Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:659;Page:8335] 
Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time it is my intention to refer the bill to the Health Committee. I did not realise when I became the Minister of Justice that I would be dealing with matters of human-assisted reproductive technology and the storage thereof but here we are. 
About one in five New Zealand couples have difficulty conceiving a child. Approximately one-third of couples who have difficulty conceiving undergo in vitro fertilisation or IVF treatment. In vitro fertilisation was first used in New Zealand in 1983 and now about 900 IVF babies are born each year. 
The Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act 2004 provides for the regulation of procedures such as in vitro fertilisation and artificial insemination. The Act established an information-keeping regime to ensure that people born from donated embryos or cells can find out about their genetic origins. It also introduced protections against the commercialisation of surrogacy human gametes—that is human eggs and sperm—and embryos. This bill proposes amending two sections of the Act that relate to how long human gametes and embryos may be stored. Section 10 of the Act provides that gametes and embryos may be stored for only 10 years while allowing for extensions to this storage limit in particular cases. 
As with other comparable countries the Act recognises the desirability of placing a limit on the growing pool of stored gametes and embryos while at the same time acknowledging that in some cases there is often good reason to extend storage beyond the set limit; for example people who in their youth underwent medical treatment that affected their fertility and who had their gametes stored at that time may have good reason to want them stored for more than 10 years. 
The bill seeks to amend section 10 of the Act so that the 10-year limit on storage starts from when the Act came into force on 22 November 2004 or from when storage of a gamete or embryo began whichever is the later date. This would have the effect that the Act requires no stored gamete or embryo to be destroyed before 2014. It is commonly understood that this is the position under the current law. However the Government has received legal advice that indicates that as section 10 is currently written the 10-year limit starts from when a gamete or embryo was stored. This means that even if storage occurred before the Act commenced in 2004 the 10-year limit is to be calculated from the date of storage. 
As in vitro fertilisation treatment has been in use in New Zealand for the past two decades a sizable number of gametes or embryos in New Zealand has now been stored for more than 10 years. Fertility clinics acting in good faith may have therefore unknowingly breached the Act by storing gametes and embryos for longer than the applicable period. Unless section 10 is amended fertility clinics may be required to destroy such gametes and embryos with a devastating impact on the lives of those people who supplied them. 
In proposing this legislation the Government is providing comfort to those people who have made life decisions that are premised on their having access to their stored gametes or embryos. The exact number of persons who will benefit from this law change is not known but it is unlikely I am advised to be small. In addition the IVF procedure often results in surplus embryos which are often stored for subsequent cycles of IVF treatment—as it is successful in less than half of all cases—or donated to help other infertile couples. 
The bill also proposes amendments to clarify the roles of the two committees established under the Act in approving extensions to the 10-year storage limit. One role of the ethics committee is to consider and determine applications for extensions to the 10-year storage limit. The role of the advisory committee is to issue guidelines and advice for the ethics committee to use in deciding on such applications. The proposed amendments to sections 10 and 35 of the Act would remove any doubt about the functions of both the ethics committee and the advisory committee with regard to storage applications. 
The bill is necessary because to enforce section 10 as it stands would require fertility clinics or their clients to destroy all human gametes and embryos stored for more than 10 years. That would be unreasonable and unfair on fertility clinics and their clients. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) 
: 
 Members on this side of the House have been wondering what initiated this Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill coming before the House tonight. I thank the Minister of Justice the Hon Simon Power for his clarity on that. I was on the Health Committee with Dr Paul Hutchison when it considered the original legislation which became the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act 2004. 
We knew that it would be quite comprehensive and complicated legislation and we knew that it would need revisiting. In fact I thought that we had put a clause in the bill for it to be reviewed because we knew that the nature of the bill was so complex. So I am not really surprised that we are here in 2009 looking at the need for a tidy-up of legislation that was enacted in 2004 especially with regard to this 10-year provision. It was my understanding that we never intended this to become a problem. If this amendment fixes the legal interpretation of section 10 then it is absolutely understandable for us to be here doing this today. I would be surprised if the bill did not come about by the Advisory Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology coming to the Minister and asking for clarity on that point and perhaps the Minister then sought a legal opinion as to what we could do about this conundrum. Sylvia Rumble who was the chair was always concerned about this issue. This will now give clarity to go forward and get the guidelines drafted so that the ethics committee has clarity around the issue. 
New Zealand passed this law relatively uncontroversially and I think that was due to the nature of the way in which Dianne Yates shepherded her own bill through the House with great passion but incredibly well researched. The legislation was also supported by clinicians who were well informed about the need for legal protection in the field of human-assisted reproduction. I acknowledge Dianne Yates and her work. We know that if this is the first time that we are seeking clarity with regard to legislation that was introduced in 2004 then it must be enduring and well-drafted legislation. 
We support this bill in all its forms and we look forward to the select committee consideration. There is always a story that comes out in the select committee that makes one realise that at that time in that environment when there was very little regulation or law we needed to be concerned about the human aspect. When I was the Associate Minister of Health responsible for this issue we were very concerned when we heard some heartfelt stories from infertile couples where perhaps resulting from rape cases women were later found to be infertile because of the damage done to their bodies. Those couples were seeking support for the second infertility treatment cycle and some even had to go to Australia for their treatment. We had to face that issue quite constantly. I thank the Minister for his compassion. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill. This legislation has come about because of a situation whereby the fertility clinics throughout the country that store gametes and embryos may inadvertently be doing so illegally. It is important to point out exactly what gametes are because as I was wandering back to my room before the dinner break a radio announcer was interviewing the Minister of Justice and asking what gametes were. They are eggs and sperm and when eggs and sperm come together they form embryos. 
The Minister pointed out in his speech that the first in vitro fertilisation in New Zealand took place in 1983 at National Women’s Hospital but it is important to realise that prior to that sperm were being frozen and can be kept for long periods of time. It was not until recently that embryos have been able to be successfully frozen and then thawed and it is even more recently that eggs have been able to be successfully frozen and then thawed. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Veterinarians have been ahead of medicine by decades. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: So they should be; I think that is quite right! I must point out that this bill is not about the biological arguments—undoubtedly it is important to consider how long eggs sperm and embryos can be stored—nor is it about the ethical arguments which are complex. 
As the Hon Steve Chadwick pointed out earlier on the genesis of the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act was a long one. It came about through the hard work of a lot of different people including the Labour member Dianne Yates. Her bill was later merged with a Government bill and a lot of people worked on this legislation including ethicists clinicians and the New Zealand Infertility Society. It has been a hugely important topic for many many years. The ethical and biological implications of this legislation are extraordinarily important to the individuals who are affected. Those people for one reason or another may wish to donate gametes or embryos or may wish to be recipients of them. 
This bill is about an anomalous situation that has been created inadvertently in an otherwise very complex legislative area. The amendment will make it clear both to the fertility clinics and to the ethics committee as to how long the storage of gametes and embryos may take place in New Zealand. I commend it to the House. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I thank the member Dr Paul Hutchison for his kind comments but I think he inadvertently said that the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill had been subsumed into a Government measure. That bill was passed in the name of Dianne Yates. She originally introduced the legislation back in 1996 and it was a personal triumph of her tenacity in that regard that legislation was passed in this House. I understand that the member may have been referring to something other than that but the legislation was definitely passed in Dianne Yates’ name. It was really important to her and it drove her. 
I also acknowledge Dr Paul Hutchison for his support because I know that he was on the Health Committee that looked at that particular legislation. As he said quite rightly a lot of people were engaged in the process of developing legislation that is really really important in this very very difficult area. Although the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill is a justice bill—it was introduced by the Minister of Justice—it is being referred to the Health Committee which is a very good committee on which we have the Hon Ruth Dyson a tremendous member of Parliament and a great spokesperson on health. I think the fact that it is a justice bill going to the Health Committee indicates for anyone listening outside that it is a complex issue because it involves the law and it involves very human emotions. That is why I think it is tremendous that the Government is taking the step that it is taking today to address an issue that has arisen since the original legislation was introduced. 
The one thing that I am still a little bit unclear about is how this bill came to be introduced. I listened very carefully to the Minister’s speech and he talked about the fact that a legal opinion was obtained which indicated that a particular section of the original legislation created a question mark around whether the 10-year rule would apply from the date of introduction of the legislation or whether it was a 10-year limitation that applied carte blanche. I think the Government now has advice that it is the latter and that is why it is important to have the cut-off point at the introduction date of the legislation which takes us back to 22 November 2004. 
I was not quite sure what brought it up in the first place. Was something brought to the Government’s attention? Did the Advisory Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology itself bring a matter to the Government and say that it had a concern? Did somebody outside the parliamentary process or Government processes indicate that there may be an issue that could lead to somebody questioning the legality of holding the gametes for more than 10 years? I think answering these questions would be really useful and maybe the answers will come out as part of the select committee as these things work through. I see Dr Paul Hutchison nodding his head; as the chair of the Health Committee he could take a particular interest in this matter. 
On that basis we are very very keen to see this bill introduced and referred to the select committee. The previous speaker on this side of the House Steve Chadwick said that she was pretty sure that the bill had within it a mechanism for review but over the tea break I did not get a chance to double-check that. I think the select committee will probably refer to whether there is a review provision in the bill. It is probably precisely the sort of thing that we would want to be reviewed in terms of legislation that is necessary but often difficult because it is dealing with issues of the law and human nature itself. 
I am very pleased that the Government is obviously taking this issue very seriously. The original legislation itself is upheld by the fact that it is being amended in this way. The intention of that legislation is being upheld by the amendment before the House. I support the amendment going to the select committee and I look forward to the report back to the House. 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
: 
 I will take just a short call. The Green Party supports the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill. We think it makes sense for the legislation not to be applied retrospectively. We note the comment in the explanatory note that fertility clinics acting in good faith were breaching the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act by storing gametes and embryos for longer than the applicable period. It makes sense to reverse that problem and fix it. We also think it is valuable to clarify the respective roles of the ethics committee and the Advisory Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology. The bill tidies that up nicely. 
I will make some broader observations and pick up on the comments that Lianne Dalziel began with on the context of this area of law and this area of work. This area of assisted reproductive technology is one that involves deep human emotion profound effects on the lives of human beings and also very thorny and complicated legal and ethical issues. In speeches that were given in this House in the debate on the 2004 Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act the Green Party outlined a number of concerns. We were really impressed with Dianne Yates’ original bill and were very pleased to support it. We felt in the long run however that the compromises made to Dianne Yates’ legislation in the final form that was enacted were unnecessary. They watered down the legislation in a way that was quite unhelpful. 
In particular this is an area of science and of medicine that has developed much faster than this Parliament’s—or indeed any Parliament’s—ability to control it. One of the opportunities lost by moving with a truncated form of Dianne Yates’ bill was to make a big step in catching up to the progress that had been made scientifically. We had felt that the Act that came into force set up one of the most permissive regulatory regimes in the world. This was a regime that Sue Kedgley said in her third reading speech was one that relied on guidelines rather than regulations. She said that it bypassed Parliament by delegating policy making in a highly contentious ethical area to a committee of unelected and unaccountable experts who meet behind closed doors. 
So I think there are some residual concerns that we have about the Act. Another thing that Sue Kedgley said in that third reading speech was that she was sure that not passing comprehensive law would mean that the issues would come back to this House. I note Lianne Dalziel’s comments about a review and I have not had an opportunity to check the Act and see what the provisions are. But I take comfort from the prospect that the Health Committee may well be able to consider what the review provides for and perhaps set up a mechanism for that to occur to deal with the broader range of issues. 
Since the 2004 Act came into force we have had the report of the Law Commission in 2005 which addressed these issues very comprehensively. The Law Commission made some 29 recommendations at least 12 of which relate pretty directly to the area of law that we are considering with this legislation. It seems appropriate for Parliament to have an appropriate mechanism to consider and deal with the recommendations that the Law Commission has made. I look forward to being part of the select committee process of considering this bill and considering any wider submissions that members of the public may wish to make as well as making some decisions about what will constitute that review process in years to come. Thank you. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Kia ora tatou e te Whare. Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. One of the iconic items in the photographic archive of Aotearoa is a picture of the Beatles wearing the traditional symbol of fertility around their necks—some people might not know that. That same symbol which is at the key of the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Bill was routinely distributed to passengers flying on our national airline during the 1960s and 1970s. Some members might remember that. 
I am talking of course about the heitiki our traditional symbol of fertility and childbirth. Heitiki represents our whakapapa back to Tiki who was the first human. They also represent Hine Te Iwaiwa one of our tupuna associated with fertility childbearing and birthing. Another theory is that the heitiki represents the unborn embryo particularly of children who are stillborn. In our tribal histories we have evidence of previously barren women who were said to have conceived after receiving the gift of heitiki by their husbands or other relations. 
I refer to our recognised symbols and stories in thinking about this bill because I want to make it known that the issues of infertility miscarriage and abortion are not the sole preserve of the 21st century preoccupation. In the late 1700s James Cook saw mostly men wearing tiki but there have also been accounts from the late 1800s of women wearing tiki particularly during pregnancy and childbirth. 
In the old days there was a range of creative solutions to respond to the crisis of childlessness and infertility other than the storage of in vitro gametes or in vitro embryos. Childless couples were often supported by the gifting of children. We might call these children whangai. In Te Ao Maori whangai in a literal sense means to feed. In contemporary times we might think of whangai children as feeding a whakapapa line an ancestral line or a genealogical link. The sharing of children as an alternative to infertility is also a situation in which the whakapapa line of a whanau would be nourished. It is a very interesting contrast to the European term of adoption which historically severs ties from one family line creating the legal fiction of two new adoptive parents with no association to the birth parents. 
How then do these varying cultural concepts apply to this amendment bill which allows for fertility clinics to comply with the law and not have to destroy stored gametes and embryos? The key concept for us is about the integrity of whakapapa and the vital need for control and protection. Maori engagement with human-assisted reproductive technology is potentially one of the most sensitive and controversial areas of debate within our communities. We are of course aware of the crisis issues of infertility amongst our women. Current statistics reveal that the chlamydia rate for Maori is twice that of non-Maori. It also reveals that the gonorrhoea rate for Maori is three times that of non-Maori. 
Every commentator in the public arena likes to broadcast the issues evident in respect of teenage fertility rates for young Maori women but when it comes to infertility there appears to be an uneasy silence. Why is it that the chronic issues around sexually transmitted infections are not up for debate in this House on marae or in public hui? With sexually transmitted infection rates at epidemic levels for rangatahi Maori a very serious threat is posed to our population growth. 
The Maori Party has a considerable sense of sadness that we even have bills like this in front of the House. The issues about fertility and reproduction are absolutely central for whanau ora and for the health of future generations. Our sadness is that we do not believe there has been enough opportunity for Maori to debate the tikanga of the circumstances around human-assisted reproductive technology. We want to see whanau ownership. A collective sharing and responsibility is fundamental in the debate around whakapapa. We want to hear Maori voices in the literature and in the policy design. 
Along with that an interesting point was raised by Marewa Glover and Benedicta Rousseau in the research report entitled  
Your Child is Your Whakapapa 
:  
Maori Considerations of Assisted Human Reproduction and Relatedness. 
 In that research a key theme was the sense of survival in a collective sense and survival through the maintenance of whakapapa. It was rare in the discussions of assisted human reproductive technologies for the mechanics of particular technological interventions to be under discussion. The prevailing focus was about the very essence of human life and relationships—he tangata he tangata he tangata—and within that the emphasis was on the uniqueness of Maori identity. 
But there is another powerful theme underpinning any discussion of human in vitro gametes and embryos and that is the spiritual context of the process of reproduction. Members of the House will be aware that in te reo Maori we can have a very special way of talking about these issues. In terms of the process of abortion or miscarriage we may refer to ahua kahukahu the wairua or spirit within the embryo. Another way of describing this is as the unripened seed of a human child. In the old days those embryos would have been taken and placed on the wall of the whare wananga to protect the knowledge the matauranga of the house and to encourage the diligence of the students. 
There are many other accounts such as this but an essential part of the understanding is that the spirit of the embryo the unripened seed is seen as very very significant. For many of us when we consider the storage of human embryos and fertility clinics there is a sense of awkwardness and discomfort. That discomfort that sense of something not being quite right is the anxiety about the aspects of tikanga of custom. We worry about the mana of the process the wairua of the gametes and the authority of the whanau. We are nervous that the tikanga of gifting and sharing of whakapapa brings with it certain expectations associated with the passing over of a life force. 
Within this process we would naturally expect a level of accountability and responsibility on the part of all of those involved to accept the commitment to whanau. We would want to scrutinise the records to ensure they are protected and that the crucial identity of whanau is preserved. These issues are fundamental to the natural law of whanau. Dr Marewa Glover describes this law as facilitating the rangatiratanga of whanau over their whakapapa material. This means it should be up to the people from whom the in vitro gametes and embryos came from to decide how long they should be stored for and what they should be used for including what happens in the event of their death. 
Such vital issues of survival should not be left to the realms of an ethics committee to decide. Te Puawai Tapu an organisation dedicated to the protection of Maori sexual and reproductive health also recommends that these elements of ownership and control should be apparent at every stage throughout the process. It suggests that tikanga must be applied at all stages from the decision to enter into the process of fertility treatment to the completion and return of ahua kahukahu the unripened seed. Throughout these stages Maori partnership in decisions and actions must be paramount. It is about investing in the cultural integrity of whakapapa and protecting knowledge and identity. 
I cannot say that anyone in the Maori Party is at ease with the discussions around assisted reproductive technology but we would be even more uneasy if these discussions went on without Maori being engaged in a real way. Having a few Maori on a committee or writing submissions is simply not enough. We will support this bill with considerable caution to enable the discussions to proceed at the select committee. We cannot give any great assurance of our support after that. However it is simply purely and appropriately the right of Maori to tell us what our subsequent decision should be. Therefore we will wait to see how the discussion goes. Kia ora tatau. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak to the first reading of the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill. The purpose of this amendment bill is to bring clarity to some aspects of the existing law the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act. The bill will bring reassurance to the fertility clinics in New Zealand that are unintentionally breaking the law by storing some gametes and embryos. The current Act prohibits the storage of human in vitro gametes or embryos for longer than the set period of 10 years but it can be longer if approved by the ethics committee. The time limit of 10 years came into force in November 2004 with the introduction of the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act. In effect this means that fertility clinics in New Zealand will be holding gametes and embryos illegally and that will be of concern to those clinics. Clearly that is not an intended consequence of the current Act and this bill will rectify this situation. 
This bill will also make it clear that the Advisory Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology or ACART may issue or give guidelines and advice to the Ethics Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology or ECART on matters that need to be taken into account when considering whether to approve a longer storage period. I acknowledge the important work of both of those committees. The area of human-assisted reproductive technology is a fast-evolving area. Therefore it is important there is clarity in the work of these committees. The bill makes it clear that a longer storage period may be approved only if it is consistent with the relevant guidelines and advice issued by the Advisory Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology. In effect this bill will give greater certainty to those ethics and advisory committees about their respective roles in making decisions around storage periods. This will be reassuring to those fertility clinics that are unintentionally breaking the law. 
I acknowledge the important work that fertility clinics do and provide in New Zealand. We have both public and private providers. The rate of infertility in New Zealand is steadily increasing each year and it is estimated that one in five couples trying to conceive will experience fertility problems at some stage. A significant number of those couples will need assisted reproductive technology. When infertility is diagnosed it can be devastating to couples. I acknowledge the important work that the health professionals working in those clinics in New Zealand do. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 I am delighted to stand and join many others from across the political spectrum who are speaking in support of the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill. I understand that there is a proposal to refer the bill to the Health Committee. Although I am pleased to be supporting the bill because of its contents I am particularly pleased about the proposal to refer it to the Health Committee as it will be very interesting for all members of the committee. 
The member who resumed her seat Dr Jackie Blue is a member of the select committee as is Kevin Hague who has also spoken in this debate. Mr Assistant Speaker Roy if I may refer to you and include you in the debate you are part of the select committee. I am sure you would agree that all the members of it will find this amendment bill and the issue very interesting. 
I have to say there is a downside to this bill being referred to the Health Committee. National Party members of the committee—Dr Paul Hutchison Mr Eric Roy Dr Jackie Blue Nicky Wagner and Michael Woodhouse—will have yet another excuse to deny my colleague Winnie Laban the opportunity to have her aged-care inquiry accepted by it. Frankly that is very frustrating not only for Luamanuvao Winnie Laban but also for the Labour select committee members for the Green Party select committee member and for the general public. We know there are some very serious issues in aged care around the country. On an almost daily basis we are now getting serious complaints about the quality of care about the training that is given to caregivers and about all sorts of issues— 
Michael Woodhouse 
: One needs to have relevance. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I say to that member that this is a first reading speech. I recommend a page a day of the Standing Orders to any brand new member who thinks he knows the Standing Orders better than the Speaker because Mr Woodhouse has demonstrated yet again that he does not. 
The Health Committee will have yet another excuse for it not to look at these issues because this bill is likely from the indications of the speeches that have already been given to be referred to our select committee. I say to my colleague Winnie Laban that she needs to persist with her inquiry. She is getting overwhelming support from the public about the need to have an aged-care inquiry. I am sure that given every single party has spoken in support of this bill it will not take a great deal of the time of our select committee and we should be able to move back to the more pressing issue of the aged-care inquiry very early on in the new year. 
Kevin Hague spoke on this bill early on and referred to the deep emotions that surround these issues. He talked about the very complex medical and legal issues that surround the storage of sperm eggs and embryos. I can only wholeheartedly agree with him. This is not a straightforward issue that individual members and their parties are just for or against. There are a range of emotional medical and legal issues that we need to consider with a lot of caution and care but also with a lot of sensitivity towards the couples who are facing infertility to whom Dr Jackie Blue referred in her contribution. In my view she did that in a very sensitive and considered way and really reflected the views of those couples in relation to the issues that will be before the select committee. 
This bill does a technical tidy-up but for many couples and many people who submitted on the original legislation this bill will raise those emotions again. I am certainly prepared on behalf of the Labour team on the select committee to give our commitment to ensuring that no games are played with these issues and that we consider them carefully and cautiously. Because this bill is quite a small and technical bill I hope we can proceed with it at a reasonably rapid pace rather than trying to drag up issues that may be related but are really outside the scope of this bill which is quite narrow. 
The Minister of Justice’s advisers have clearly alerted him to a potential legal problem. My understanding from listening to the earlier contributions is that there has not been a legal challenge but in the same way that the Inland Revenue Department can find any number of potential legal challenges to the tax system the Minister of Justice has been alerted to a potential legal challenge in respect of the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act of 2004. It relates to how long sperm eggs and embryos are able to be stored. The issue boils down to this: when does the clock start ticking? The legislation says that they can be stored for only 10 years. The legislation came into force in 2004. Is that the day that the clock starts ticking on that 10-year storage length of time? Or does it take into account the 1 2 or maybe 9½ years that sperm eggs and embryos were already in storage prior to the Act coming into force in 2004? That is the question that this bill seeks to address beyond any doubt so that there cannot be any legal challenge to the legislation. 
Because I was in Parliament when those earlier debates occurred I am very confident that the select committee members did not intend there to be any challenge to the length of storage time. I particularly commend my friend and former colleague Di Yates a former member of Parliament from the Waikato who was very passionate about this issue and very committed to its progress in terms of legislative protection but also understood very well its detail. I am sure she would be of great assistance to the select committee if we wished to look at what Parliament intended during the passing of the 2004 legislation and what the Minister has now drawn to the attention of Parliament which is the potential legal challenge over the storage time. What I do not want is those deep emotional and complex medical and legal issues to muddy the waters of what this Parliament has indicated is a very straightforward clarification—not correction—of the original intent of the legislation. 
I am very pleased that the Minister has chosen to introduce this legislation. It is not at all clear whether he did so on the basis of advice from his officials or whether the advisory committee that is set up under section 35 of the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act of 2004 actually gave that advice. I did not hear the Minister allude to that in his introductory comments but if the advisory committee did not give that advice and if the Minister is acting solely on the advice of his officials I would say that the advisory committee would be feeling a little short-changed. It is set up under the primary legislation that we are proposing to amend tonight. It is an advisory committee with functions that are laid out in section 35 and the membership is described in section 34(4)(a) to (g) so it is not a committee that is set up at the whim of a Minister. It is set up by the decree of our Parliament under the primary legislation. I would be very interested if one of the first questions the select committee asked was whether this amendment bill was introduced on the advice of the advisory committee or on the advice of the Ministry of Justice. 
In any regard it is an important clarification to make. I look forward to you Mr Assistant Speaker and I being part of the select committee deliberations in the very near future. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 I too am delighted to support the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill and I agree with the Hon Ruth Dyson that it will be a most interesting bill for the Health Committee to consider. 
As we have already heard this amendment bill does three things. It clarifies uncertainties in the existing Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act of 2004 and it deals with the issue that right now some fertility clinics are unintentionally breaking the law regarding the storage of gametes and embryos. It also clarifies the role of the ethics committee and the advisory committee in decisions on the storage periods for gametes and embryos. 
In vitro fertilisation or IVF has been available in New Zealand for more than three decades. It got its name which means “fertilisation within glass” because early biological experiments that cultivated tissues outside living organisms were carried out in glass containers. Researchers used beakers test tubes and Petri dishes. We still talk of test-tube babies but in vitro fertilisation is done in the much shallower Petri dishes. 
New Zealand has a low fertility rate. In comparison with the highest world rates in places like Niger and Afghanistan where women have more than seven children each in New Zealand our rate is less than two and our mothers are getting older. The median age of women giving birth is 30 years which means half of all women who give birth are aged over 30. Birth rates for women aged over 30 have been increasing over the last 10 years. The median age of women giving birth to their first child is 28 years old. The average number of births per woman is decreasing. In 1971—almost 40 years ago—it was just over three; today it is under two. 
About 15 in 100 couples in New Zealand have difficulty conceiving a child. About five in 100 couples have in vitro fertilisation treatment and one in 100 babies is a successful in vitro fertilisation or test-tube baby. About 900 in vitro fertilisation babies are born in New Zealand each year. With older parents and lowered sperm counts in New Zealand men the demand for in vitro fertilisation treatment in New Zealand is growing. The  
British Medical Journal 
 suggests that infertility rates could double in the next decade simply due to poor health and lifestyle choices. Many couples are finding that having a child is more difficult than chucking out the contraceptives and dimming the lights. 
It is important that this legislation on the process and in this case the storage of gametes and embryos is clear. I fully support this amendment bill. 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 I rise to speak in the first reading of the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill. The Labour Opposition supports this bill in its first reading and referral to select committee. 
The purpose of this bill is to amend several aspects of the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act of 2004. It is a fairly recent Act but I think the amendment is necessary given the advances in science now and as we move forward into the future. My colleague across the House was just speaking of the increased need or demand for in vitro fertilisation treatment. That is a function of a lot of things but particularly as we have seen recently of the falling sperm rate in the New Zealand population. It is therefore a useful and timely moment to look at the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill and to bring it into line with many of the needs that we see in this area at the moment. 
This bill amends several aspects of the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act 2004 which prohibits the storage of a human in vitro gamete the actual sperm itself or the in vitro embryo—in a sense the fertilised embryo or egg—for longer than 10 years or a longer period if the Ethics Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology established under the Act approves. Why is this legislation being amended? The 10-year prohibition applies to gametes and embryos that were stored before 22 November 2004 when the prohibition came into force. Because of this the fertility clinics acting in good faith have unknowingly breached the Act. Many of these clinics are doing excellent work for couples throughout New Zealand in helping them to conceive children. They are acting in good faith they are doing what they believe is the right thing but unknowingly and unwittingly they are breaching this Act. This was not intended by the original 2004 Act and the Government therefore proposes to amend the Act with Labour’s support to ensure that no account may be taken of the period for which the gametes or embryos were stored before 22 November 2004. 
There has been a degree of uncertainty as to whether the Ministerial Advisory Committee on Assisted Reproductive Procedures and Human Reproductive Research under the Act may issue guidelines and advice to the ethics committee on matters to be taken into account in considering whether to approve a longer period for the storage. There is also uncertainty as to whether the ethics committee may extend the storage period only if the extension would be consistent with the guidelines handed down by the advisory committee. 
The amendment therefore clarifies much of the 2004 Act brings it into line with the intention of the original Act ensures that the fertility clinics themselves are acting lawfully—even though as I say unintentionally they are acting unlawfully—and ensures that the 2004 Act is in fact doing what it was originally set up to do. For that reason this legislation is needed. It should go to the select committee where we can hear the full range and breadth of opinion from across the specific area of fertility and the expertise that we can draw on and we can look at this amendment in light of trying to make the 2004 Act apply and do what it is supposed to in light of its intentions at the time of enactment. For that reason we recommend that the bill goes to select committee. We are in support of its main provisions. Thank you. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I will take just a quick call in support of the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill. It appears as though it will get unanimous support for referral to select committee so I will not unduly hold up its passage. I am a member of the Health Committee. This is not an area that I know very well but I am looking forward to hearing submissions on the bill. 
I think Lianne Dalziel’s comments about how this bill was introduced by the Minister of Justice but referred to the Health Committee underscore how complex and emotive the issue is and are very accurate. But although there is great good sense in referring the bill to the Health Committee the fact that my esteemed colleague Dr Hutchison is the chair of that select committee and able to impart his considerable knowledge and experience as an obstetrician and gynaecologist in a previous life is I think reason enough to refer it to the Health Committee and I look forward to his wise counsel in that regard. 
I also have to thank my select committee colleague Ruth Dyson for her advice on the Standing Orders. It is advice I do not think I needed; I am well aware of Standing Order 107 and Speakers’ rulings 47/2-7. I was not going to raise a point of order on this matter—it is a debating point I guess—but for somebody to raise the issue of an inquiry into the health of older people in the context of a human-assisted reproduction bill is about as long a bow as one could draw in terms of relevancy and I congratulate the member on her ability to bring that into the debate. 
On a quick reading of clause 5 which amends section 10 of the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act I find it a little surprising that this issue appears to have been overlooked in the passage of the original legislation but when we look at the myriad of complex issues that the House needed to consider at that time it is probably not surprising. Members were talking about prohibited activities restrictions on sex selection surrogacy and so on and these are very complex and emotive issues. The fact that they were probably not clearly articulated in the way Parliament intended a few years ago is not so surprising after all. I look forward to the passage of this legislation and I commend the bill to the House. 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Health Committee.