Stewart Barbara: Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill — First Reading 
Stewart Barbara: Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:15061] 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I rise to speak to the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill. New Zealand First supports this legislation. Right at the outset we must acknowledge the tireless work of all the Health Committee advisers who assisted with the many amendments. They helped us to make those amendments and then ensured that their implications were made very clear to us. 
I must acknowledge too the work done in the select committee by the promoter of the bill Dianne Yates to ensure that all aspects of this legislation were as good as they could possibly be. I also thank Dr Paul Hutchison who is the only member of the select committee with practical working expertise in this area. 
We know that until now legislation has been totally non-existent for human reproductive technology and that it has been governed by regulation only. In the past regulation has been sufficient thanks to the responsible attitudes and practices that fertility service providers have undertaken. There has never been any evidence of any harm. However that does not mean that there will never be any such incidents. 
This bill is very complex and very technical which is perhaps one of the reasons it has been on the Order Paper for so long. Dianne Yates said that it had been there for 8 years. The bill however will form the basis for any amendments that need to be made at some later date when technology and scientific knowledge develop further in this field. 
We are all aware too that fertility is a very personal issue and can be very stressful for all of those involved so it is pleasing to see that this legislation is very balanced. It provides a very consistent regulatory environment as well as a very cautious approach. After all we are dealing with humans and legislation must be as sound as we can possibly make it for today and for the future. 
It is pleasing to see in this bill that any reproductive research that is not an established procedure and all research applications are subject to mandatory ethical review by an ethics committee. That is exactly how it should be. The fact that the designation functions and duties of the ethics committee are very clearly prescribed in the legislation should ensure that everyone is aware of what is happening and also of what is to happen. Like Dr Hutchison we were also pleased about the time limits imposed on the ethics committee; we do know that everyone’s biological clock is of a limited time-span. 
We are pleased as well about the advisory committee that is to be established by the Minister. The members making up the advisory committee and all their qualifications are very clearly set out and specified and that committee will be working in conjunction with the public and hearing submissions as appropriate which is exactly how it should be. So we welcome these strengthened requirements for public involvement particularly any new procedures or the giving of advice to the Minister. 
I was very interested to read recently in the newspaper—this week actually—about the shortage of sperm donors. I would like to caution all those men who are thinking about assisting with the problem of that particular shortage that one of the requirements of this bill is that donors at some later time in their lives may be contacted by offspring. One of the features of the bill is that offspring 18 years or older will be able to access identifying information as will guardians of donor-offspring under 18 years of age. I would like to say that responsibility is now a big part of this donor process—it is definitely not a small responsibility—and I think the honourable Minister David Benson-Pope outlined that requirement in his speech prior to mine. 
We are only too aware of the health risks to children born as a result of assisted reproduction technology procedures as they are generally higher than for children who are conceived naturally. So we were very pleased earlier in the year that common sense finally prevailed with in vitro fertilisation funding. The Government announced in July that it will increase funds for in vitro fertilisation and also provide a second cycle to people who meet certain criteria. 
Single embryo transfer is now to become standard practice in most cases and fertility treatment is one of the issues for which New Zealand First has called on the Government to revise its funding policy as a matter of urgency. It has been fairly obvious for some time that funding the implantation of multiple embryos in one cycle only to maximise the chances of success was increasing the adverse affects on the health of many of the children who were born as a result of that procedure. All members know that care for premature babies is costly and intensive. We want to see healthy children and that is the outcome that parents want in particular for their children. 
New Zealand First was especially pleased with the provisions that prohibit the genetic engineering of humans—I think every party has acknowledged that. The bill also prohibits the sex selection of embryos for any reason other than the treating or prevention of genetic disease. The last thing we want to see is the growth of a designer baby industry. That is not something we want to see in New Zealand at all and this legislation clearly outlines that that cannot happen here. Schedule 1 clearly outlines the prohibited actions and the penalties that will be imposed on people if they transgress what is outlawed by the schedule. We have always believed that cloning should be banned and that ban is clearly outlined in the bill. 
We know that human-assisted reproductive technology is a challenging issue and we are pleased that this legislation will give some very clear direction to those involved in that area. We did want to see some legislation there as previously there was only regulation. New Zealand First supports this legislation.