Hague Kevin: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Hague Kevin: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:659;Page:8339] 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
: 
 I will take just a short call. The Green Party supports the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill. We think it makes sense for the legislation not to be applied retrospectively. We note the comment in the explanatory note that fertility clinics acting in good faith were breaching the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act by storing gametes and embryos for longer than the applicable period. It makes sense to reverse that problem and fix it. We also think it is valuable to clarify the respective roles of the ethics committee and the Advisory Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology. The bill tidies that up nicely. 
I will make some broader observations and pick up on the comments that Lianne Dalziel began with on the context of this area of law and this area of work. This area of assisted reproductive technology is one that involves deep human emotion profound effects on the lives of human beings and also very thorny and complicated legal and ethical issues. In speeches that were given in this House in the debate on the 2004 Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act the Green Party outlined a number of concerns. We were really impressed with Dianne Yates’ original bill and were very pleased to support it. We felt in the long run however that the compromises made to Dianne Yates’ legislation in the final form that was enacted were unnecessary. They watered down the legislation in a way that was quite unhelpful. 
In particular this is an area of science and of medicine that has developed much faster than this Parliament’s—or indeed any Parliament’s—ability to control it. One of the opportunities lost by moving with a truncated form of Dianne Yates’ bill was to make a big step in catching up to the progress that had been made scientifically. We had felt that the Act that came into force set up one of the most permissive regulatory regimes in the world. This was a regime that Sue Kedgley said in her third reading speech was one that relied on guidelines rather than regulations. She said that it bypassed Parliament by delegating policy making in a highly contentious ethical area to a committee of unelected and unaccountable experts who meet behind closed doors. 
So I think there are some residual concerns that we have about the Act. Another thing that Sue Kedgley said in that third reading speech was that she was sure that not passing comprehensive law would mean that the issues would come back to this House. I note Lianne Dalziel’s comments about a review and I have not had an opportunity to check the Act and see what the provisions are. But I take comfort from the prospect that the Health Committee may well be able to consider what the review provides for and perhaps set up a mechanism for that to occur to deal with the broader range of issues. 
Since the 2004 Act came into force we have had the report of the Law Commission in 2005 which addressed these issues very comprehensively. The Law Commission made some 29 recommendations at least 12 of which relate pretty directly to the area of law that we are considering with this legislation. It seems appropriate for Parliament to have an appropriate mechanism to consider and deal with the recommendations that the Law Commission has made. I look forward to being part of the select committee process of considering this bill and considering any wider submissions that members of the public may wish to make as well as making some decisions about what will constitute that review process in years to come. Thank you.