Franks Stephen: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Franks Stephen: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:16351] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I rise for the ACT party on this part of the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill. As I have indicated previously I believe that this legislation is a classic example of slogan law: it responds to itches without identifying a mischief. The ACT party’s position on this will be a split vote because although some members believe that the issues warrant some of the attention the bill gives them most of us believe that this is smokescreen-type legislation. 
This is legislation that tries to appear caring about children and that focuses on an almost non-existent problem. It focuses on children who will be born to parents who could hardly care more about the welfare of their children. It focuses on areas of research that are cutting edge—areas whereby if New Zealand does not participate others will. So if the people who are promoting this legislation are worried about the overall morality of this kind of research then probably all they are doing in this legislation is pushing quite a bit of it offshore—for example by putting a blanket 10-year ban on the life of a suspended embryo or putting a blanket 14-day limit on the periods that an embryo can be kept in development in vitro. 
This enforcement provision says that if people suspect that that is going on somewhere then they can come without warrant with as many people as they think are needed to bust the joint. They can come into a building and seize equipment. Indeed they can seize the embryos that may well belong to other people—people who have sacrificed enormously to get to a position of perhaps being able to have a child. They can interrupt what is going on take records copy mark and close down an operation. They can do that on pain of a $20000 fine. They can do all this in a society that allows kids to be born who are not even wanted that allows kids to be conceived by mothers who are in a state of total inebriation or drug intoxication that allows kids to spend their first vital 12 or 14 weeks—whatever period is crucial to a particular development—in a state where they are permanently damaged and that allows thousands of kids every year to be born without any way of knowing who their father is. This part provides that without a warrant people can enter premises where they think that that kind of thing might be happening where someone is breaching this law or even where someone is researching without complying with the conditions of the ethics committee. This bill says that those risks none of which have matured—Dr Hutchison told us in his speech how well-managed and how ethical the people in this industry already are; I think he said that in all the years this industry has operated he has not been aware of any non-compliance or words to that effect— 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: No. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: I am sorry have I said too much? 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I said there had not been any major problems. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: I am sorry I am not trying to put words into the member’s mouth. But with this bill Parliament is searching for a non-mischief and is giving draconian powers to officials to exercise when all the conduct we are talking about is probably well-intentioned. Parliament has enough deliberate evil to worry about—enough offences enough recklessness and enough people who are breeding and producing children who will never be loved and who will have all kinds of problems in their lives because no one cares about them. And here is Parliament patting itself on the back—and I am sure that the member in the chair Dianne Yates who is sponsoring this bill is sincere—without reflecting on just what the bill says about our priorities about the medical profession about researchers and about New Zealanders’ efforts generally. 
I think this is a disgrace and Part 4 which gives the enforcement powers simply underpins it. It imposes $20000 fines for offences that can be created by a committee. The committee creates the offence when it imposes the conditions. We do not have any idea what kind of conditions it may impose. For all we know it may suddenly impose a condition that Maori embryos can be under the control only of Maori people. I believe that would be racism. It could be that someone who objected to that kind of racism would then be busted by the officials and have to pay a $20000 fine.  
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.