Woodhouse Michael: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Woodhouse Michael: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14467] 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 As the newest member of the Health Committee I often get to the point where I am the last speaker in a debate and when it comes to the last spot in the third reading of any bill there is often very little to be said that has not already been said. As I am not one to unduly prolong debates for the sake of it unlike some of my 2008 colleagues on the other side of the House I will keep my comments relatively brief. 
I acknowledge the Health Committee whose members I think have worked very cooperatively on this most important albeit technical amendment to the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill and I acknowledge also the very good support we received from the officials at the Ministry of Justice who provided excellent advice to us. This was one bill that had on the face of it a pretty straightforward purpose: to clarify the 10-year start date as the date the Act came into effect but as is often the case the issues traversed by the committee went well beyond that scope although in the end we did constrain ourselves to its original purpose. We had some quite robust discussions about some of the ethical issues and some of the technical issues and also as Mr Hague mentioned some of the Law Commission’s issues were raised. 
Mr Hague also mentioned again in his call the Green Party’s request for a review of the bill to be built into the legislation. Those two things I think intertwine. Firstly the purpose of this bill was not to address the Law Commission’s recommendations and I am absolutely certain the very hard-working Minister of Justice will come to that point in the not too distant future in his very long tenure as Minister of Justice—I predict there are years and years still to go. 
It is for that reason that I think a review is quite unnecessary and could be cumbersome because as many speakers on this bill have said the science is very dynamic. It is changing all the time and a review period in the Act could actually be arbitrarily restrictive and not timely enough if indeed issues like this are raised again in the future. We think we have it right this time but fresh eyes and new legal opinions may require us to tweak it again. So I do not support the call for a review for that reason. 
The one thing we did do of course was to put some discretion around what was previously a quite hard 10-year time limit. In my examination of that issue I came across a really good document from the Australian Infertility Treatment Authority which I commend to any of the officials who are required to put guidelines around how that extension period might go. There is a very good section covering people who have gametes or embryos in storage and who cannot be located and I would be happy to refer it to them if they were interested in that. It sets out a very good pathway for dealing with the very issue that the select committee attempted to address with the amendment that was put in during the Committee stage. 
Finally I commend the very many thousands of couples around the country who go through the stress and trauma of infertility and the uncertainty that fertility treatment brings. There is a great movie by British writer and producer Ben Elton called  
Maybe Baby 
. I do not know whether any members have seen it but it gives a terrific insight into what that journey is like. It is very funny but it is also very emotional. It gives some insight into the emotional roller coaster that couples go through. This bill takes away one of those potential problems that could have arisen if this bill did not clarify the time limit. For that reason it is a good bill and I commend it to the House.