Gudgeon Bill: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Gudgeon Bill: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15919] 
BILL GUDGEON (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First is happy to support Part 2. We especially support the list of prohibited actions in clause 8 which states in subclause (1): “Every person commits an offence who takes an action described in Schedule 1.” Because of the great sensitivity here in relation to ethnic peoples touching on the sanctity of birth and children I speak on behalf of those people and say that this should be taken into consideration. New Zealand First is happy with the list of prohibited actions and supports it. We are pleased with the provisions that prohibit the genetic engineering of humans and the sex selection of embryos for any reason other than treating or preventing genetic disease. This is a sensitive topic. There are those of us who believe that a spirit of a person is chosen to be male or female even before it enters into this life. So we are very very happy with the part of the bill that prohibits the genetic engineering of humans and the sex selection of embryos. This will be allowed only for treating or preventing genetic disease. 
 It is great to have a functions and ethics committee set out clearly. The committee will be held responsible for the activity allowed for the laws and functions and for the counsel and advice that might be given to the public. It holds a great responsibility towards the general public towards humanity and towards people who through no fault of their own are unable to have children of their own. They are people who are in a situation where they have to make serious decisions. 
We believe that the number of people on the advisory committee may be too large. Between eight and 12 members would I think be sufficient in terms of control and keeping track of this legislation. There should be a member of the ethics committee on the advisory committee by right. Too many lay persons on an advisory committee may have a detrimental effect in terms of the expertise already there. It is great to have the advisory committee guidelines made public. Because of the seriousness sensitivity and importance of this legislation the public and the people it affects need to be advised of what is actually happening. We welcome the strengthened provisions for public involvement. 
Other than that when we look at the restrictions on sex selection of human embryos we notice that there is a penalty of up to 1 year’s jail and a fine of $100000 or both for breaches in this area. With the seriousness of this issue I think the penalties should be extended a bit more. There are many who may be able to afford the $100000 or even look at spending 1 year in prison—it would be all over with the flick of the fingers and back to it again. Clause 11(2) states: “Every person commits an offence who contravenes this section and is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 1 year or a fine not exceeding $100000 or both.” 
Stephen Franks 
: Who’s the victim? 
BILL GUDGEON 
: In this case the people involved. They would not be victims because—[ 
Interruption 
] The member from ACT has had his say. They have made that choice. They have made the decision to be put in that situation and they know the responsibilities that go with it.