Paraone Pita: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Paraone Pita: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15903] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
:  
Tena koe e te Heamana. A tenaratatou e noho tahi anai roto i te Whare i te ranei. E tuakeanatenei ki te tautoko ingawhakaaro o taku hoa o matoui roto o Aotearoa Tuatahi a Barbara Stewart. 
I stand in support of the contribution that my colleague Barbara Stewart has committed to this bill. I tender her apologies. To assure members that I did have some participation in this process I tell them that this matter came before the Health Committee during my membership of it. 
New Zealand First supports this bill and in particular the amendment proposed by Dr Hutchison. This is an emotive issue and within Part 1 the purposes and principles of this bill are very clearly defined and specified. They advise on the procedures and treatments that may be declared to be established procedures. We believe that the bill adopts a cautious but balanced approach to this area of human-assisted reproductive technology. Very clearly the bill states that one of its purposes is to prohibit unacceptable assisted reproductive procedures. It is thanks to the responsible attitudes of fertility clinics and fertility service providers to date that nothing untoward has happened in this area. 
I should say that we totally support the paragraph of the purposes clause that clarifies that the bill is intended to protect the “safety dignity and rights of all individuals but particularly those of women and children in the use of these procedures and research:”. This is a very personal issue. The health risks of children born as a result of these procedures are generally higher than those of children associated with natural conception. I think it is timely that we have a bill that will bring some regulation to this whole area of reproduction. We must be very aware that all decisions made about the use of this technology however must reflect that children born through its use become adults and decisions made today will impact on those children throughout their life. 
In talking in that regard as a Maori I am very conscious of the importance of whakapapa in terms of children born under this process. That is one of the reasons why we give strong support to the Supplementary Order Paper promoted by Dr Hutchison. It will give some clarity to one’s understanding of whom one is descended from. If that register is not available to offspring of this technology then the question of whakapapa becomes diminished in terms of Maori. 
While I am talking about Maori I mention that my colleague Judith Collins made reference in particular to clause 4(f) which states that “the needs values and beliefs of Maori should be considered and treated with respect:”. That was not the original wording promoted by the bill. I am glad that that particular paragraph is there instead of the original wording which referred to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. But if I do have any criticism it is that I think that clause 4(g)—which states that “the different ethical spiritual and cultural perspectives in society should be considered and treated with respect.”—could apply to everybody in New Zealand not only non-Maori. There is an implication that it does not refer to Maori and that Maori concerns are addressed in clause 4(f).