English Bill: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Recommittal In Committee Third Reading Procedure 
English Bill: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Recommittal In Committee Third Reading Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:16846] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 I am afraid I do not share the sense of glowing self-congratulation that seems to imbue the House tonight. I think that is a real danger sign. It shows complacency and it shows the lack of depth of the analysis and debate that has occurred largely without the participation of the public. I repeat what I said during the Committee stage: I have no doubt that this legislation will be back in Parliament within the next 3 to 5 years. 
I want to address two aspects of the bill. One is the process that has been set up and the other is the list of banned activities. The problem with the process has been referred to by other speakers. It is now harder to register a chemical in existing use than it will be to get approval for a new process of human reproduction. The word “guidelines” has come up as the means by which flexibility is achieved. Flexibility does have some merits in any regulatory regime but I get a disturbing feeling that in putting this legislation together the Health Committee has elevated flexibility to the highest priority. 
Far from embodying the precautionary principle we have an almost no-caution principle. Much of our regulatory activity embodies a sense of precaution. We could get carried away with that as many do. The Greens with their precautionary principle regarding genetic modification are an example of people trying to construct regimes where no risk is allowed at all. That is clearly counterproductive but to say that we should abandon it altogether in favour of a guidelines mechanism is in my view a mistake. If a guidelines mechanism is so flexible and effective at containing risk then why do we not use it for chemicals potatoes and vegetables? We do not because we do not think it works. We use regulation with its executive force not guidelines. But apparently when it comes to gametes embryos and people—who in my view are somewhat distinct from potatoes—we resort to guidelines consultation and a committee. 
I acknowledge the motivation of the select committee in coming to this structure. I can see how the argument particularly in the case of reproductive technology has come about. Circumstances give rise to the need to act quickly to change with regard to particular technology. To his credit Dr Paul Hutchison even produced one example—the only one I have been able to find through the relatively recent history of this industry. It really is about the only example where there has been any need to take account of quite a short time period to change the rules so that the reproductive technology can be effective. 
I also raise some issues about the membership of these committees. My concerns have been made deeper by the speeches I have heard tonight. I heard the member from ACT say that 118 people in this Parliament are not qualified to be on those committees and that two people are. I absolutely disagree with that. 
Darren Hughes 
: She didn’t say that. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: She did. She said that two people here are qualified—one of whom is my esteemed colleague—and that the other 118 are not. One does not have to have a PhD to know what it is to be human and to understand one’s instincts—a number of which are quite soundly reflected in this bill. One provision shows a great deal of caution about sex selection. There is no particularly rational reason why we cannot have sex selection—if we can select for other things why can we not select for gender—but deep in our gut we know that it would be wrong to legislate for sex selection. We just know it is wrong—we do not need to have a PhD to know that. It is the same with some of the activities on the banned list. Why is there a list of banned procedures? Again we do not have to have a medical degree in reproductive technology to have our stomachs turned at the concept of implanting a hybrid embryo—an animal / human embryo—into a human. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: It is illegal. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Exactly. It is illegal in the schedule. The point I am making is simply this. Parliament has already demonstrated a will—[ 
Interruption 
] well people do feel strongly about these things—not to hand everything over to a bunch of experts nor should it. I am saying that this bill hands too much over to committees that will inevitably be dominated by experts. That I think is a fundamental weakness in the process. 
I do not think that the public of New Zealand have really got to grips with the extent to which the experts will decide where this goes. There is an argument and I think it is a considered one that for 20 years that is what has happened. I happen to believe the things I am told by the experts—that we are on the threshold of an explosion of genetic research and that the possibilities for this to go off the rails are much greater now than they were when scientists were focused mainly on increasing the efficiency of in vitro fertilisation which is inherently a very inefficient process. 
I want to turn now to the list of banned activities. I am pleased to see this list in the bill because if I listened to the self-congratulatory logic of the members of the select committee I would wonder why there is a banned list. I mean why have we bothered banning anything if the guidelines are so robust and the experts know so much! Well thank goodness that common sense prevailed and we have in schedule 1 this wizened shortened list of “Prohibited actions”. I want to deal with the first one. We can debate almost every one of these but I will deal with clause 1. It is prohibited to “Artificially form for reproductive purposes a cloned embryo.” Well we know what that means: it is not prohibited to artificially form a cloned embryo for research purposes—it is not. I do not think that that reflects the public view at all. Experts might want to be able to clone things so they can research them. It will be very hard to tell actually with the restriction on the 10-day life of these embryos whether they are meant for reproduction or research. But that will be allowed. We will tonight pass a bill that permits the production of cloned embryos for research purposes. 
Clause 2 of this list states that it is prohibited to “Artificially form for reproductive purposes a hybrid embryo.” Therefore we will vote tonight presumably in the majority to allow people to form hybrid embryos for research purposes. I simply believe that that is wrong and on the basis of clauses 1 and 2 the fact that they are permissive there is good enough reason for me to vote against this bill even though it has significant merits. We can see in clause 1 that the experts are at work: “For the purposes of this item a cloned embryo is not formed by splitting on 1 or more occasions an embryo that has been formed by the fusion of gametes.” So they have even limited the definition of what a cloned embryo is. That is why this legislation will be back in front of Parliament. It is simply not cautious enough for the fire we are playing with. It is really that simple. 
The legislation has some merit and I acknowledge the efforts of the select committee but I think its members have become a bit entangled in the wonder and self-congratulation of it all. The reason other countries have much more complex regimes is that they regard these as much more complex issues than we appear to. They regard them with more care and with more sensitivity to the humanness of the products of this process than this Parliament appears to have. In that respect I am disappointed in Parliament but we will no doubt get another chance to debate it and it is as it should be that Parliament ultimately decides these things not a bunch of ministerially appointed experts.