Chadwick Steve: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Chadwick Steve: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13723] 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) 
: 
 That was a wonderful exposé from the Minister of Justice and it was quite accurate. I was on the Health Committee with Dr Paul Hutchison at the time the House passed the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: That was a good time. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: Those were the days I say to Dr Hutchison—those were the days Dr Paul. I acknowledge Di Yates who is no longer a member of Parliament. The original legislation began as her member’s bill and prior to the passing of the legislation in 2004 there was no regulation about human-assisted reproductive technology. I think it is interesting for us to note in 2010 that about 15 percent of couples in New Zealand have difficulty conceiving a child and about 5 percent of couples have in-vitro fertilisation treatment. 
I can remember managing a women’s health service when obstetricians would go out and get fresh samples of sperm take them back to their clinic rooms put them into women and hope and pray that they conceived a child. There was no regulation no record-keeping and no management of the information relating to where the sperm donation came from and that was only in my day in 1990. So we have moved a long way in the 20 years to 2010. 
I think the original bill was remarkably good. Di Yates worked with doctors in the field who were our advisers on the bill and we got it remarkably correct at the time. I think Heather Roy was also on the Health Committee at that time. We worked in a very constructive way together but there is of course no way that we always get it all right. The intention of the original legislation was that a gamete be stored for 10 years. We thought we had that sorted at the time but as the Minister said the Crown received legal advice that the storage period needed technical clarification. 
Labour supports the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill. I think there should be a sunset clause and a revision clause in this bill because technology moves very fast. We are not sure that we got it all right in 2004. Any legislation that involves an element of science and technology ought to be looked at again in order to see that its implementation is a reflection of the intention of the committee at the time and a reflection of new science and new evidence that comes before the committee. 
This is a very good bill. I think the 6-month grace period makes sense. Those working in the field of human-assisted reproductive technology do not like having to face the destruction of gametes but often neither the donor parent nor the woman hoping to use the egg can be found. 
There is also a new international influence. Many infertile women have chosen donor gametes from Australia America or the UK. So the provision in this bill to look outside New Zealand to make sure that we are not using expired gametes is a very very wise move and it is good to look at the international example. When the bill was introduced it was seen as world leading actually— 
Hon David Parker 
: Di Yates. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: Yes I have mentioned Di Yates. In respect of the original legislation I think we got it remarkably right. We are making only a couple of technical amendments to it about the advisory committee and the ethics committee and their scope in terms of advice to the Minister. I think it is simply astounding that more than 6 years later all we are looking at is this amendment bill which just clarifies something we did not make clear enough in the original bill. 
Labour supports this amendment bill. I think it is interesting that there were only eight submissions. That is astonishing considering the length of time we took at the select committee prior to the original bill’s passing in 2004. Labour unanimously supports this amendment bill and I hope it helps people working in this field and prospective parents to be confident that we have addressed the issue of clarification.