and donor offspring where the treatment resulting in the conception of the donor offspring occurs before the commencement of this legislation. 
That this legislation is about to be enacted today is testament to the commitment and dedication of Dianne Yates who introduced the bill back in 1996. The bill’s long history reflects the complexity of issues surrounding assisted human reproduction. Indeed New Zealand is not alone in having spent a significant amount of time grappling with these very difficult issues. We should all be pleased that this bill which covers matters that are both technically and ethically challenging enjoys such a high level of support in this House. This is the result of the time spent by the Health Committee to reach understanding and agreement on the benefits of this technology to assist reproduction the potential benefits of research and to ensure that the proper safeguards are protected in relation to health safety and cultural values. I particularly acknowledge the role of our colleague Steve Chadwick as chair of the Health Committee in accomplishing that accord. 
The bill today is different from that which was introduced in 1996. We have benefited from the legislative developments and experience of other countries particularly the United Kingdom and Canada over this period. The result I believe is legislation that is appropriate for our country and our people. I thank Dianne Yates for the enormous amount of work she has put into the bill’s development and congratulate her warmly on successfully bringing it to fruition. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I rise to support the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill. It is a very important bill and it is appropriate for the New Zealand environment. We must acknowledge the tireless work of the officials who assisted with the many amendments and ensured that the implications of those amendments were very clear to us. We must also acknowledge the tireless work of Dianne Yates on this bill and the two doctors on the Health Committee Dr Hutchison and Dr Scott who helped us in so many areas with practical working advice. As Dr Hutchison pointed out in his speech legislation in New Zealand has currently been non-existent as until now this area has been governed only by regulation. This is a challenging area and it will continue to be so. Dianne Yates outlined in her speech some of those challenges about which there will no doubt be a lot of further debate. 
We have seen many advances made in the field of reproductive technology and research since the birth of the first test-tube baby and it is timely that with further advances there is now legislation to give a very clear direction to those people involved in these fields. In the past regulations have been sufficient thanks to the professional and responsible attitudes and practices of fertility service providers and there has never been any major evidence of harm. However that does not mean that there will never be any incidents. 
This bill is very technical—perhaps that is one of the reasons it has been on the Order Paper for so many years—and it will form the basis for many amendments that may need to be made at later dates as technology and scientific knowledge develop further or until such time as it may be necessary for the regulations to become legislation. We are all aware in this House that fertility is a very personal issue and that it can be very stressful for all involved so it is very pleasing to see that this legislation is balanced and provides a consistent regulatory environment that can benefit from new medical technologies and advancements along with protecting the rights of potential offspring. 
Ultimately all decisions made about the use of reproductive technology must reflect the fact that its use will impact on those children throughout their entire lives. There is also some flexibility in the legislation so that new procedures can be developed and used after approval from the ministerial advisory committee and the ethics committee. It is realistic to say that technology is developing at a very fast rate and an advisory committee and an ethics committee are well placed to keep up to date with the latest developments in those fields. It is pleasing to see that any human reproductive research that is not an established procedure as well as all research applications are subject to mandatory ethical review by an ethics committee. That is how it should be. 
The fact that the designation the functions and the duties of the ethics committee are so very clearly prescribed should ensure that everyone is aware of what is happening and also of what is to happen. There can be no doubt with this bill. The fact that information from the ethics committee must be made public must please many people who take an active interest in that area because we all know that awareness is a key factor in accountability. So the role of the ethics committee in this legislation is very clearly spelt out. The bottom line is that in this legislation we are dealing with human lives and of course the procedures must always be as safe as possible. 
The establishment the appointments and the functions of the advisory committee that must be established by the Minister are also very clearly outlined. The persons and their qualifications to be a part of the committee are clearly specified. Again the advisory committee will work in conjunction with the public and hear submissions as appropriate. The fact that some of the members of the committee will be lay persons must be reassuring. We welcome the strengthened requirements for public involvement. New Zealand First believes that the number of people on the advisory committee may be too large particularly with the number of lay persons and we will be most interested to monitor this. We would have liked to see a member of the ethics committee on the advisory committee by right. 
One of the positive aspects of this bill is the fact that the guidelines for the ethics committee to actually work with will be determined by the ministerial advisory committee. The people on the advisory committee are professionals and are concerned about professionalism and about the ethics around that technology. The bill as it is presently written means that there is some flexibility to take advantage of scientific developments and technology in this field and this framework should enable fertility clinics to move forward into the future. 
We are only too aware that the health risks to children born as a result of assisted reproduction procedures are generally higher than is the case for children conceived naturally. So New Zealand First was very pleased when the Government announced earlier in the year that it would increase the funds for in vitro fertilisation and that it would also provide a second cycle to people meeting the set criteria. We all know that single embryo transfer is to become standard practice in most cases and that is one of the issues where New Zealand First has called on the Government to revise its funding policy as a matter of urgency and that has been done. It has been obvious for some time that the implantation of multiple embryos with one cycle to maximise the chances of success was actually increasing the adverse affects on the health of many of the children born as a result of those procedures. Care for premature babies is costly and very intensive. Parents want to see healthy children. In fact all of us in this House could not dispute that premise. 
This bill does provide safeguards around human assisted reproduction and these are clearly outlined in the schedules to the bill. There is a prohibition on practices that most people find unacceptable now and will continue to find unacceptable into the immediate future. Most countries around the world have a similar list of banned procedures and it is excellent to see that New Zealand legislation has listed what we consider to be totally unacceptable. Transgressions should therefore be few. We would expect to see the items listed remain banned for a long time to come. 
We were pleased to see included in this bill provisions that prohibit the genetic engineering of humans and new provisions that prohibit the sex selection of embryos for any reason other than treating or preventing genetic disease. We did not want to see the growth of a designer baby industry. The requirements for information keeping are very clear as was outlined by the Minister. Prospective donors must be made aware that extensive information will now be recorded and made available to their donor offspring and that will give children the opportunity to be aware of their ethnicity and also their medical history. 
New Zealand First believes that it is imperative for any legislative framework to allow for those affected by infertility to gain maximum benefit from any technological developments approved by the advisory committee and the ethics committee just as those affected by other medical conditions are able to benefit from new technological advances. New Zealand First supports this bill.