Turner Judy: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Turner Judy: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:16359] 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 I will take a brief call on clauses 1 and 2. Although I understand how tidy and convenient the title of this bill is—it rolls off the tongue; it is the “HART” bill—in many ways I think the original bill proposed by Dianne Yates would have fitted this description. I do not believe that the bill before us now is described adequately by this title. This bill is now about the handling of all reproductive material outside the body and covers way more than just the assistance given to people who require assistance with reproduction. It also covers the use of gametes and embryos for research purposes and I certainly do not think that “human assisted reproductive technology” in any way alludes to the fact that a huge amount of research is now covered by this bill—procedures that will not necessarily impinge on a woman giving birth to a child but will certainly take us down some very interesting paths. 
I think a better title—if we were prepared to move away from our clever HART acronym—would be the “Human Assisted Reproductive and Research Technology Bill”. I guess we could say “HARRT” and put a bit of a roll on the “r” which would please our southerners! I think the title should be changed to reflect what will be at least 50 percent of the work covered by this bill which is the work of medical research. Certainly the title gives no indication that that aspect of the work is covered. 
The other matter I want to mention is the commencement date. It is rather interesting that a few provisions of the bill come into force on the date of the royal assent and that for some others there is a 9-month phase-in period. I understand that it is quite common in law to have a phase-in period for provisions of an Act. It is rather interesting to refer back to Part 4 where we find clause 75: “Director-General of Health to be advisory committee pending its establishment”. It kind of makes sense when one realises that those guidelines I was talking about earlier this evening—the consultation document for the pre-implementation genetic diagnosis procedures—obviously will not go to the committee. They will probably be processed by the Director-General of Health very quickly—in the next few months. 
I think we must understand that a lot will happen in that 9-month phase-in commencement period. It will not be an inactive time. There are technologies waiting in the wings to be processed and despite the fact that there is a 9-month delay things will be under way very quickly. I continue to have some concerns. It is interesting and it is a bit of a challenge to the Greens—it is never too late to change one’s mind. I was talking this evening to a gentleman from the UK. I was explaining the legislation we are working on tonight in the Chamber. His comment to me was: “Oh I bet the Greens are opposing that.” The Greens have taken a very active stand internationally on this area. He was quite shocked to hear that the Green Party in New Zealand is supporting this bill right the way through. He said that was quite out of step with what has happened with that party internationally. Green members present may want to relay that to their colleagues so that they can reconsider the position they are taking on this bill in the third reading.