Kedgley Sue: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Kedgley Sue: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:16349] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 The previous speaker said that New Zealanders should have no concerns. She was very very appraising of the existing situation. She said that no one should have any concerns and mentioned the stipulations in this bill about search and seizure powers for illegal activities the fines and so forth. Although the Green Party is very happy with the powers that exist in Part 4—we are happy they are there that such powers do exist—we have very real concerns about how one would know when a fertility clinic was committing an illegal act. The reason for our concerns is that the body that sets the rules about what is legal and what is illegal is a ministerial advisory committee and it issues guidelines. Essentially it is the guidelines that will decide which activities fertility clinics undertake are legal and which are illegal. 
As I have previously pointed out in the debate when we look at the fine print of these guidelines we find they are extremely vague—so vague that I believe that in many circumstances it would be very difficult for the police or whoever would be using these search and seizure powers to work out what is legal for fertility clinics to undertake and what is illegal. It is all well and good to have all these search and seizure powers and to have fines—everything sounds very reassuring as the previous speaker said—but in truth when we look at the earlier provisions and at how the decision will be made as to what activities are legal and what are illegal then I am afraid to say that this is where the bill falls down utterly. We do not even have regulations. Therefore the people who do the search and seizure will be acting on policy that is not even in regulation. How can we enforce through search and seizure powers something that is not even stipulated in regulation? It is simply a very vaguely worded guideline. It states that if possible we should do this and wherever possible we should do that but there is no clear and prescriptive wording. How can we then expect officials when they enter a fertility clinic to use their search and seizure powers to be able to decide what is legal and what is illegal? 
I am afraid to say that this whole part while it appears to be reassuring to the member for New Zealand First is not reassuring to us. We cannot see how in the absence of any regulations in this area there is clear guidance for people to go in and use these powers. Admittedly schedule 1 lists some activities that are prohibited so presumably for people trying to create an animal-human hybrid embryo or a cloned embryo or trying to develop a genetically modified gamete or embryo then those activities are clearly stipulated as illegal under the Act as are the things they would be able to do. But anything that is not in the prohibited section in schedule 1 basically will not even be spelt out in regulation and in our view will therefore be very very difficult to enforce. 
I think it is very very sad that this bill is so weak. Although it is great that we do have the search and seizure powers that will act as a deterrent presumably on fertility clinics I am afraid they are weak deterrents because the legislation is so loose so flexible so weak and so lacking in regulation.