Dyson Ruth: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Dyson Ruth: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:666;Page:14103] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 First of all I acknowledge the very clear response of the Minister of Justice; it was given in a less pleasant way than I would have expected but it is Thursday night and I guess it has been a busy week for the Minister. It is unusual for him to revert to that kind of response but it was a genuine stating of his position which is that he is confident that the Health Committee in its amendments to the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill has got it right. That is important to the Health Committee. 
I was interested to know which part of the process he considered we had not got right the first time. I am asking a process question but it does not matter; we can ask a student to write a thesis on it at some stage in the future. It is not often that a technical bill that at the time it is introduced everyone thinks will fix an issue comes back to Parliament quite substantially altered. That may have been a direct result of the submissions. That in itself would be worthy of some comment in my view because many people ask what difference it would make if they put in a submission on a bill. This bill would be a great example: everyone was trying to fix it and the submitters themselves made a difference. 
I am more keen on chocolate fish than on chocolate eggs I say to the member David Bennett but if he wants to alter the offer to something more appropriate to the subject of this debate that is fine. However if the member was implying at any stage that I was criticising the officials then he was not listening to my speech. I made it very clear that the officials not only were competent but were engaged in open and exemplary behaviour. I was seriously impressed with the competence they showed in dealing with a group of members of Parliament who had not dealt with this issue in any detailed way before. We had not been on the select committee in the past that dealt with the original legislation. The officials were starting at kindergarten level with us and I think they did an extraordinarily good job. I was merely interested in the process question. 
The final point I wanted to make before the Minister leapt to his feet to take the call is that with a bill of this nature particularly when technological advances are moving at such a rapid pace—we do not know what will happen overseas let alone in New Zealand in this space—in my view and in Labour’s view it would be very helpful to have an automatic review mechanism included in it. We were quite surprised that the original legislation did not have that mechanism. It has become more common. I regret it was not supported by National but it was certainly supported by Labour and the Greens at the select committee. I strongly recommend that in future in the next amendment bill—because it is outside the scope of this bill—a review mechanism is included in the Act. I think it would be advantageous. It would ensure that we did not get ourselves into difficulty in the future. I commend that to the Minister’s thinking. 
Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2 agreed to. 
Bill reported without amendment. 
Report adopted.