Katene Rahui: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Katene Rahui: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14464] 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 The Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill amends the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act 2004 to make it clear that human in vitro gametes or in vitro embryos must be disposed of before the expiry period of 10 years or at any later date approved by the ethics committee. 
If I say it fast it is almost possible to avoid the fact that we are talking here about the origins of all human life. The Maori Party has addressed three particular priorities in our contribution to the debate throughout the readings of this bill. The first is the concern that there has not been opportunity for Maori to debate the tikanga of this field. The second is about the precious and unique status of whakapapa and the third is the critical issue of participation in decision making. For tangata whenua as a partner of the Crown Te Tiriti o Waitangi stands to remind ethics committees of a constitutional obligation to ensure Maori participation protection and partnership when considering approval for research applications. 
I will discuss each of these in turn. When we think about the tikanga of this field it is important to note that a separate Ethics Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology has been established to review and approve research involving new technologies or treatments for human reproduction and infertility. One of the ethics committee’s seven guiding principles is that “the needs values and beliefs of Maori should be considered and treated with respect”. That is a very positive start but it has to translate into tikanga—tikanga that 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 of a human child in whatever form that might take. 
As a case in point the tikanga for destroying an embryo might take into account several tikanga at play: the movement from living to not living; the preparation for burial cremation etc.; the actual burial; and the entry into the portals of the world of being and light. Similarly the tikanga for when whanau hand over their embryos and gametes would be the tikanga of gifting. This would include the sharing of whakapapa and the whakatau settling process into the storage facility. This is the handing over or passing over of a life-force. Such a tikanga provides a level of accountability and responsibility on the part of the agency to accept the Maori level of commitment. It also provides for the right of Maori to collect the embryo and gamete should the original agreement not be upheld. The point I am making is that it is one thing to talk about these matters; it is quite another to sit down and give expression to the tikanga that makes the words real. 
The second critical aspect of our decision making is around whakapapa. We believe that the law should facilitate the rangatiratanga of whanau over their whakapapa material. Discussions of assisted reproductive technology amongst Maori are rarely confined to the intricacies and mechanics of particular technological interventions; they are about what constitutes human life and relationships the need for Maori to continue to exist and the uniqueness of Maori identity. Maori have a different view of reproduction from its being just a matter of eggs and fertility; it is about whakapapa. This means in practice that it should be up to the people from whom the in vitro gametes and embryos have come to decide how long they should be stored for what they should be used for what happens in the event of their death etc. It should not be up to a few people on a committee to decide. The decision about whether to continue to store for longer than 10 years should be made by the whanau and not by some committee. The reason is very simple: the eggs embryos and foetuses belong to the whanau not to scientists and always should do. That means that if donors decide to let their eggs or sperm be used by someone else any left afterwards should be returned to the whanau. 
I come now to the issue of ethics. Some of the main issues that this amendment presents are to do with what happens to unused eggs after the 10-year period who owns the eggs and how decisions are made. How do we gather and report data that is relevant and meaningful for Maori? Maori need to be engaged in a very real way; having a few Maori on a committee or engaged in writing submissions is not enough to constitute proper engagement. We also need robust information and relevant statistics such as declining Maori fertility rates. Agencies should invest in process—for example hui or korerorero—to raise awareness; to clarify and gather consensus on the meaning of consultation and consent for Maori whanau hapu iwi and community; and to develop resources for dissemination amongst whanau hapu and iwi. 
Finally we seek the opportunity to raise our own questions to consider whether human embryos used in research should help sustain us or contribute to our demise. It is about Maori partnership in decisions and actions to ensure cultural integrity in whakapapa and the institution of whanau. There must be freedom from abuse from harm and from change without knowledge and informed consent. 
Despite this being the third reading I needed to articulate these heartfelt concerns shared by our caucus about this legislation right through this bill to indicate the profound respect we place on any matters related to whakapapa. The material should always be seen as ultimately belonging to the donor and able to be returned if available. The ownership of whanau should always be maintained and laws should facilitate that understanding. We want to ensure that whanau are better involved in decision making concerning their whakapapa material. We cannot support this bill.