Parker David: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Parker David: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13734] 
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.