Yates Dianne: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Recommittal In Committee Third Reading Procedure 
Yates Dianne: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Recommittal In Committee Third Reading Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:16832] 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I move  
That the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill be now read a third time 
. I wish to express my gratitude to the House on the passing of my bill the main aim of which is to ban the cloning of humans for reproductive purposes. I wish to speak a little on the history of the bill the progress of the legislation the issues involved—moral legal and ethical—the risks doubts and problems and the need to monitor the outcomes. I will also give thanks to those who assisted at all stages of the process. 
The bill was lodged and balloted way back in 1996 and it was unanimously sent to the Health Committee in 1997. It was imitated by a previous National Government bill in 1998 and was the subject of Supplementary Order Paper 80 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope in April 2003. The bill was considered by the Health Committee which reported back on it on 6 August 2004. The bill has taken 8 years to get to this stage. The original bill and subsequent amendments have been influenced by the UK Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 by predominantly Canadian and Australian legislation and reports by international debate and bioethics conferences and by the public submissions to the select committee. 
Even after that process this bill poses as many problems as it answers and I believe that the revised bill still leaves some highly controversial technologies to decisions that will be made by a ministerial advisory committee which will formulate mere guidelines and not regulations. Some of those decisions relate in particular to the issues set out in clause 37 of the bill: the donation of embryos embryo splitting gametes derived from a deceased person requirements for informed consent the selection of embryos using pre-implantation genetic analysis and the import into or export from New Zealand of in vitro donated cells or in vitro donated embryos. Although we have put high public consultation processes in around those matters they are still covered by guidelines rather than regulation. 
I point out that in contrast to some newspaper reports pre-implantation genetic diagnosis has not yet been approved. It is still highly controversial and there is consultation out now about what types of controls need to be set up. I also point out that given the low success rate of some technologies the cost of the technologies the incidence of premature birth and the risks associated with those births and the possibilities for the exploitation of women I would have preferred to see tighter controls not only of the technologies but also of the research on embryos especially stem cell research. That is now largely deferred to future legislation to amend the Human Tissue Act and the Medicines Act and to some of the Environmental Risk Management Authority’s considerations of those matters. 
I am also concerned about the consent processes around the use of embryos. Those consents I believe are not in the same category as medical treatment consents and could include such matters as who owns embryos if the parent donors divorce. Are they to become relationship property? As we have seen overseas there are some interesting legal cases around those issues. One important aspect of this bill is that women wombs babies and embryos should not become commercialised and the select committee agreed on that. Women should not become rent-a-womb machines nor should babies or embryos be for sale. 
I am pleased that the bill has progressed. There is legislation now where there would otherwise be a void and I am pleased that after 8 years my initiative in 1996 will at last result in law. It is interesting that a child may now have six parents—and that may be good for the child especially on birthdays. A child could have a contracting mother and father a sperm donor an egg donor a gestational mother and a social father. That may be very confusing for the child; it could also be very good for the child. In fact some novelists have suggested that to have five or six parents is better for the child if not for the parents than a nuclear family and that our present system may not be the best for children anyhow. At least the present bill insists on records being kept so that children can trace their heritage and we can monitor any defective practices. 
I welcome the changes that other members have made to the bill. I am particularly pleased that the revised bill includes an amendment in the name of Judy Turner to have the Children’s Commissioner represented on the ministerial advisory committee in order to cater for the interests of the children born from the technologies. 
I am sure that we will continue to monitor the application of this law. As I have said the bill deals with big questions: the big questions of what it means to be human of who decides which embryos should survive of who is eligible to access the technology—at present it favours the well-off—and of how we deal with mistakes or discarded embryos. Any mistakes in creating humans cannot be reversed and babies cannot be thrown away or uprooted like hybrid corn. The risks associated with gene technology in humans are intergenerational. I believe that we must proceed with the utmost caution within a regulatory framework with strong penalties. 
I wish to thank all those who have been involved with this bill from the original drafter who worked with me Debbie Angus and the work that she did in modifying the British Act to fit in with our system to the Hamilton researchers lawyers and medics who offered their opinions and advice and to people in overseas agencies. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
DIANNE YATES 
: I was in the process of thanking the various people who have contributed to the bill and in particular the original drafter who worked with me Debbie Angus. The original bill had four main points: first to license clinics as they do in the UK second to keep centralised records of babies that are born from assisted reproductive technology third to prevent the cloning of human beings and fourth to outlaw the sale of babies’ body parts tissue and fluids—that is the non-commercialisation of any of the processes. I must say that we have achieved three out of those four goals and three out of four ain’t bad. The other point made by the original bill was that it was not a bill to forbid technology but to control it so that we can keep very good records that enable us to know what is happening to whom and where. 
In that regard I thank Rebecca Hamilton a young New Zealand woman who was an in vitro fertilisation baby. She is part of a group of such young people in Australia and as Dr Hutchison knows she went to great pains to try to find out who her sperm donor was. I also wish to thank the Hamilton researchers people in agencies overseas the Parliamentary Library and parliamentary and ministry staff. I thank my fellow select committee members and the chair for working through this legislation. I thank the people who have served on the National Ethics Committee on Assisted Human Reproduction for a number of years and who have given ethical advice. Lastly I want to thank Dolly the sheep—I am one of the few people who went to Edinburgh—and her cloner. Without Dolly the sheep very few people would have taken this bill seriously. In 1997 when the bill came into the House many members of Parliament when Dolly was born asked whether that was the sort of thing we were thinking about in relation to human beings. So I thank Dr Ian Wilmut and Dolly the sheep for making people both in New Zealand and overseas realise that the cloning of human beings is a reality. 
I would also like to thank the New Zealand Bioethics Council my former flatmate here in Wellington Jill White and Sir Paul Reeves. I thank Sir Paul Reeves for a radio broadcast last week during which I heard him say that he was not terribly keen on cloning human beings because he was a bit afraid that we may all end up the same. I can assure him that even if we were cloned we would not end up the same because we would walk on different pavements and breathe different air—one of the best arguments for environment over heredity that I have ever heard. I thank everybody who has been involved with this bill and I thank all my parliamentary colleagues for their support and their encouragement throughout what has been 8 years of patience. Every 6 months I would sign the bill over for another 6 months and then another 6 months. But we have made it. I look forward to the implementation of the bill which the Minister David Benson-Pope is now in charge of. I do not envy him his job but there is a lot of work still to be done so I give my thanks to him in anticipation of that.