Roy Heather: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Roy Heather: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13728] 
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 The ACT Party will be supporting the second reading of the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill. As the debate has been going on this evening I recalled being on the Health Committee at the time that we grappled with many very thorny issues concerning what at the time was still quite a contentious issue. Things have moved on. Dr Paul Hutchison mentioned Louise Brown the first baby born by in vitro fertilisation in 1978 and things have moved on significantly from then. 
We were very fortunate at the time of the 2004 bill to have Dr Paul Hutchison on the select committee to provide us with some quite technical expertise and we are fortunate to have him here with us now so that he is still able to provide that very good advice to us. Dr Hutchison said tonight that 1100 babies a year are born through in vitro fertilisation which is a staggering number and it makes such a huge difference to the lives of so many families. 
The bill as several other members have mentioned is just a very tiny amendment bill. I have to say that it is gratifying 6 years down the track for those of us who sat on the select committee that heard the original bill to know that largely we got it right. We had to grapple with many thorny issues at the time as I have said. Some issues were very contentious and some of the submitters we heard from came and spoke with a great deal of passion and emotion but they took very different sides of the arguments. As we are making only this very small amendment here in the House now it is gratifying to know that we did largely get it right. 
I think that the intention of the committee at the time was certainly for the 10-year period that gametes and embryos could be stored for to be from the time of storage so the 2004 argument which has become the legal aspect of this debate was not what was originally intended. It is good that we have the opportunity to clarify that tonight and to do something about that. Others have also mentioned the 6-month period of grace in the bill. I was not able to hear the submitters but I understand that that was a popular concept. I think it makes a good deal of sense and certainly the ACT Party is happy to support that measure tonight. 
The other part of the bill that I think is important—and the Green member mentioned it just prior to me getting to my feet—is that the clarification of the roles of the ethics committee and the advisory committee is very important. Unlike Mr Hague I support guidelines as opposed to regulation but I do not think that that will come as any surprise to him. I think that the ethics committee and the advisory committee are chosen very carefully. The people who are on them are there because they have a breadth of experience. They have a lot of technical expertise. I think that they need the freedom that guidelines can provide so that they can have flexibility and are able to make the decisions they need to make wisely but it is also welcome that this amendment bill is providing clarification of the rules for those committees. 
Some of the problems that arise are still thorny and the expertise of the people on the committees is greatly valued. They take their jobs very seriously and it is important that they have those guidelines within which to operate. The ACT Party is very proud to support this bill tonight. We welcome it and I think it is worth thanking the members of the Health Committee in 2004 who did a very good job at the time. Thank you.