Hodgson Pete: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Hodgson Pete: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13725] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I will make a few remarks on the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill. The first thing I should do is recall the work of Di Yates in this general area. I am sure that other colleagues on my side of the House and hopefully those on the other side will have done that as well. She pushed this policy area for years and she did so not because she was for or against human-assisted reproductive technology but because she knew it was here and that it needed to be well regulated. She did not see it as being an issue of ethics or of anything of the sort; she just knew that a good nation if it was to run well would pay attention to the detail about how this new technology would be regulated and put together. It is just as we did with genetic modification technology and just as we must do with all technologies that come our way and all the nuclear technologies that have come our way in recent decades and on it goes. Di Yates picked up the human-assisted reproductive technology regulation and championed it if you will over the years. 
I would watch with some amusement because veterinarians and I as a veterinarian have been involved with some of these technologies for decades—for longer than has been the case in the human area. The reason is that reproductive technology in humans is a sensitive issue. It is sensitive because one needs to be clear about how gametes are collected how gametes are stored and how gametes are destroyed when destruction is the right thing and about the fact that a little child can be born with these human-assisted reproductive technologies. There is a little child in my life—she is coming on 2 years and 4 months—who is here because of this technology and who would not be here without this technology. She is a delight and I last saw her on Sunday. I do not know when she is coming for her first sleepover but it will not be long. Human-assisted reproductive technologies have altered my life as well but in much earlier times I was involved in the equivalent technologies as a veterinarian. I say let us hear it for Di Yates. 
It is interesting that this legislative change is tiny—it is tiny. The reason we are giving it the time of the House is that it is important that we get our legislative framework clear accurate and unambiguous so that everyone knows what the rules are. Whatever the rules are so long as they are clear people can follow them. But they have not been clear. They have not been clear about at what date the age of an embryo starts—what the birth date is of an embryo. It was not clear whether that birth period started in 2004 when the legislation was passed or whether the birth of an embryo was the time when the embryo was collected. This bill makes it clear that it is the latter so that is good. 
The reason we are taking that time is that it is easy for society to get upset about something that is perceived to have gone wrong. The best way to avoid that is to be clear about the rules and so it is with other technologies that are similar. Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis—if that is the right terminology and I will be in trouble if I have got it wrong— 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: You’ve got it right. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I have got it right says the obstetrician and gynaecologist amongst us and I thank the member. The technology needs some clear rules and we have clear rules so that we are able to use that technology wisely. We do not use it for designer babies; we are not allowed to. We do not use it to predetermine gender; we are not allowed to. We use it to determine whether an identifiable and preventable genetic condition will be inflicted upon a young New Zealander. We can stop that and that is great. We have a sensible approach to these technologies in general and so too in this case. 
I think I will wrap it up there. The House is pretty quiescent; everyone seems to be of the mood that this is a good thing and there seems to be no argument for me to bash back so I shall not bother— 
Hon Simon Power 
: That’s not a word you hear very often. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The word “quiescent” has just awoken the Minister of Justice but I shall not myself rise to the fact that he has awoken; I shall instead resume my seat.