Lees-Galloway Iain: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Lees-Galloway Iain: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14459] 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 I suspect my speech will get cut off fairly shortly as we head to the dinner break but in the few seconds that I have available I will start by saying that Labour will continue to support the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill as we have throughout its progress through the House thus far. Of course it makes amendments to the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act which was originally introduced by the previous Labour Government in response to the facts and concerns that Dr Hutchison touched on: that the technology around in vitro fertilisation was moving very quickly. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: Back in 1978 a couple who had been struggling for close to 9 years to conceive were blessed with the arrival of a wee baby. That baby was me. After 9 years some people called it a miracle that my parents were able to conceive and that I arrived; I prefer to think of it as an interesting series of events. Coincidentally only a few months earlier than that in 1978 another couple Lesley and John Brown who had been struggling to conceive gave birth to a wee baby girl Louise Brown. Louise Brown was the first what was called at the time test-tube baby. She was the first baby born through in vitro fertilisation treatment. That was just a little more than 30 years ago. Since then the technology has developed and the number of people using in vitro fertilisation has grown considerably. In response to that in 2004 the Labour Government at the time introduced the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill. 
The bill we are finalising tonight is a slight amendment to that legislation that makes some minor adjustments in response to a legal opinion that was concerned with the storage limits that apply to gametes and embryos. The current legal reading of the Act as it stands suggests that those gametes and embryos that were stored before the legislation was introduced would also have a 10-year period applied to them and that they would need to be destroyed within 10 years of their original storage which was not the intention of Parliament at the time and was not the intention of the bill. 
We are dealing with sensitive situations with couples who are trying to conceive and even when they engage with the use of in vitro fertilisation technology the process can still be very difficult. So it is very very important that we here in Parliament are absolutely clear about the intention and the practical applications of this bill in that situation. That is why this bill has received near unanimous support through the House and certainly the Opposition parties on this side of the House will continue to support it. The amendment now ensures that the 10-year storage limit starts from 2004 when the original legislation was introduced. That is to ensure fairness equity and a clear understanding for those people who stored sperm eggs or embryos before the legislation originally came into force. 
These days about 2 percent of babies in New Zealand are conceived through some form of reproductive assistance. The number of babies born as a result of assisted reproductive technology grew by 45 percent between 2004 and 2008. That is why in an environment of rapidly changing technology and rapid uptake of this technology we need to make sure that we get the legislation right. I understand that to date something in the order of 4 million babies have been born through in vitro fertilisation technology since Louise Brown was first born back in 1978. 
This amendment bill also makes a couple of other changes. Some of those were raised in the submissions made to the Health Committee. One of those is around the requirement for fertility clinics in terms of how they dispose of gametes or embryos. One of the submissions raised the question of whether fertility clinics would be required to destroy every single gamete or embryo exactly on the tenth anniversary of their original storage. It raised some of the issues around that and the difficulty fertility clinics would have in doing it. Quite sensibly the House has adopted a provision to give a 6-month grace period whereby fertility clinics will have 6 months following the anniversary of the original storage within which to dispose of the gametes and embryos. That makes sense. It means that maybe two or three times a year they can go through that process which makes life a little simpler for them. 
This same submission raised a few issues around the possibility of extending the period beyond 10 years. This issue will arise for a number of people especially for those who store their gametes at a very very early stage of life. An example would be young men who undertake cancer treatment and may want to store their sperm before they undertake that treatment to insure against any damage that may occur during chemotherapy. They may do that at a very early period of their life and after 10 years they may still not be in a position to start or be comfortable with starting a family but may wish to do so further down the track. The Ethics Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology will have the means available to it to extend that in those circumstances but the bill also makes it very clear that the nature of those circumstances must be looked at very carefully and that the reasons for extending beyond the 10-year period have to be justified. An example such as the one I just gave is a valid justification for that. Another example that was suggested to the Health Committee was that if someone decided to engage in a series of risky behaviours particularly drug taking or other behaviours that may lower their own fertility then having insured against that type of behaviour would not be a good reason for extending beyond the 10-year period. The bill gives clear guidelines on that issue for the Ethics Committee in terms of what it needs to do. 
This is all about clarity and it is an important part of the bill. It is important to recognise that for such a difficult and sensitive area that deals with rapidly changing technologies the original legislation was very strong legislation and the fact that we are amending it in such a minor way speaks volumes about its original drafting. Its original proponent Di Yates did a superb job back in 2003 and 2004 in progressing good legislation. This bill will tidy up those things. It will give certainty to the families who will be operating within the bounds of this bill as well as to the clinicians who also operate within its bounds. The Opposition is very happy to support the bill’s progress.