Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13722] 
Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. I thank the Health Committee for its careful consideration of the bill and its recommendation that the bill be passed with some amendments. 
The bill clarifies and implements the policy intent of section 10 of the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act 2004 which deals with the storage of human gametes and embryos. The Act provides that gametes and embryos may be stored for only 10 years although it allows for extensions to the storage limit in particular cases. The 10-year limit on storage starts from when the Act came into force on 22 November 2004 or from when the storage of a gamete or an embryo began whichever is later. The Government received legal advice that indicates that as the Act is currently written the 10-year limit starts from when a gamete or embryo was stored. This means that some gametes or embryos placed in storage prior to 22 November 2004 are in unintentional breach of the Act. To enforce the Act as it stands would require the destruction of these gametes and embryos. That would be unreasonable and unfair on the couples concerned and on fertility clinics who had been acting in good faith. 
The bill also clarifies the roles of the Ethics Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology and the Advisory Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology under the Act in extending the storage of gametes and embryos. When approving extensions to the storage limit the ethics committee must apply the relevant guidelines and advice issued by the advisory committee. 
The Health Committee received eight submissions on the bill. 
Hon David Parker 
: 80 or 8? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: Just eight. All supported its purpose although they proposed a number of useful amendments. Some submitters expressed concern that the bill was not clear about how the 10-year storage limit is calculated for gametes or embryos that have for a period been stored outside New Zealand. The committee recommended making it explicit that any storage time outside New Zealand is included in calculating the 10-year limit on stored gametes and embryos. This is not an area that I have a great deal of expertise in and it is a bit of an anomaly that the Minister of Justice is dealing with these issues but I will do my best. Reproductive technology allows embryos to be created from previously stored gametes so the committee has recommended clarifying that the 10-year storage limit runs from the first storage date of any gamete used to make a stored embryo. In addition any extension that has been granted for the storage of that gamete also applies to the storage limit for any embryo created from that gamete. 
The committee has also suggested amendments to address concerns that the Act would place an unnecessary burden on clinics if they were legally obliged to dispose of a gamete or embryo on the day that the storage limit expired. The committee has suggested the inclusion of a 6-month grace period to dispose to gametes and embryos after the storage limit expires—a sensible suggestion. Finally to ensure that section 10 of the principal Act can be enforced the committee has recommended amending section 67(2)(c) to ensure that the Act’s enforcement provisions are available for any storage that contravenes section 10. 
This bill will provide certainty to couples who are trying to have children and for that reason I implore the House to deal with it expeditiously. I commend this bill to the House. 
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. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill. I must agree with Stevie Chadwick that the science in this area has gone a long way over the last 30 years. The first birth of an in vitro fertilisation baby was in 1979 but prior to that certainly in New Zealand it was an area that was extraordinarily unregulated. The member’s memory of obstetricians going out to collect sperm and bringing them back with few records kept is absolutely accurate. 
During the first reading of this bill Lianne Dalziel questioned why it was that it came to the attention of the House. I understand that it was the media—the good old media—that had made inquiries of the Ministry of Justice as to whether some of the clinics even though they were acting in good faith were illegally storing embryos and gametes. Of course gametes are defined as sperms and eggs. There was a little bit of confusion about this from Radio New Zealand during the first reading and it is important to make sure that it is aware of that. 
This bill endeavours to make the rules absolutely crystal clear because that is vital for the clinics involved and of course for the patients who are very emotionally involved in these issues. Embryos and gametes must be disposed of after 10 years from 22 November 2004 or subsequently 10 years after the date of storage. The Ethics Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology has the ability to extend storage and that is very important in situations where for example a young person aged 17 or 18 who has testicular or ovarian cancer may not want to start a family until they are 28 or 29. So it is very important to have that flexibility. 
There were eight submitters on the bill and all of them supported the need to clarify the storage times. I believe that the Health Committee worked extremely well together and that in general there is cross-party agreement on the essence of what this bill is about. I also note that Dianne Yates in her submission was concerned about the science behind storage. She had the view that it was not well evidence-based whereas in actual fact we do know that provided there is a steady-state freezing environment that is devoid of irradiation sperm embryos and eggs can be stored safely and consistently for many decades probably. The technical difficulty is in both the freezing process and the thawing process. If the environment is not even then one may damage the embryos and gametes. I think Dianne Yates compared it a little bit to Wattie’s frozen peas and their recommended life of 2 years. That is certainly not the case in the very sophisticated environment where human eggs gametes and embryos are stored. 
Just to give a bit of an idea as to the extent of what is going on in New Zealand every year about 1100 babies are born as a result of in vitro fertilisation. In Australia it is about 8500 and around the world it is literally hundreds of thousands mainly from the Western World. They comprise between about 1 and 3 percent of all births in most OECD countries. The data we were given showed that in 2010 there were 12000 embryos about 68000 eggs and 75000 straws of sperm—each straw containing many many millions of those excellent little sperms—stored in New Zealand. Fertility Associates estimated that 33 percent of its stored sperms and 18 percent of stored embryos would be affected by the bill. 
As the Minister said issues were brought up during the submission period including a grace period after the expiry of the 10-year storage limit. This is important so that patients have time to appeal to the ethics committee if they want an extension and also there is the technical applicability for clinics of not being able to dispose of the gametes and embryos on a particular date. I think that is a very practical and realistic thing. There is the issue of stored gametes used to create embryos that are then stored. Of course the clock starts from the moment the gametes themselves are stored. One cannot have two goes at it by converting the gametes into an embryo and then having another 10 years. In relation to gametes and embryos stored in other countries it will apply from the beginning and will extend for 10 years. We were told at the Health Committee that this was becoming more and more of an issue as people came to New Zealand who had undergone an initial harvest overseas and required the treatment here in New Zealand. 
The ethics committee’s role in making decisions about storage periods is very important. As I pointed out earlier on each case is quite distinct. It could be a young woman of 16 with ovarian cancer who wants to have children in the future. Her ovarian tissue may be stored for a period of time of more than 10 years. It is clearly impossible to legislate for each specific case. 
I note that during the first reading Te Ururoa Flavell made the point that the Maori Party has a considerable sense of sadness that we even have bills such as this in front of the House. He went on to say: “I cannot say that anyone in the Maori Party is at ease with the discussions around assisted reproductive technology but we would be even more uneasy if these discussions went on without Maori being engaged in a real way.” I absolutely agree that it is vital that Maori are included but it is important to bear in mind that the genesis of the original Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act occurred over a long period of time—over a decade—and it involved ethicists consumers scientists clinicians psychologists and lawyers. Eventually the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill was enacted in 2004. I think it is also important to point out that the clinics the consumers and the clinicians have really not found any major problems with the Act at all and although it is very useful that we are making this amendment today for a minor point regarding clarity in terms of a review the fact that the Act is flexible is very much in tune with the complexity of the science and the change of science with time. I do not believe that there is a need for a review at this stage of events as the legislation was enacted only 6 years ago but maybe that is something for the future. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I will make a few remarks on the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill. The first thing I should do is recall the work of Di Yates in this general area. I am sure that other colleagues on my side of the House and hopefully those on the other side will have done that as well. She pushed this policy area for years and she did so not because she was for or against human-assisted reproductive technology but because she knew it was here and that it needed to be well regulated. She did not see it as being an issue of ethics or of anything of the sort; she just knew that a good nation if it was to run well would pay attention to the detail about how this new technology would be regulated and put together. It is just as we did with genetic modification technology and just as we must do with all technologies that come our way and all the nuclear technologies that have come our way in recent decades and on it goes. Di Yates picked up the human-assisted reproductive technology regulation and championed it if you will over the years. 
I would watch with some amusement because veterinarians and I as a veterinarian have been involved with some of these technologies for decades—for longer than has been the case in the human area. The reason is that reproductive technology in humans is a sensitive issue. It is sensitive because one needs to be clear about how gametes are collected how gametes are stored and how gametes are destroyed when destruction is the right thing and about the fact that a little child can be born with these human-assisted reproductive technologies. There is a little child in my life—she is coming on 2 years and 4 months—who is here because of this technology and who would not be here without this technology. She is a delight and I last saw her on Sunday. I do not know when she is coming for her first sleepover but it will not be long. Human-assisted reproductive technologies have altered my life as well but in much earlier times I was involved in the equivalent technologies as a veterinarian. I say let us hear it for Di Yates. 
It is interesting that this legislative change is tiny—it is tiny. The reason we are giving it the time of the House is that it is important that we get our legislative framework clear accurate and unambiguous so that everyone knows what the rules are. Whatever the rules are so long as they are clear people can follow them. But they have not been clear. They have not been clear about at what date the age of an embryo starts—what the birth date is of an embryo. It was not clear whether that birth period started in 2004 when the legislation was passed or whether the birth of an embryo was the time when the embryo was collected. This bill makes it clear that it is the latter so that is good. 
The reason we are taking that time is that it is easy for society to get upset about something that is perceived to have gone wrong. The best way to avoid that is to be clear about the rules and so it is with other technologies that are similar. Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis—if that is the right terminology and I will be in trouble if I have got it wrong— 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: You’ve got it right. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I have got it right says the obstetrician and gynaecologist amongst us and I thank the member. The technology needs some clear rules and we have clear rules so that we are able to use that technology wisely. We do not use it for designer babies; we are not allowed to. We do not use it to predetermine gender; we are not allowed to. We use it to determine whether an identifiable and preventable genetic condition will be inflicted upon a young New Zealander. We can stop that and that is great. We have a sensible approach to these technologies in general and so too in this case. 
I think I will wrap it up there. The House is pretty quiescent; everyone seems to be of the mood that this is a good thing and there seems to be no argument for me to bash back so I shall not bother— 
Hon Simon Power 
: That’s not a word you hear very often. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The word “quiescent” has just awoken the Minister of Justice but I shall not myself rise to the fact that he has awoken; I shall instead resume my seat. 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
: 
 I will begin by heaping some praise on the officials who worked with the Health Committee on the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill both those officials who helped us out with the technical aspects of what is in fact quite a technical bill and those who worked on the extensive task of drafting the amendments to the bill and assisting us with that aspect of our work. 
Previous speakers have referred to the submissions we received and I greatly appreciated those submissions. They were not great in number but they were high in quality. All of them made I thought useful and thoughtful contributions to the debate around the issue so I pass my thanks to the submitters. As the chair of the select committee has indicated there was a high degree of agreement from submitters on the central points of the bill and where there was difference between submitters it tended to be on issues that were not included in the bill. 
The third point I would like to make is to say that it was a pleasure to participate in a discussion at the select committee that was non-partisan in nature where all members of the committee were looking for the best outcome and worked very well together as I think the chair has indicated—a pleasure that is all too rare I have to say. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: Not that rare. 
KEVIN HAGUE 
: Well it is all too rare in the House as opposed to our fantastic select committee. Members will have noted from the revision-tracked version of the bill that it differs very substantially from the bill that was initially introduced to the House. A simple bill was introduced and the bill that has emerged from the select committee process is much longer and more complicated. That reflects an interesting thing—and others have alluded to this fact—which is that this area of law is one that touches on deep and complex ethical and emotional issues. It is a fast-developing area of science and things get very complicated very quickly in that field. 
The next point about that is that as others again have alluded to this is an area of science that has only recently been addressed by law but in my view and in the Green Party’s view is not yet well addressed by law. It is interesting that in the first reading debate a number of speakers referred to their belief that the Act had contained a provision requiring a review after a certain amount of time. Given that perception it was very interesting when we went back and looked at the Act in detail to find that it did not include such a review provision. I take the alternative view to that expressed by Paul Hutchison; I think that as Steve Chadwick has said because of the complexity of the area of science it touches on this is exactly the kind of situation where a review ought to be automatically built into law. Certainly in the select committee’s report I am one of the “some of us” who believe that the Minister ought to conduct such a review. 
I am interested not only in the extent to which this Act has addressed the particular issues it is intended to address but also in the scope of the Act compared with the scope of the area of human-assisted reproductive technology. That is now of very much larger scope than the Act covers. Those areas outside the scope of the Act are now not addressed by law and it seems to me that they ought to be. I will return to that theme in my third reading speech on this bill. 
In relation to the detail of the bill fundamentally as others have said the bill sets out to clarify something that was unintentionally not clear in the original Act. The Green Party absolutely supports that principle. We also believe that if possible legislation ought not to be retrospective and there are ways that the existing law could be perceived as being retrospective so that was certainly an important issue to address. 
I also take up the submission by Di Yates because it was the one submission that raised a concern about an aspect of the bill—a substantive concern—in her reference as Paul Hutchison noted to the select committee’s original consideration of the bill that became the Act. At that time the evidence that was before the select committee suggested that the science was uncertain as to the length of time that gametes and embryos could be safely stored. The committee has satisfied itself on the point that the science is no longer uncertain. 
The other significant thing that the bill provides for is to clarify the relationship between the Ethics Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology and the Advisory Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology. The Green Party also continues to support that change although as I raised in my first reading speech we continue to have a concern about the more fundamental issue which is effectively a constitutional issue and that is whether issues such as these ought to be addressed by guidelines rather than by regulations. We believe that that is a really important issue and we believe that the Act has it wrong. We favour a regulations approach because we believe that makes the law more certain and that has to be a good thing. We greatly preferred Di Yates’ original formulation of the bill that became the Act and it is appropriate in this debate that members recognise the great contribution that Di Yates made to this area of law. It would have been a greater contribution still had her original bill been taken up by the House. That said though the Green Party continues to support this bill and will vote in favour of it with pleasure. 
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 The ACT Party will be supporting the second reading of the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill. As the debate has been going on this evening I recalled being on the Health Committee at the time that we grappled with many very thorny issues concerning what at the time was still quite a contentious issue. Things have moved on. Dr Paul Hutchison mentioned Louise Brown the first baby born by in vitro fertilisation in 1978 and things have moved on significantly from then. 
We were very fortunate at the time of the 2004 bill to have Dr Paul Hutchison on the select committee to provide us with some quite technical expertise and we are fortunate to have him here with us now so that he is still able to provide that very good advice to us. Dr Hutchison said tonight that 1100 babies a year are born through in vitro fertilisation which is a staggering number and it makes such a huge difference to the lives of so many families. 
The bill as several other members have mentioned is just a very tiny amendment bill. I have to say that it is gratifying 6 years down the track for those of us who sat on the select committee that heard the original bill to know that largely we got it right. We had to grapple with many thorny issues at the time as I have said. Some issues were very contentious and some of the submitters we heard from came and spoke with a great deal of passion and emotion but they took very different sides of the arguments. As we are making only this very small amendment here in the House now it is gratifying to know that we did largely get it right. 
I think that the intention of the committee at the time was certainly for the 10-year period that gametes and embryos could be stored for to be from the time of storage so the 2004 argument which has become the legal aspect of this debate was not what was originally intended. It is good that we have the opportunity to clarify that tonight and to do something about that. Others have also mentioned the 6-month period of grace in the bill. I was not able to hear the submitters but I understand that that was a popular concept. I think it makes a good deal of sense and certainly the ACT Party is happy to support that measure tonight. 
The other part of the bill that I think is important—and the Green member mentioned it just prior to me getting to my feet—is that the clarification of the roles of the ethics committee and the advisory committee is very important. Unlike Mr Hague I support guidelines as opposed to regulation but I do not think that that will come as any surprise to him. I think that the ethics committee and the advisory committee are chosen very carefully. The people who are on them are there because they have a breadth of experience. They have a lot of technical expertise. I think that they need the freedom that guidelines can provide so that they can have flexibility and are able to make the decisions they need to make wisely but it is also welcome that this amendment bill is providing clarification of the rules for those committees. 
Some of the problems that arise are still thorny and the expertise of the people on the committees is greatly valued. They take their jobs very seriously and it is important that they have those guidelines within which to operate. The ACT Party is very proud to support this bill tonight. We welcome it and I think it is worth thanking the members of the Health Committee in 2004 who did a very good job at the time. Thank you. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tatou katoa e te Whare. The Maori Party wants to raise three very specific concerns in this discussion to amend the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act 2004 to state that in vitro embryos must be disposed of before the expiry period of 10 years or any later date approved by the ethics committee. The first is the lack of consultation regarding tikanga Maori the second is the status of whakapapa and the third is the critical issue of ethical responsibility in respect of Maori ownership and participation in decision making. All of these concerns are wrapped up in Te Tiriti o Waitangi. As tangata whenua and as a Treaty partner we restate the constitutional obligation of all agencies of the Crown including ethics committees to ensure Maori participation protection and partnership in all decision making. 
When we think about tikanga in this field I 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—technologies that can be highly invasive and even exploitative. They are technologies such as tissue banking genetic engineering the manipulation and storage of human embryos therapeutic cloning pre-implantation genetic diagnosis the splitting of embryos and the creation of hybrid embryos or transgenic life forms. Although this legislation is specifically restricted to the storage of embryos I want to make reference to the wider field and the particular risks and concerns it poses for Maori. 
One of the Ethics Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology’s seven guiding principles states that “The needs values and beliefs of Maori should be considered and treated with respect.” Those needs values and beliefs are all part of the tikanga that we desperately want to see applied throughout all processes be it the process used for the handing over of the storage of or the burial or cremation of embryos. These are specially charged moments for Maori and they need to be properly considered managed and handled in line with tikanga Maori. 
The Advisory Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology has already highlighted Maori concerns about the protection of whakapapa and the need for collective discussion about cultural implications kaitiakitanga and appropriate tikanga in its report  
Consultation on the Use of In Vitro Maturation in Fertility Treatment 
 which was released last year. Having documented the concerns we believe it is now time to take action to give effect to the report’s recommendations. Yet in this bill both the issues and recommendations in respect of Maori concerns are simply nowhere to be seen. 
The second critical aspect is about the law recognising the authority that whanau should have over their whakapapa and any embryonic material that contains such whakapapa. It is a concept that is clearly spelt out in an article by Dr Marewa Glover and Dr Benedicta Rousseau entitled “ ‘Your Child is Your Whakapapa’: Maori Considerations of Assisted Human Reproduction and Relatedness”. Their study noted that for Maori these issues could not be confined just to the mechanics of technology or objective technological interventions; they were about what constitutes human life and relationships. They were about the importance and uniqueness of Maori identity. They were about whakapapa and they were about the right of whanau to determine what happens to their embryos rather than allow that decision to be made by a few people on a detached committee. The reason is simple: those eggs those embryos those foetuses those babies belong to the whanau not to the scientists. 
I come to the issue of the ethical responsibility of what happens to unused eggs after 10 years—who owns them whether or not they are destroyed and how decisions are made about them. I refer the House to a key resource on ethical consent around Maori issues  
Te Tauranga Waka 
. It was put together by the Putaiora Writing Group of Khyla Russell Barry Smith Moe Milne Paul Reynolds Stephanie Palmer and Maui Hudson. The group recommended gathering and reporting data relevant and meaningful for Maori to provide for proper assessment of issues understanding critical issues such as kaitiakitanga and their place in the decision-making process and ensuring Maori participation in decision making itself. 
Finally we raise again the whole question of whether human embryo use in research will help sustain us or contribute to our demise as a people the ownership that whanau should have over any of their own embryonic material and the right of whanau to be fully involved in all relevant decision-making concerning any issues to do with their whakapapa. 
There are too many weighty issues involved in this bill. Although we understand and support its general intention we simply do not believe that there has been sufficient korero with whanau hapu and iwi for us to do anything other than oppose this bill at this time. Kia ora tatou. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak in the second reading debate on the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill. I would like to make some introductory comments about infertility in New Zealand and about in vitro fertilisation. As members know in vitro fertilisation was first undertaken in New Zealand in 1983 5 years after the first in vitro fertilisation baby Louise Brown was born in England. Since then in vitro fertilisation has become an increasingly common treatment for infertility. It has certainly improved over the last decade or so with drug treatment regimes and egg retrieval mechanisms. There are better fertilisation techniques and better methods of culture cryopreservation and transferred embryos. 
In New Zealand about 15 in every 100 couples have difficulty conceiving a child and about five in every 100 go on to have in vitro fertilisation treatment. We have heard tonight that hundreds and hundreds of in vitro fertilisation babies are born each year to New Zealand couples. It is excellent to know that success rates are increasing all the time. About 50 percent of women under the age of 38 who have in vitro fertilisation treatment become pregnant in their first cycle and that is a fantastic result. For women under the age of 38 the chances of pregnancy increase to over 70 percent after two cycles and to 90 percent after three cycles. These are excellent success rates. 
Unfortunately infertility has been rising in New Zealand and there are a number of reasons for that but it is pleasing to know that treatment centres are available around New Zealand. The causes of infertility are numerous. A common reason is the increased age at which women start a family. Other reasons include obesity levels in men and women sexually transmitted diseases and reduced quality of sperm. 
This amendment bill was introduced because there was uncertainty over when one could dispose of gametes and eggs that had been stored prior to the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act coming into force. Although this bill concerns only a technical amendment it was felt that there should be some clarification and this bill clarifies that sperm eggs and embryos stored before 2004 can be stored until 2014. 
I acknowledge the important work of Dianne Yates and the Health Committee during the last Parliament and I acknowledge the comments to the effect that the committee got the original legislation pretty much right. This bill just amends the Act and improves on it. If fertility clinics have clients who wish to extend storage beyond 2014 they will require the approval of the Ethics Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology before that 10-year storage limit is up.  
The select committee made a number of changes to this bill and these changes have been adopted by the Government. We heard about some of those tonight such as the 6-month grace period in relation to the expiry of the 10-year storage limit and any extensions to it. Importantly during that 6-month grace period any other uses of the material are prohibited. That amendment has been made for more logistical reasons to make it easier for fertility clinics to dispose of gametes and embryos in accumulated lots.  
Another recommendation that was agreed to was that the permitted 10-year storage period for embryos created by stored gametes should run from the earliest storage date of those gametes. Also there is clarification that any storage period outside New Zealand should include a calculation in relation to the 10-year storage limit on gametes and embryos in New Zealand and that was taken into account. This bill is not contentious. The changes and amendments are minor but they will improve the original Act. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 It gives me a lot of pleasure to speak on the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill. Although it is mostly a technical amendment bill and a bill that is largely uncontentious and has gained almost complete consensus within the House nevertheless it is noteworthy for some of the reasons that members have already discussed. In particular it deals with technology that is rapidly changing over time and therefore legislation has to be able to keep up with that changing technology. Also it deals with an area that is very emotive. It involves a lot of passion often a lot of heartache and a lot of difficulty for families. Knowing that the legislation is absolutely right and that people have clarity about the intention of the legislation is important. As Hone Harawira said we are talking about human life and relationships. It is easy to forget sometimes that despite all these words on a piece of paper or the submissions that we hear in a select committee in a very clinical environment we are actually talking about human life relationships and people and their desire to grow a family. It is important that we get these things right. 
For the most part it seems that the original bill had it right. The amendments being made in this bill are fairly minor given the area we are dealing in. They ensure that current practice is legitimate and is appropriately accounted for in legislation. I was interested to hear from Heather Roy that when the original bill went to the select committee there were submissions from either side of the fence it was a passionate argument and there was a lot of heat in the debate in those days. It was quite different from what we heard at the Health Committee hearing on this bill where the submitters were all more or less of one mind and were looking for us just to tidy up some aspects of the bill as it was written. That shows that people can move on how issues that seem very divisive can settle down and how people can take the path chosen by the Government of the day and see it as being the right direction. It is important to remember when the debate seems quite vehement and heated on a particular issue to stick to our guns and follow a path if we believe and know that is the right thing to do. This legislation has turned out to be absolutely the right thing to do. 
The bill we are debating tonight makes some technical amendments to the original Act mostly on the storage of sperm eggs and embryos. The current 10-year storage limit applies retrospectively and there are some practical problems in the way fertility organisations have been storing those gametes and embryos. Labour passed the original Act when it was in Government and members have acknowledged the work of former MP Di Yates. It is important to acknowledge her efforts in an environment in which this was a difficult issue to grapple with. It is much easier for us to look back on that problem retrospectively but at the time it was a difficult issue and I have no doubt that Di Yates had people lobbying her in all different directions. The fact that she guided such good legislation which needs such a small amount of amendment through the House in that environment is something worth noting. Fertility treatment and reproductive research had been advancing rapidly for some time and Labour was keen at that stage to ensure that New Zealand kept pace with the changes while ensuring that decisions made were consistent with the values of all New Zealanders. 
The use of in vitro fertilisation is growing in New Zealand and tonight we have already heard that around 5 percent of couples use in vitro fertilisation treatment and around 1100 to 1150 babies are born annually using embryo transfer cycles. The first baby born through assisted reproductive means was born back in 1978 which as it happens was the year I was born so it sticks in my mind. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: That explains so much. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: It explains a thing or two I suppose. That is a period of just a little over 30 years; things have developed considerably in that time and it is important that we keep pace. 
The main thing this bill does is to clarify that the 10-year storage limit goes back to when the Act came into force and is not retrospective as is the current practice. Under the current legislation some embryos or gametes could have been destroyed had they been stored for more than 10 years. The Health Committee offered some amendments and it is pleasing to hear from the Minister of Justice that he sees those as sensible amendments and that we can expect them to be supported by the Government. Of course that includes introducing a grace period after the 10-year storage limit which enables fertility clinics to have a small period of time within which to ensure gametes and embryos are disposed of appropriately and not to have to worry constantly about going through the disposal process. Importantly restrictions are placed on what can be done during the 6-month period and the period is only for disposal; no other uses of those materials are allowed within those 6 months. 
Another amendment addresses the possible argument that the storage period established in the bill as introduced would begin when an embryo was created from the stored gametes themselves. That would lengthen the period of time if a stored gamete had been stored for say 5 years the embryo was created after that 5 years and we added an extra 10 years on top of that. It was an area that needed tidying up to be absolutely clear that the storage period is for 10 years and 10 years only. The bill also ensures that where gametes and embryos are stored in other countries the period of time they are stored outside New Zealand is calculated in the 10-year storage limit. Some recommendations were also made on the role of the ethics committee but those have already been well and truly canvassed in the debate this evening. It is important in the Opposition’s view that the legislation has a review mechanism and we expressed our disappointment at the select committee and have done the same this evening that there is still no desire from the Government to include a review mechanism. In an environment where the technology is changing rapidly and because it is an emotive area as well we think it would be appropriate to have a review process in place. Having said that we have confidence that should future amendments be needed the House and committees will work together to make sure that they are done appropriately and in a timely fashion. 
This is a good bill. It reflects an Act that was well constructed in the first place. Some good work has been done by officials to ensure that these amendments are tidy and easily understood by people who are operating within the bounds of the Act. The Labour Opposition is very happy to support its further progress. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I begin my short call on the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill by acknowledging the growing number of New Zealand couples for whom fertility issues are not straightforward. I think Steve Chadwick mentioned that 15 percent of New Zealand couples have difficulty conceiving naturally and 5 percent resort to in vitro fertilisation treatment. There could be any number of reasons for that. First-time parents are getting older and diet lifestyle and even men wearing jeans that are too tight have all been considered causes. 
Hon David Parker 
: Cycling. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: Exactly—apparently cycling has some problem associated with it which is a very good reason not to do too much of it. There are a number of reasons that scientists are still coming to understand. 
There is no doubt that it is a difficult journey but I think it is made easier thanks to the outstanding work of our medical scientists. I was amazed at the statistic that my colleague Dr Jackie Blue came up with when she said that 70 percent of people having two courses of in vitro fertilisation treatment are successful in conceiving. That is probably considerably more successful than the old-fashioned way although not nearly as fun. It certainly is a tribute that in the 32 years since Louise Brown was born our human-assisted reproductive technology has come as far as it has. 
It would also be a rare thing indeed for a health select committee anywhere in the world to be chaired by someone who could speak with as much authority on human-assisted reproductive technology as the Health Committee’s chair Dr Paul Hutchison. He has been an obstetrician and gynaecology specialist and has a wealth of experience on this issue. Under his leadership the Health Committee which is pretty collegial overall certainly benefited greatly from his wisdom and experience in this area. That is not to say that we agreed on all things; the Green member of the committee Mr Hague is an example of that with his suggestion that the bill should be subject to review which Mr Lees-Galloway also mentioned. I think that 5 years was suggested as the review period. 
I will pull back from the bill specifically and touch on the issue of review generally. It seems to me that there is a bit of a mood for review among the Greens and a preference for somehow curtailing the powers of the executive by instituting the review process in bills that are passed. To my mind it is both unnecessary and logistically cumbersome. In the case of this bill an issue was identified a remedy was put in place and amending legislation in the form of this bill will hopefully be passed. There is no need for an arbitrary review. It would be cumbersome as we could easily become bogged down in reviews of legislation because an Act arbitrarily requires it getting in the way of other matters that might be more pressing. 
As Mrs Roy mentioned the science in the past may have been described as uncertain but I prefer to consider it dynamic. As Heather Roy and Paul Hutchison pointed out the old uncertainty about how long embryos gametes and eggs will last in that state has largely gone away. In the UK I understand in certain circumstances there is provision for storage of embryos and gametes for up to 55 years. I am not sure who on earth would want them after 55 years but it is an indication that the science allows for storage over that length of time. The recommendation that the 10-year limit not be a hard limit is a really good one. There are many reasons why we might not be able to find the people who have ultimate ownership of them and it would be inappropriate to have the embryos destroyed after 10 years and 1 day. 
Finally I add my thanks to the officials who did a great job of answering our questions and the suggestions of the committee and the submitters. I think the officials were mostly from the Ministry of Justice. I thank Mr Beresford in particular whom we will be seeing during the Committee stage. I commend the officials for helping the committee through this process. With those comments I commend the bill to the House. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 As prior speakers have said the Labour Party will be supporting the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill. The bill does a number of things. It clarifies that the 10-year limit on the storage of embryos or gametes began when the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act came into force rather than at the earlier date when those gametes or embryos were first stored. That is necessary for practical reasons. The bill also clarifies some of the powers of advisory committees. 
One thing that I will mention which arises from this debate is the contribution from the Maori Party. I was somewhat surprised to hear Hone Harawira say that there is a special Maori perspective here that has not properly been taken into account. I do at times get a little tired of the assertion that the Maori perspective under the Treaty is different from the one that applies to the general populace and I think this is a case in point. After Mr Harawira made his contribution—which did not make common sense to me given that Maori men and women suffer from infertility problems on occasions just as non-Maori men and women do—I could not see the difference in principle that arose. 
It caused me to look at the paper record that we have before us in this Parliament. We heard from other contributors that public submission processes were available to people in respect of this bill and I am sure they were faithfully recorded by the Health Committee. I looked at the select committee’s report to see whether there was any special circumstance relating to Maoridom that would mean some special rules were necessary to protect some alternative interest in respect of Maoridom that was not properly catered for by the current law. What did I find? I found nothing. There was not one submission that said there was some special principle as articulated by the Maori Party that was applicable to Maori that was not adequately covered by the current law. 
Then I thought to myself: what is this law doing that is so offensive to the Maori Party that causes its members to come to the House and speak against this bill? I looked at the provisions in the bill and I considered what Hone Harawira had said. He was concerned that there be appropriate recognition of different interests. What we are doing here in respect of this bill is tightening up the rules for the advisory committee. We are also adding the power of the advisory committee to revoke a prior approval that it had given. That seems to me to be exactly the sort of thing that would be assuaging the concerns of the Maori Party. But no. The Maori Party came down with one of its at times cant repetitions of its normal position in these things—that there has to be some sort of separate system to take account of their interests which cannot be properly taken into account through the normal processes of the advisory committee. 
Given that that was the submission I would have thought that the Maori Party might have turned up to the select committee and made that point but they did not do that either. Having heard the contribution from Hone Harawira I think that in this case it had as much substance as some of the Maori Party’s rhetoric in respect of the foreshore and seabed debate which we can see laid bare this week as being largely smoke and mirrors as well given that the Foreshore and Seabed Act does not change nearly as much of substance as the Maori Party has previously pretended was necessary. 
This is a good bill. It clarifies that the limit on the period for which gametes and embryos can be stored is 10 years normally but there can be a period of extension. Paul Hutchison told the House why that is necessary and I agree with him. There are circumstances when a storage period of greater than 10 years can be appropriate where for example the person for whom the gamete or the embryo is being stored does not yet want to have children. That could be for a proper medical reason. The person might have needed medical intervention or might have become infertile for a reason and might want to have children in the future. It is appropriate that there be some discretion to enable the storage period to be longer than 10 years. The general rule should be that it is 10 years but that the 10 years should run from the date of the Act rather than from the date of the original storage. 
I also think it is appropriate for some of the reasons that the Maori Party said that we make clearer the advisory committee’s role. But I reject the idea that this legislation is somehow flawed because it does not properly take into account the interests of Maori. The interests of Maori in this instance coincide with the interests of non-Maori. Were that otherwise I would have expected at least one submission to the contrary which we did not receive. With that I am happy to close by recording once again that the Labour Party supports this bill. 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
: 
 I am very pleased to stand in support of the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill. As we understand it this amendment bill is necessary because of the Government’s receipt of legal advice that fertility clinics acting in good faith may have unknowingly breached the storage limit because the law was not clear. It is incredibly important to have some clarity good sense and parameters around this bill. It is an issue that is full of concern emotion aspiration and disappointment for people so it is good that we have clarity and sense around it. We understand that a number of couples in New Zealand have great difficulty with fertility issues—20 percent has been the figure quoted—and it is great that we have the technology to assist them. 
Subsequent legal advice has raised concerns that the 10-year limit starts whenever a human sperm egg or embryo is stored. This means that any person who stores sperm eggs or embryos for more than 10 years is in breach of the Act. This bill now clarifies that situation. Sperm eggs and embryos stored before 2004 can be stored until 2014. If fertility clinics have clients who wish to extend storage beyond 2014 they will require approval from the Ethics Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology before the 10-year storage limit is reached. 
This amendment bill brings some clarity to one particular issue that needed addressing and it does so with largely the support of the House. I am very pleased to support the bill. Thank you. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those who support that motion will say Aye; to the contrary No. The Ayes have it. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 I forgot to record our party’s vote. I seek leave to record it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I say to the member that the only way votes can be recorded is if a member calls for a division and for a party vote. The situation the House is in now is that the vote has been called and I have declared the result. There was no call for a party vote. The Clerk has now read the bill a second time. The House is in a very difficult position to go back again. In order to be constructive I say to the member that if the member seeks leave to have the vote retaken and if every member of the House agrees then that is what will happen. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: My apologies to the House. I seek leave to have the vote recast. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Is everybody clear on that? Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.  
Ayes 116 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 5 
Maori Party 5. 
Bill read a second time.