Yates Dianne: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Yates Dianne: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15904] 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I thank those members who have already spoken on this bill and thank them for their kind comments about it. 
I want to talk about the importance of the principles clause because as Judy Turner has already mentioned this bill to a large extent is about what it means to be human. Whatever we do in life we are interfering with life and we are progressing life. We are now talking about technologies that are not available in nature—whatever we call nature—so we do have a responsibility to ensure that whatever we do with this technology we are responsible for it. 
In relation to the principle of ensuring the health and well-being of children born from these technologies I point out that we are particularly concerned about the safety and dignity of the present and future generations. I disagree with the Supplementary Order Paper from Paul Hutchison who wants to do away with the stress on women in terms of these procedures because many people are afraid of a “rent-a-womb” situation developing and of commercialisation. That is not in this bill but they are afraid that it may occur in some future time and Judy Turner has pointed that out. I remind people that a survey in Australia pointed out that the gestational parent was very much of concern because although we are talking about test-tube babies or in vitro babies whose conception occurs in a glass dish there is still that wonderful thing called a mother which in technology is now called— 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: What about a father? 
DIANNE YATES 
: I am just pointing that out. The gestational parent spends 9 months bringing a child into the world and I am concerned that the research in Australia showed that there was greater emphasis on the gestational parent as well as the father who had contributed to the genetic make-up of the child. That is why the Health Committee discussed for a very long time the inclusion of the word “women” in this clause and that is why I am not very keen on Dr Hutchison’s Supplementary Order Paper on this issue. 
It is a very very important principle that we have informed consent throughout reproductive processes and also that as has been pointed out by the New Zealand First speaker children are aware of their genetic origins. I point out that the register is part of the bill. Dr Hutchison’s amendment is talking about those who have donated gametes in the past. I can assure New Zealand First that the register of donors is in the substantive bill and the member’s Supplementary Order Paper refers to those who have donated in the past who may wish to volunteer information about themselves for the records. 
Anther point that Dr Hutchison has put forward is to omit the reference to the beliefs of Maori. That issue too was discussed in great length by the select committee. The committee decided to leave it in as well as the reference to different ethical spiritual and cultural perspectives. I stress to the Committee that the principles in the bill were discussed at great length by the select committee and I think the member’s Supplementary Order Paper is not really acceptable in this regard.