Franks Stephen: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Franks Stephen: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15910] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I appreciate the opportunity to further address Part 1 of the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill. As I indicated the ACT party will split its vote on this. We have two members who believe that the bill is defective but still worth supporting and we have six members who believe that it is a classic example of the errors of legislating when no mischief has been identified. Usually we pass law when we find that something wrong is being done or threatened. People cannot even identify what it is they are scared of in this case. The mischief may be bad outcomes but if people wanted to look at bad outcomes and were really worried about kids being born with genetic disadvantages why are they not worried about kids who are born to smoking mothers? Why are they not doing something about kids born with lifelong disabilities as a result of alcohol consumption during the critical period after conception? 
I have just heard arguments that this is the one and only chance for Parliament to look at the issue. Parliament will look at this every year—because it is sexy because it gets headlines and because politicians looking anxious and concerned can intervene in this area with no practical consequences. What we have here is an idea that Parliament’s wisdom will exceed that of the anxious would-be parents the concerned doctors and the professionals who would like to deal with disease. 
A very good example of how pitiful a parliamentary attempt to deal with this issue is is my layman’s look at the definitions in Part 1. As I read them they do not do anything about genetic engineering even though half the speeches have been about that. It is not prohibited by this bill. The bill states that it deals with embryos and gametes at the cellular level and with fusing cells. It does not even deal with introducing specific genes or modifying specific genes as long as a hybrid is not created. Am I right? I would be very interested to know whether the member in the chair Dianne Yates can advise on this matter. I have looked at the schedules and I think this is a classic example of a pathetic group of politicians deciding to intervene in a very big public splash and not realising that the legislation does not even address the issues they are making most of their slogans about. 
It does not deal with modified embryos. It does not deal with genetic experimentation. It does not deal—nor should it—with an attempt for example to introduce extra genes into the reproductive mechanism to cope with some desperate inherited disease. I just hope that by raising the pathetic inadequacy of this bill I do not find a member suddenly rushing through an amendment to try to block even that area. 
This bill scratches a political itch—a desire to be seen to be publicly upholding someone’s cultural values. In clause 4 “Principles” paragraph (f) directs that “the needs values and beliefs of Maori should be considered and treated with respect:”. Of course—but what does that mean? This is slogan law. How much respect? Does it override the rights of everyone else even if some Maori decide they do not like any kind of interference with the course of nature however red in tooth and claw nature may be? 
Then I see that someone decided that that provision looked a little bit racist so the next provision was stuck in: “the different ethical spiritual and cultural perspectives in society should be considered and treated with respect.” How respectfully at the moment are we treating the 30-odd percent of New Zealanders who are Catholic when we openly have the Abortion Supervisory Committee admitting that we have abortion on demand? Catholics think that that is murder. I do not but they think it is murder. The law treats abortion on demand as highly illegal yet the House connives year after year at 18000 or 20000 embryos being destroyed a great affront to those Catholics and in breach of the law and we do nothing. Instead we pass drivel law like this.