Chadwick Steve: Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill — First Reading 
Chadwick Steve: Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:15068] 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I am delighted to speak on the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill today. As the member in whose name this bill is has said it has had a long gestation. But I believe that good robust legislation always finds its time and place. I think in the years since 1996 when the bill was first introduced until our consideration and hearing of submissions we put this bill in the framework of a health environment that is now far better placed to manage the huge issues that this bill proposes. 
We also looked at Doug Graham’s bill which was submitted and first introduced in 1998 and in the first term of this Labour Government we had to consider the very difficult technical issues of what we would do with two bills how we would put them together whether we would drop one and which one would we drop. We eventually agreed with the support of a Labour women’s caucus supported by the Ministers Margaret Wilson the Hon Lianne Dalziel and Annette King that we should advance this bill and get it to the House. 
The bill was introduced in a framework in which there were no legislative protections at all for the ever-rapidly advancing field of assisted reproduction technology. I used to be in charge of a women’s health service and we used to collect specimens of sperm from men whom we would phone up and ask: “Would you give us a specimen? We need it today.” They would bring it into the clinic in a jar and we used to inseminate in the clinic. We kept no details. We had absolutely no protections for the donor and we had no protections at all for the women receiving the sperm—there was nothing. In that void women in this country became quite concerned about the need for legislation and a legislative framework. 
I want to point out the difficulties that the Health Committee had to face concerning carrying over the old licensing provision approach first proposed in Dianne Yates’ bill into the context of the framework in which the health system works today—that is the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act and the Health and Disability Services (Safety) Act which looks at the regulation of clinics and providers. The licensing model simply did not fit comfortably with the legislative framework that we had moved the health sector into when we first got into Government in 1999. It was also very important to consider other legislation surrounding the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill—bills like the Medicines Act and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. It was very very important for us to look at that legislation and how it would impact on the technologies the research and the licensing of providers in this field. 
We looked at the Canadian and the UK models and we were very aware of international legislation that was developing around the world. After looking at those overseas approaches I do believe we now have the best approach which covers new technologies and gives us flexibility as Heather Roy suggested as to how we manage the new technologies that are occurring every day out there in the world of science. New research is coming into being and we knew that with issues like pre-implantation genetic diagnosis surrogacy and infertility services we had to consider this bill in the context of a very complex field. 
I want to thank those on the committee who worked so well on this bill and I particularly want to acknowledge the input of the two doctors Dr Lynda Scott and Dr Paul Hutchison and that of Heather Roy with her research background. I believe that is where the tension in this bill really began. Some of us understood comprehensively the health context in which this bill was being proposed. We understood the research. Dr Hutchison and Dr Scott understood how the current fertility clinics are run. They understood informed consent and the development of new technologies and quite frankly without that expertise on the committee I would have worried about the robustness of the legislation and about what sort of bill would arise. 
I really want to acknowledge that of all the bills that have been before the Health Committee since we came into Government in 1999 this was by far the most technical. We had to have help with it and I think we have to remember that as a committee we had advisers on science health and law—it was very very complex. Not many committees have to have three different ministries come in and give them advice. We also had to have several briefings. We had to have briefings on the science behind this bill and a lot of us still scratched our heads and had to go back for more briefings. We needed briefings on the genetics in this bill and on the technologies that are used and then we needed legal briefings on how they fit into the legal framework. I think that is where the tension of the Green Party’s minority report came from and that simply causes me great concern. 
 These are not simple matters that need to come back for parliamentary scrutiny; these are matters that one leaves to the experts in the field. The bill sets up a ministerial advisory committee and an ethics committee to look at consumer input and the development of guidelines which are very complex to develop. Quite frankly if we brought a guideline to the House for parliamentary scrutiny I would hate to have to instruct and inform 119 colleagues about what was behind it. If we as politicians needed that amount of detail to get our head around the technologies and science in this bill we should not expect politicians ever to understand what is behind the making of guidelines that will guide this whole industry and the whole sector. I think that is where the tension really arose. 
This issue is hugely complex and we needed to set up two different committees. The ministerial advisory committee can have eight to twelve members—it is a big committee. We have split it down the middle; half will be lay people and I am very pleased with that involvement. I hope the lay people representatives will be advocates for the donor child and also for the consumers going through the service. One lay member must also have a legal perspective and I think that is very important. On the other hand the ethics committee will consider individual applications for every non-established procedure. It will work only within the guideline constraints set by the ministerial advisory committee. 
We have set up a very robust model. I reaffirm that we need to trust the experts in the health field. With consumers beside them and legal advice I have every confidence in them. I find it rather sad that the conspiracy theorists would come into the House and talk about an horrific future of unbridled management of human-assisted reproduction technologies. We do not want to worry the community. We want to give people confidence that this bill sets up a robust legal framework that is flexible and meets the demands of New Zealand society. I think this is a wonderful bill and I thank the members of the committee for their hard work on it.