Hutchison Paul: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Hutchison Paul: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14458] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 It gives me pleasure to continue speaking on the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill. As I was saying this bill came about after media inquiries to the Minister of Justice. There was concern that clinics acting in good faith could be storing embryos and gametes—that is sperm and eggs—illegally. The whole point about this bill is to make the rules around storage absolutely clear; that indeed has successfully been achieved by this legislation. The bill now clarifies the rules around storage. This is very very important because of the hugely emotional area that this bill encompasses particularly for patients and of course because of the very important legal issues for clinics. That part of it has been very satisfactory. 
In terms of the various parts of the bill one of the aspects that people raised their eyebrows about a little was the issue of gametes and embryos that are stored in other countries. Indeed it was vital to ensure that we dealt with this area accurately because storage outside New Zealand clearly must be counted as part of the 10-year period. International tourism is literally going on with regard to in vitro fertilisation around the world; in the order of 10000 couples a year travel from one country to another. So it is particularly important to ensure that the storage rules are very clearly defined. 
There were calls during the debate to provide a review mechanism for the Act but the view was that generally this legislation has worked very well so far that there have been no complaints and that because it is relatively new legislation and because it requires flexibility it is not appropriate at this stage to consider a review. But it is important that we keep that matter in mind in the future. 
One aspect of the debate that stood out was the concerns expressed by the Maori Party. Te Ururoa Flavell said in the first reading of the bill: “The Maori Party has a considerable sense of sadness that we even have bills like this in front of the House … I cannot say that anyone in the Maori Party is at ease with the discussions around assisted reproductive technology”. Further to that Hone Harawira cemented in those views and made known some fairly strong concerns about the technology and said that Maori were being left out. He cited a variety of papers in his speech which I took the bother of looking up and I was quite surprised by them. The first one was by Marewa Glover and Benedicta Rousseau ‘Your child is your whakapapa’. I found this paper to be very convoluted wordy full of sociological verbiage and lacking in any precise conclusion. To give members an example one of the pages in this report is entitled “Strategic Naturalizing and the Fluidity of Relatedness”. I found this very hard to understand. It says: “It is important to stress here the preliminary nature of the data on which this article is based. The majority of the participants involved in hui did not have direct experience of AHR or necessarily infertility. They were a predominantly self-selected group of interested people who through the research process became ‘informed lay people’.” 
What I am concerned about is that the members actually admitted to me that they were merely parroting references that they had been given to speak about in their written speeches. One of the others cited was  
Te Tauranga Waka 
 an action plan for addressing Maori concerns about the system and process for the ethical review of issues relating to human participation in research and innovative technologies. That was slightly more practical in its key actions and recommendations. But the message that I would give to the Maori Party is that there is a tremendous amount of thinking behind the human-assisted reproductive technology legislation. Philosophers ethicists lawyers clinicians and scientists have for years worked to get this legislation in New Zealand as good as it could be. I urge the Maori Party to look at the writings from the Advisory Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology and from the Ethics Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology as well. The concerns to ensure that thought is given to Maori aspects are right at the forefront. In fact the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act requires that everyone exercising powers or performing functions under the Act must be guided by its principles including the principle that the needs values and beliefs of Maori should be considered and treated with respect. I believe there is a reciprocal responsibility for members of the Maori Party to take the time to read the very well-considered literature in this area. 
I will end by making mention of the fact that on 4 October the Nobel Prize committee awarded to Dr Edwards the Nobel Prize for medicine or physiology. It was of course in 1978 that the first test-tube baby was born and since then something like 4 million babies—the population of New Zealand—have been born through the use of these technologies. I think it is important to remind the House just how remarkable these technologies can be for people who are affected by infertility. In fact Professor Edwards said that in his view the most important thing in life is having a child. Nothing is more special than a child. From my point of view there is no doubt that for those who have trouble conceiving—and it is almost one in five couples—birth technologies are amazing and positive provided they are used with humanity and are used ethically and wisely. I believe this amendment bill which we have been discussing over the last few months is part of New Zealand’s contribution towards ensuring that we clarify the rules as much as possible that we have a strong ethics background to back them up and that our clinics around New Zealand give wise counsel to the many patients who come to them.