Turner Judy: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Turner Judy: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15923] 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 I take over from where my colleague Sue Kedgley left off on this issue because I share her concerns. These guidelines are nothing short of a complete abdication of responsibility by the ministerial advisory committee. They are saying: “Our advice is that we give the responsibility to clinics.” That is so far from what any of us in the select committee thought the guidelines would be like. We thought they would have a little more substance to them than that. Straight away for me alarm bells are ringing. That brings me to I guess what is my greatest concern. 
If I had to pick one issue out of this bill and say that for me it is the No. 1 scary issue it is clause 37 which is directly linked to the issue Ms Kedgley has just been talking about and is directly linked to these proposed guidelines. Clause 37 states that the advisory committee is to provide specific advice in respect of human assisted reproductive technology and it lists a number of things that the ministerial advisory committee has to develop guidelines on as a No. 1 priority. Some of these things were strongly recommended by submitters to be included on the prohibited activities list but they were not included on that list. They have been put in here and the ministerial advisory committee has by its intention already shown that it will abdicate its responsibility and pass it over to fertility clinics and fertility counsellors. Those clinics and counsellors will decide what should be done on issues such as donations of embryos embryo splitting which has a huge number of implications and even legal ramifications gametes derived from deceased persons—this is our own “Mrs Blood” potential; we are now asking for guidelines on those to be developed with no reference back to this House—and requirements for informed consent. 
Even the requirements for informed consent are interesting. When we look at what ethics committees decide we see that most of what the guidelines seem to be concerned about is whether everybody has signed the right piece of paper and whether everybody has consented rather than some of the considerations that a lot of us have. What are we doing to society? What will be the long-term outcomes for offspring and their families as a result of allowing those procedures? We need to look at the bigger picture not just at whether everybody who is involved today has signed the appropriate consent form. 
We are requiring the committee to provide guidelines on pre-implantation genetic analysis. We are asking it to provide guidelines on the importing or exporting from New Zealand of in vitro donated cells or in vitro donated embryos. These are hugely significant issues. Mr Franks is making light of the fact that we will have court cases out of this. I tell Mr Franks that there are already active court cases right now in New Zealand involving biological parents warring with each other over who is the legal guardian. For instance we have cases where— 
Stephen Franks 
: This doesn’t resolve it. 
JUDY TURNER 
: That’s my point. 
Stephen Franks 
: Why support it? 
JUDY TURNER 
: I am not supporting it. 
Stephen Franks 
: Why are you voting for it? 
JUDY TURNER 
: I am not voting for it. This is the point I make. However my solution is totally different from that of Mr Franks. His solution is: “Let’s all just take our hands off and let the market get it right.” I am saying that this legislation is too loose. We need to tighten it down. We need to turn these guidelines into regulations so that we are very very clear issue by issue as to what is acceptable practice and what is unacceptable practice. There has been a general scrutiny of these issues by people with a vested interest. As members of the House of Representatives we are in what I consider to be the unenviable position of representing large numbers of voters in this matter and to be excluded from any part of this process would be a very very sad thing. 
I encourage members of the Committee who have a copy of the bill in front of them to take a very close look at clause 37 which I think is the most dangerous clause. If I was concerned before I entered the Chamber tonight I am now even more concerned when I see the test case of what is already recommended in the guidelines which as I said before show a complete abdication of responsibility.