Turner Judy: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Recommittal In Committee Third Reading Procedure 
Turner Judy: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Recommittal In Committee Third Reading Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:16841] 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 This bill creates three categories under which reproductive technologies including reproductive research can be managed. The first category is called “Established procedures” and would immediately cover in vitro fertilisation and the related practices that have had a long track record of ongoing use in the New Zealand context. Additional procedures may be declared established by Order in Council and are therefore unlikely to cause much of a ripple amongst the general public. Some of us however in this House have concerns about some of the procedures included in this category because we believe that the jury is still out on whether those procedures offer lifelong safety to offspring born as a result of those methods. Animal trials were certainly not conclusive and we are yet to witness the long-term outcomes for the first generation of IVF offspring. 
The second category declares procedures that can be approved on a case by case basis by an ethics committee. The ethics committee makes decisions by interpreting guidelines set out for it by the ministerial advisory committee and those guidelines have also been approved by the Minister. It is this category that causes most of us who are concerned about this bill the most trouble. Dianne Yates’ original member’s bill did not propose guidelines but clear and unambiguous regulations. 
 Regulations draw a clear line in the sand regarding what is and what is not allowed. Regulations however do not prevent the line from shifting when it is desirable and certainly the experience of the British regulatory model is that it has not halted medical progress. However regulations do mean that the line establishes acceptable and unacceptable practice and that it has to be deliberately moved rather than driven by exceptional cases that set a precedent for unexceptional cases. 
Guidelines are written in vague terms leaving the door wide open for a huge range of interpretations and applications. A classic example of this vagueness can be found in the recently published consultation document of proposed guidelines for the management of the controversial pre-implantation genetic diagnosis procedures. Those guidelines seem to attempt to summarise several sides of a given argument without coming to a definitive conclusion. 
Let me give an example. On the matter of sex selection it says: “Sex selection is seen as a demeaning reason for creating and discarding human embryos in that it challenges the special status frequently bestowed upon them in view of the potential they represent. This status is generally considered not significant enough to preclude the destruction of embryos for the prevention of the birth of a child with a serious genetic disorder but is significant enough to preclude its use for sex selection on social grounds.” 
What they are roughly saying in this argument is clear but where is the recommendation? Where is the guiding principle? An ethics committee could literally rule in several directions based on this guideline. 
The third category proposed in this bill is a list of prohibited activities. These include activities deemed to be ethically unacceptable because of serious implications for offspring or because of a serious challenge to the definition of what it means to be human and what it means as a society to value difference. It is this category that seems to have lulled the Greens into a false sense of security. Genetic modification of gametes and embryos is banned—or is it? The schedules certainly ban implanting into a human a genetically modified gamete or embryo but on the issue of research the door is wide open. In fact clause 36 leaves open the opportunity by requiring the ministerial advisory committee to develop guidelines for genetic modification research on humans. Why would we allow research and development of a technology if we were not planning to use it in the future? 
I am trying to imagine right now how Green supporters will feel when they discover that the Green Party has supported more restrictions around the genetic engineering of corn than the genetic engineering of humans. Their party of preference is voting to support this and this poses a huge credibility crisis for the party going into an election year. In all the speeches given by Sue Kedgley on this bill she has been unable to give one positive comment about this bill yet the Greens are supporting it. 
I am sure that Green Party supporters like most other New Zealanders remember the huge song and dance the Greens made about GM technology immediately before and after the last election. They even demanded a royal commission into genetic modification whose terms of reference they helped to set up. The Greens launched a major campaign against it when the findings did not reach the conclusions they were hoping for. They were so determined to stop GM technology that they virtually destroyed their relationship with their only potential coalition partner Labour and caused both parties significant electoral damage at the polls. 
This issue was their bottom line yet what happens when legislation arrives that potentially allows the genetic modification of human beings themselves? Well the Greens let it pass without a whimper. In fact the Greens vote for it. Where is the consistency in that? Where is the Greens’ commitment to their own constituents over the GE issue now? Or are we proving once more that the Greens care more about plants than they do about human beings? 
I am expecting as I speak to see Rod Donald and Jeanette Fitzsimons rush into the House grab the bill and look at clause 36 to discover the huge mistake they are about to make in voting for the third reading of this bill. If the media are listening on their radios right now they will be very interested tomorrow morning to ask Green Party members why on earth they would vote for a bill that has left the back door wide open for the genetic modification of human beings. This is a party that postures as the protector of all that is pure and right on this matter. 
Jim Peters 
: Are you for or against it? 
JUDY TURNER 
: That is an interesting one! Sue Kedgley said that having some legislation is better than having no legislation yet that certainly was not the position the Greens took at the lifting of the moratorium. We had very sound and very tightly organised legislation to allow the lifting of the moratorium but it was never good enough for the Greens yet on this bill they are saying that something is better than nothing and that they will go along with it they will play the game they will roll over in the way they always accuse United Future of. The most essential element of what it means to be a Green supporter has just been blown out of the water tonight by the Green Party voting for this bill at its third reading. 
I am dying to hear talkback radio tomorrow morning when Green supporters wake up to the fact that they have been completely betrayed on this very issue. The genetic modification of human beings the very essence of defining what it means to be a human being has just been completely abandoned by the Green Party tonight at this third reading. I think there should be some serious concern that their voters will have to ask some very serious questions about whether they continue to support a party that is happy to monitor the genetic engineering of plants animals and particular parts of the food chain while completely supporting legislation that will allow the development of genetic modification of human beings. I think it is a very telling moment in the House and I am expecting that the Greens’ emails will be running hot as of tonight from supporters asking them what on earth they are thinking of—[ 
Interruption 
] The member will hear our vote soon. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: You have spent your whole speech talking about us. 
JUDY TURNER 
: None of us have quite postured ourselves to be the protector of life as we know it as the Green Party has. I think that the Green Party has really missed the boat; it has really dropped the ball on this particular issue. I think it is high time that their supporters who are genuinely people who care very much about what it means to be human and genuinely do care about the sort of environment into which children are being born and raised discovered that the party they have supported all these years is making this huge mistake and is showing itself to be hugely inconsistent on such a vital matter. 
It is clause 36 for people listening on the radio who want to double-check what I am talking about. Clause 36 is very very clear. Let me just read it. It states that the advisory committee is to provide specific advice in respect of human reproductive research for cloned embryos donated human embryos and genetic modification of human gametes and human embryos. Clause 36 is throwing open the back door and allowing the ministerial advisory committee to set up these very loose guidelines that will be able to be interpreted in any direction we want to take them for the genetic modification of human gametes and human embryos. This provision this hugely wide open back door is being supported tonight in the House by the Green Party.