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:15914] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Part 2 has some of the most important aspects of this bill. Not only does it deal with the area of prohibited and regulated activities it also deals with the very important ministerial advisory committee and the ethics committee. Mr Chairperson might I say at this stage that it would be helpful because of the wideness of this part to be able to have multiple calls if at all possible. 
I start by once again making the point that there have been no specific regulations governing this area of reproductive technology in New Zealand but there have been a variety of bills. Over the last 20 to 30 years the newer reproductive technologies have become much more prominent and at the same time the ability to adopt children has become almost negligible in New Zealand. Consequently there are significant numbers of men and women in New Zealand who more and more wish to take advantage of those technologies. To suggest there is no harm is absolutely inappropriate. But it is important to realise there is such a spectrum of procedures available. There are not just complicated ones like in vitro fertilisation. It varies from simply allowing the environment of the female genital tract to be marginally changed to allow conception to occur to much more complicated procedures that carry with them excessive harm. We have had cases in New Zealand of mortality occurring from ovulation stimulation associated with in vitro fertilisation. 
So there are indeed examples in this country of mortality. If one goes through the list in schedule 1 for instance one can see the prohibition on cloning embryos. We in this country know from animal reproduction and from the work done with Dolly the sheep in Britain that there are higher morbidity mortality and ageing problems associated with cloned animals. There is no doubt that at this stage of events it would be unwise to embark on those procedures with humans. It is right and proper that there is such a list. 
I also point out that clause 8 in schedule 1 includes a prohibition against implanting into a human being a genetically modified gamete human embryo or hybrid embryo. Undoubtedly there are provisions throughout this bill that deal with the area of genetic modification and that is absolutely right and proper. However this bill does not deal with the area of stem cell research. It will be addressed through the Human Tissue Act but once again it is highly contentious. 
We note that so many areas in the bill have a wide polarity of view about them. We are seeing right now the tremendous debate in the United States on stem cell research. On the one hand President Bush has banned it except in very restricted circumstances and on the other hand the presidential contender Kerry has promised $100 million of extra funding into stem cell research. There is no doubt that the spectrum of technologies involved engender with them a great polarity of view. That is why it has been so important to reach a practical balance. On the one hand there are simple procedures for which it would be totally inappropriate to bring in amendments through Parliament every time.