Roy Heather: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Recommittal In Committee Third Reading Procedure 
Roy Heather: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Recommittal In Committee Third Reading Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:16843] 
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 ACT New Zealand will be having a split vote as it has all the way through the deliberations on the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill mainly because we like many of the submitters have quite divergent views about the provisions within it. Some ACT members believe that there is not a lot of mischief and that there should be no legal framework in this area. However we do not all agree on that. Personally I think that the provisions we have come up with after going through the select committee process as a result of hearing the submissions to the Health Committee and through the Committee stage have produced a very good balance. 
This is a very emotive area. We can hear that in the debate tonight and I must say that the vehemence with which the United Future member has just given her views is a good example of that. Her very vocal criticism of the Green Party was quite surprising when we have in United Future a party that has supported the Government many times on issues that it campaigned against. I think it is very important that members are able to make their own decisions about things and our party certainly intends to do that. 
The bill is about two large areas—I think we can break it down to that. The first is reproductive technology and the second is research. I have voiced my concern about putting both those big areas together into this one bill when we might well have been better served by having two pieces of legislation: one for reproduction and one for research. However I certainly feel very pleased with the result and pleased that after 8 years the bill is finally at this point. Previously the field was very messy in terms of the technicalities. 
The select committee process was very interesting. People came from widely divergent views which they put to us vocally and I felt we were able to talk through the issues in a constructive manner. We have moved forward to provide New Zealand with guidelines that I think will serve us well in both the reproduction and research areas. I felt that the guidelines were particularly important and I spoke strongly about them at the select committee level. I was opposed to very strict regulation which would mean there would be very little flexibility in the whole process. People who have worked in research as I have know that it is never possible to foretell or foresee every possibility or eventuality. That is particularly so in the area of reproduction. Frequently problems arise that could not be foreseen and they need to be dealt with quickly if they are to be overcome and couples are to be able to have live well babies at the end of it. Those guidelines are very important. The other area is that of research. Technology has advanced at such a pace that I felt—and I had the general agreement of the committee on this—that regulation would not provide the flexibility needed in order to allow research to proceed in a reasonable sort of manner. 
In vitro fertilisation has been given as an example in the House in that regard and it is a very good example of how quickly technology has developed from a very experimental for want of a better term manner to a stage where many couples not just in New Zealand but around the world have become dependent on it to produce their families. For some people for whom the wish and desire to have children and produce a family is overwhelming in vitro fertilisation is the only possibility available to them. It is important given the technology we have that that choice is available to them. 
I was also very pleased to see that Dr Paul Hutchison’s amendment regarding a voluntary register was put to the Committee and supported. I think that the provisions were in the bill when it came from the select committee but his provision for a voluntary register has strengthened them significantly. As we all know many children when they reach a certain age are very keen to know many things about where they have come from. That is a very important area for them as they grow and develop into well-balanced human beings. So I am delighted to see that provision there. 
There has been much comment tonight about the Ministerial Advisory Committee on Assisted Reproductive Procedures and Human Reproductive Research. Its chief role is to report to the Minister and produce the guidelines to which the ethics committees will work. That is a very important role for the ministerial advisory committee. I would rather have seen a slightly heavier balance towards the experts but in the end we have an even balance between experts and lay people. Although I would have preferred to see a slightly heftier balance towards the experts I think we have reached a reasonable compromise in that regard as well. The ministerial advisory committee must consult the public—that is a very strict requirement. I think the concern that the committee will be able to bowl through unhindered and make all sorts of decisions that are unethical and immoral is totally groundless and unfounded. 
The Green Party mentioned that there will be no parliamentary scrutiny as a result of the establishment of the ministerial advisory committee and I say that is a jolly good thing. We are 120 people two of whom I feel may be well enough informed to serve on such a committee. One is Dr Paul Hutchison who has worked in the area for many years and is particularly well informed. We were very lucky to have him on the select committee. With his thorough knowledge he was able to help us through very tough technical issues. Many times we were delighted to have him there to explain things to us along with the advisers. The other MP who may perhaps be qualified to sit on the ministerial advisory committee is Dianne Yates. She of course would be there as a lay person. As members know she has spent the last 8 years investigating researching and looking very thoroughly into all the issues. But the other 118 of us would have absolutely no right to be on that committee because we do not have the appropriate knowledge. The discussions we had at the select committee highlighted exactly why parliamentarians should not be involved in that process. That is totally inappropriate and it would result in no better decisions than would result from opening the issue up to the general public through a referendum. I feel very strongly that the ministerial advisory committee is the appropriate body both to report to the Minister and to decide on the guidelines to which the ethics committees will work. 
The moral and ethical issues have taken quite a hefty place in this debate which is quite right. On issues like this that is totally predictable. As I say the ACT MPs will be voting according to their consciences on this bill so we will have a split vote. Certainly we want to see medical advances move forward so that we can have progress both in research and in reproductive technology—as there should be. There are many very unfortunate diseases that children in particular have which nobody would wish on them. If we are able to make medical advances and have reproductive technology that can deal with terrible diseases such as cystic fibrosis and muscular dystrophy—things that nobody would ever wish on anybody’s children—then I see that as a good thing. If this bill is able to facilitate that then I think we will have done a particularly good job.