Hutchison Paul: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15932] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 This part deals with information about donors of donated embryos or donated cells and donor offspring. I think once again that this part very much exemplifies the long genesis of this bill and the thought that has gone into it from a whole variety of papers with one in particular— 
Assisted Human Reproduction: Navigating our Future 
. 
One of the themes that came through so strongly based on the evidence that Professor Bill Daniels and others provided was that the ethos of openness was extraordinarily important in this area of reproduction. Undoubtedly children do want to know where they have come from and who their parents are and the major focus of Part 3 is to ensure that there is appropriate information-gathering and the opportunity prospectively for donors and offspring to be able to find appropriate information at appropriate times—again with a degree of flexibility and according to their wants and desires. Generally one of the things that has changed now is that donors will be required to have openness about their identifying qualities and characteristics and eventually to be identifiable to their offspring. 
One of the things clause 42 does however is signal “No retroactive application”. Clearly that is appropriate if donors in the past—and it was the situation in the 1970s and 1980s—had donated anonymously and did not expect to find offspring trying to track them down. It would be quite inappropriate to overturn that. However due to a large variety of both donor offspring and donors around New Zealand contacting me and various others there has been a strong call for a voluntary register. Such a register works successfully in the state of Victoria in Australia and I have put forward Supplementary Order Paper 270 to that effect which I understand the Government will be prepared to support. I think that it will be hugely appreciated by that large number of people who in the 1970s 1980s and early 1990s were not given the opportunity to be able to trace donors. 
It is remarkable to me that I had numerous emails and letters from donors as well as from offspring wanting this to happen. Some were extremely emotional about it and many said: “Look although we realise it may not be possible in every case it is really worthwhile to us and hugely meaningful for us to at least have that possibility there.” 
So I would exhort the Committee to support that Supplementary Order Paper. I added a further amendment to it that deals with half-siblings as well as full offspring. That would mean that brothers and sisters who may not have the same donor could contact each other on a voluntary basis. Again I am hopeful that the Committee will support that aspect. 
Another area that is worthwhile pointing out is clause 51 “Providers must keep track of donor offspring births”. The clinics have just recently approached me about this issue. Of course it is ideal and optimal that all births are clearly traced and recorded and that there is an excellent system. However in the reality of this world where people change their names miscarriages occur people go overseas and all sorts of extraordinary things happen in that biological bell-curve spectrum we have to deal with in this area it would be impossible in practical terms for all providers to be able to track down donor offspring births. Consequently I have tabled a further amendment whereby best endeavours are to be made to track donor offspring births. It is a purely practical technical amendment that again I urge the Committee to support.