Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:16344] 
Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 6 October. 
Part 4 Enforcement and miscellaneous provisions ( 
continued 
)  
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. You might recall that the last time this bill was before the Committee I raised a concern that New Zealand First has—that by voting split votes we were not able to identify who was for and who was against. I subsequently raised it as a point of order in the House and the Speaker referred me back to the Committee to raise it which I am doing now. I believe that in the interests of true democracy the public are entitled to know from each party who voted for who voted against and who abstained. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I have a ruling to give. 
SIMON POWER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I would like to speak to the point of order if I may. In respect of the original motion that was put by Lindsay Tisch at the commencement of this bill and the motion that was put to seek leave from the House that Standing Order 144(1)(b) be suspended—that being the Standing Order that requires a vote for either the Ayes Noes or abstentions to be cast—at that point New Zealand First along with any other party or any other individual in the Chamber had the opportunity to object to that Standing Order being set aside in order that the split voting of more than two parties—I think it was three parties—could occur during the course of this bill. I suggest through you Madam Chairperson if I may that if Mr Brown and New Zealand First wish to see an amendment to that Standing Order and to have the issues relating to individual members’ votes known he and his party should make a submission to the Standing Orders Committee. I say to Mr Brown that should he wish to identify which members voted for which part I can speak on behalf of the National Party and say that he is very welcome to ring each individual member. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I thank the member for his contribution. I say to Mr Brown that there is no contention on this. The point is that leave has been given for split party votes on this bill. There is no argument. 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 Let me just clarify one or two things. I say to the honourable member through you Madam Chairperson that I do not think that anybody in New Zealand First believed that access would be denied to finding out who voted which way. 
Simon Power 
: Read the Standing Orders. 
PETER BROWN 
: The member says I should read the Standing Orders. If upon request I went through the Committee and asked who was voting this way and who was voting that way I believe we are entitled to know. I have had telephone calls from the public urging me to pursue this matter. I have looked up Standing Order 6 “Amendment or revocation of Standing Orders” which states: “A Standing Order may be amended or revoked only by motion with notice.” I have a notice of motion here if necessary. On behalf of New Zealand First I am not prepared to let any other bill receive a split vote unless we get an assurance that we will get the names of the people. I suggest that this issue should be addressed. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I think with respect to the member that the Standing Orders are clear. The practice has been clear since the Standing Orders were changed. I think the suggestion made by Mr Power is a very good one. I say to any member or party that has a concern about a particular Standing Order that we have a committee at which such matters can be raised. I urge the member to give a considered submission to that committee because it is an environment in which it will be looked at carefully and all the permutations and implications could be examined by a group of senior members who have spent years looking at those things. It is how the Standing Orders are improved. I suggest to the member when he makes such a rash statement that it may be that his party may want to use the split-vote capability. I suggest for his consideration that any day when a party gives a party vote that is less than its full entitlement he does not know which members have voted for or against a matter. It is simply in the nature of the way in which we vote in this Chamber and I give that as an example of how there are wider considerations here. I urge the member to use the Standing Orders Committee as the appropriate vehicle to address his concern. 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I just to want to make our position clear. We have used a split vote and we will probably use it again but we have never used it on the basis that we will not divulge who voted for and who voted against. 
Simon Power 
: Nobody is saying we won’t. Give us a ring and we’ll tell you. 
PETER BROWN 
: I say to Mr Power that I am not prepared to do that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Mr Brown was speaking. He had the floor on a point of order. I just want to clarify the matter. It is actually very simple. The point is that the House can give leave as it so wishes and that is exactly what it has done. Mr Power is right as Mr Burton has reinforced that the member has the right to take the matter to the Standing Orders Committee and I certainly suggest that he could do that. However I assure the member that everything has been done correctly. There is no intention on anybody’s part to stop a member from doing anything but the House has taken the action that it did and it had every right to do that. If the member wants to know how individual members have voted he will have to contact them individually. It is not a matter for the Chairperson to look behind the numbers in any party vote. If a member calls a party vote the Chairperson or the Speaker for that matter has no right to know who did not or did vote. 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 National concurs with your ruling Madam Chairperson as we did the last time this subject came up. The member said he was unaware that names would not be divulged but it is very clear— 
Peter Brown 
: That’s not the point. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: No it is very clear that the House gave leave which I sought. Every party agreed to it otherwise it would not have happened and we would have gone back to a party vote system. I recall that Mr Brown actually sought the leave of the House to have a party vote when he was not happy with the result the last time this subject came up. The member sought leave and it was denied because we were already proceeding by way of a split vote. We have agreed that on this bill there can be split votes and that is the way it has to remain. Simon Power and Minister Burton have identified the process that can be gone through and we concur with that. Unfortunately in the member’s case the House has given leave and that is the process we need to follow through to its conclusion. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I have ruled on this matter. It is a very simple ruling. There is nothing more to be said or added to the ruling. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Is it a new point of order because I have ruled? 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: It is a new point of order Madam Chairperson. The point is that it has been indicated that this is a matter that Mr Brown should take up with the Standing Orders Committee. That is the right advice and I do not dispute the ruling. What I would ask is whether the Chair or the Speaker in these circumstances where this has been the subject of debate in the Chamber would provide an opinion to that committee. I believe that people listening to the debate may be concerned that this device could be a cover to enable members of Parliament to say one thing to one group and another thing to another group without being outed. That is not good for the reputation of the House. I ask you to form a view or to have an input given that it has arisen when you have been the Chairperson. It is a concern to me that people listening will be concerned that we are trying to cover up votes. The ACT party is quite prepared to make it plain what its split vote consists of. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member makes a fair point. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson—one brief point if I may. I think it is very important especially after that last comment to stress that this procedure has not been used in any way to provide secrecy or to cover up the voting. It seems to be a most efficient way of allowing people to differentiate rather than having to ring the bells and take up hours and hours of members’ time. As I invited Mr Brown last time I am sure if he were to write to the whips they would be more than happy to raise that with their caucuses and let him know absolutely who voted which way. I do not think there is an issue there for each individual whip to call. But I would just like to repeat the invitation I made to him 2 weeks ago. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This is related and I am not disputing your ruling at all. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: We are dealing with Mr Franks’ point of order. 
SIMON POWER 
: I wish to speak to that. We are now in a slightly difficult position actually. Because if Mr Franks’ view and Mr Brown’s view is that members are trying to cover up the way they are voting by the use of the mechanism provided in the Standing Orders for a split vote that is quite a serious accusation which reflects on all 120 members of Parliament. I made the offer right at the start of these points of orders in relation to Mr Brown’s matter to cooperate with him in any way as Minister Benson-Pope said would be appropriate. But I think we need to think very carefully about where we leave this ruling. Because yes there are points to be made about the public’s view on how this voting system works and it is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination and the right forum to deal with it is the Standing Orders Committee. But to let that accusation lie on the table in the Committee is something that I do believe you will have to deal with. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Well I am not too sure whether Mr Franks really made an accusation. He made it more as an observation that in listening to the debate there might be an impression given. I do think that if we took the original suggestion which I certainly can pass on to the Speaker that the matter be raised with the Standing Orders Committee as was first suggested that would deal with Mr Franks’ point of order. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I was hoping that this might be seen by the Chair as a matter that affects Parliament generally and not seen just as a hobby horse of Mr Brown. I do not think that this is a party matter—this is a matter where we all have an interest in not looking as if we are colluding in trying to hide our views on these matters where there is strong emotions. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Yes but the proper course is for the Standing Orders Committee to look at it and that certainly can be done as was suggested originally. Did Mr Brown want to add something more? 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 Yes I do want to add something because it was in an earlier discussion with Mr Franks where I alerted him to the fact that I had had a phone call that made me pursue this matter with some vigour because a member of the public did not know who was voting which way on this bill and there was an inconsistency in the way parties were voting and that person was entitled to know. Suggestions were made to me and I cannot prove it that MPs were saying one thing here and another thing there. That is why I raised the issue in the first place. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I just want to make it clear Mr Brown that if anyone is making an allegation of improper motives that is dealt with as a matter of privilege. It is not a matter on which the Chair can rule. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I regret taking another call but I think the matter cannot be left with uncertainty. I think it is incumbent on all of us not to add to the confusion of members of the public who are listening. I am sure that is what is being done. I tell Mr Brown that we need to be very careful about that. The voting system is as it has been for a considerable period of time and I repeat every time a party vote is less than its full entitlement the question as to who is voting which way could arise in the mind of anyone listening if he or she thought about it. 
Now I do not know about the member but I am regularly asked my views on things by people and I give them my views. If they ask me how I voted I tell them how I voted. In the end that is our individual and collective accountability. But I think it is important that we do not leave and add to the confusion that people may be feeling. If there is a question—and there is because it has been raised here—I urge the member because he has taken it seriously to put it down on paper and make a submission to the Standing Orders Committee. Clearly the Chair has indicated she will raise it with the Speaker as well and I think that is fair and proper. I think we should all give careful consideration to the matter but not add fuel to the fire of confusion by perhaps getting into any more speculation on what people may or may not be thinking. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I think the matter has been fairly dealt with and certainly we need to move on. A ruling has been given. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I will continue on from the excellent speech made my colleague Dr Lynda Scott who was talking on Part 4 “Enforcement and miscellaneous provisions”. There was some concern as to the transitional provisions and powers that the Director-General of Health might have in relation to the advisory committee pending its establishment. I think one of the concerns was that here was an individual who was not elected and could take on powers that were inappropriate. 
It is important to point out again the fact that human assisted reproductive technology in New Zealand has been operating very successfully and without any major problems for over 20 years without specific legislation. One of the great strengths has been the fact that all the fertility clinics are required to be members of the Australasian reproductive technology group which in itself is a policeman of standards and requires extraordinarily high levels of accountability. Over the years that body has closed down clinics and has required individuals to stop practising. For instance one individual in Western Australia was known to over-stimulate the ovaries of women which consequently managed to produce many eggs. That practice subjected women to having multiple births which would obviously endanger both them and the resulting babies and it was firmly from within the group put on its head. 
I know that the clinic I worked in had some small statistical analysis accounting that we had failed to do. It was a very minor thing but we were threatened with closure. We were given a period of 6 months in which to right this which we did for a whole variety of reasons including the professional reputation that was so important. I want to assure the Committee that there is this 9-month interim period where the Director-General of Health is deemed as the advisory committee which should not cause any problems. In fact I think it is extremely unlikely that that would be the case. 
It is also important to realise that in clause 65 “Powers of authorised persons” there are some very clear powers in terms of enforcement whereby the authorised person can enter the place inspect the place make copies and also search and seize. It is very important to have the right balance in relation to these powers because clearly if authorised persons have the possibility of searching and seizing in vitro gametes embryos or in vitro foetuses it is hugely important that they have very judicious reasons for doing so. However what we do not want in this country is the possibility of a mad scientist in some corner of Kaitaia or deepest darkest Dargaville carrying out illegal operations and clearly clause 65 will ensure that that does not happen. 
Clause 66 of course goes on to refer to the entry of dwelling houses where the same powers of searching and seizing can take place if they are justified. In the miscellaneous provisions we turn to clause 72 and the regulations and regulating powers that the Governor-General may by Order in Council make. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to Part 4 “Enforcement and miscellaneous provisions” of the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill. New Zealand First will be supporting this part. 
One of the strengths of Part 4 is that enforcement is very clearly specified. There is no misunderstanding about what can or cannot happen. Clause 65 specifies the powers of the authorised persons. Clause 66 outlines what has to happen when a dwelling place is entered. Clause 68 lists the notice requirements when a place is entered. Clause 69 specifies what has to happen with the disposal of property seized. So the part very clearly outlines what enforcement there will be. There is no misunderstanding about what can or cannot happen. 
It is very pleasing to see that the fines for operating outside the law are quite considerable. Clause 72(1)(b) specifies that the fines must not exceed $20000. We know that the fertility clinics are operating professionally already and that this would be a considerable fine for them. A wide range of enforcement instruments are available within this bill so people who have concerns need not have them. As Dr Paul Hutchison pointed out we need to be aware that the fertility clinics all belong to one professional group the Australasian reproductive technology group and have done for the last 20 years. As he pointed out last week those clinics are audited very regularly to ensure that they are following the very strict standards and quality requirements that are set down and that are necessary to follow in order to be a member of this group. We must say that in the past operators have worked very ethically in this particular area. 
We were quite reassured to see that the Minister has included on Supplementary Order Paper 267 a new clause 69A concerning the detection of import and export offences to any gamete embryo etc. It is an additional safeguard for those concerned about this area. The procedure that has to be followed has been listed. We must admit that the existing situation has worked very well for the last 20 to 25 years without legislation of this nature. However it is pleasing to see that legislation has come up in this area which is one that is advancing quite rapidly. New Zealand First will be supporting this part. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 The previous speaker said that New Zealanders should have no concerns. She was very very appraising of the existing situation. She said that no one should have any concerns and mentioned the stipulations in this bill about search and seizure powers for illegal activities the fines and so forth. Although the Green Party is very happy with the powers that exist in Part 4—we are happy they are there that such powers do exist—we have very real concerns about how one would know when a fertility clinic was committing an illegal act. The reason for our concerns is that the body that sets the rules about what is legal and what is illegal is a ministerial advisory committee and it issues guidelines. Essentially it is the guidelines that will decide which activities fertility clinics undertake are legal and which are illegal. 
As I have previously pointed out in the debate when we look at the fine print of these guidelines we find they are extremely vague—so vague that I believe that in many circumstances it would be very difficult for the police or whoever would be using these search and seizure powers to work out what is legal for fertility clinics to undertake and what is illegal. It is all well and good to have all these search and seizure powers and to have fines—everything sounds very reassuring as the previous speaker said—but in truth when we look at the earlier provisions and at how the decision will be made as to what activities are legal and what are illegal then I am afraid to say that this is where the bill falls down utterly. We do not even have regulations. Therefore the people who do the search and seizure will be acting on policy that is not even in regulation. How can we enforce through search and seizure powers something that is not even stipulated in regulation? It is simply a very vaguely worded guideline. It states that if possible we should do this and wherever possible we should do that but there is no clear and prescriptive wording. How can we then expect officials when they enter a fertility clinic to use their search and seizure powers to be able to decide what is legal and what is illegal? 
I am afraid to say that this whole part while it appears to be reassuring to the member for New Zealand First is not reassuring to us. We cannot see how in the absence of any regulations in this area there is clear guidance for people to go in and use these powers. Admittedly schedule 1 lists some activities that are prohibited so presumably for people trying to create an animal-human hybrid embryo or a cloned embryo or trying to develop a genetically modified gamete or embryo then those activities are clearly stipulated as illegal under the Act as are the things they would be able to do. But anything that is not in the prohibited section in schedule 1 basically will not even be spelt out in regulation and in our view will therefore be very very difficult to enforce. 
I think it is very very sad that this bill is so weak. Although it is great that we do have the search and seizure powers that will act as a deterrent presumably on fertility clinics I am afraid they are weak deterrents because the legislation is so loose so flexible so weak and so lacking in regulation. 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 I stand on behalf of United Future to speak to Part 4 including schedule 2 of the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill. I want just very briefly to carry on from my Green colleague and say that although United Future applauds the fact that schedule 2 has a very sensible search warrant process by which any activity that has not been approved can be investigated I think we have to understand that it is the implementation of guidelines that will be policed. 
 I have here the draft consultation document on the guidelines for the preimplantation genetic diagnosis procedure which has already been circulated for consultation. These are the kinds of guidelines that the search warrant will be used to enforce. When we flick through the document—and I will not bore the Committee with some of the contents—we can see that at this stage it is certainly a document for discussion. This is what has been recommended. I can find nothing in here that provides for something to be enforced. It is really a list of information facts concerns and comments on societal trends and attitudes towards certain procedures. Nowhere does it state in black and white what somebody can or cannot do. In fact some of the recommendations put the responsibility to develop appropriate procedures on to the fertility clinics themselves. We could hardly go in and arrest people in a fertility clinic for procedures that they themselves are responsible for developing. 
This strikes at the heart of my concerns. When one thinks about what guidelines mean one assumes that a sense of direction is suggested or implied. When we read this very first set which has a direct implication on the legislation the warning bells go off because there is no clear direction. It contains a series of facts and pieces of information that I recommend the member from New Zealand First has a good look at because that is what the search warrant will be used for to try to enforce. There is nothing to enforce because the content is so general. Our concern has always been that we should be able to understand very clearly what is and what is not allowed. The original schedule 2 in the bill—which has now been superseded—was very much more prescriptive and clear about what needed to be enforced and what was acceptable and unacceptable. 
I also have here—almost in response to the original schedule 2—some of the issues that do not even get a mention in this bill. These I guess will now be subject to the ministerial advisory committee which will make a series of recommendations and develop a set of guidelines to give—once the Minister has given them the tick—to the ethics committees. A huge number of procedures and possibilities are not even mentioned or outlined in this bill and the decisions on them will be handed over to a whole raft of people. Somehow under this new schedule 2 we will be able to enforce them through search warrants. I am hugely concerned. I am kind of glad in some ways although I question why we already have guidelines when this bill has not even been passed into law yet. How are we already so far down the track on this procedure? It is full steam ahead and there are media releases stating that the Minister has pretty well made up her mind about which way she will vote on this matter despite the fact that the consultation date has not even closed yet. 
So already some huge concerns are developing before the royal assent has even been given. United Future is concerned—certainly I am very very concerned—about the search warrant and enforcement provisions in the bill. Although they look good my big question is: what are they enforcing? They are enforcing some very vague guidelines that are left hugely open to interpretation. I do not know how anybody will be held accountable under this legislation. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I rise for the ACT party on this part of the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill. As I have indicated previously I believe that this legislation is a classic example of slogan law: it responds to itches without identifying a mischief. The ACT party’s position on this will be a split vote because although some members believe that the issues warrant some of the attention the bill gives them most of us believe that this is smokescreen-type legislation. 
This is legislation that tries to appear caring about children and that focuses on an almost non-existent problem. It focuses on children who will be born to parents who could hardly care more about the welfare of their children. It focuses on areas of research that are cutting edge—areas whereby if New Zealand does not participate others will. So if the people who are promoting this legislation are worried about the overall morality of this kind of research then probably all they are doing in this legislation is pushing quite a bit of it offshore—for example by putting a blanket 10-year ban on the life of a suspended embryo or putting a blanket 14-day limit on the periods that an embryo can be kept in development in vitro. 
This enforcement provision says that if people suspect that that is going on somewhere then they can come without warrant with as many people as they think are needed to bust the joint. They can come into a building and seize equipment. Indeed they can seize the embryos that may well belong to other people—people who have sacrificed enormously to get to a position of perhaps being able to have a child. They can interrupt what is going on take records copy mark and close down an operation. They can do that on pain of a $20000 fine. They can do all this in a society that allows kids to be born who are not even wanted that allows kids to be conceived by mothers who are in a state of total inebriation or drug intoxication that allows kids to spend their first vital 12 or 14 weeks—whatever period is crucial to a particular development—in a state where they are permanently damaged and that allows thousands of kids every year to be born without any way of knowing who their father is. This part provides that without a warrant people can enter premises where they think that that kind of thing might be happening where someone is breaching this law or even where someone is researching without complying with the conditions of the ethics committee. This bill says that those risks none of which have matured—Dr Hutchison told us in his speech how well-managed and how ethical the people in this industry already are; I think he said that in all the years this industry has operated he has not been aware of any non-compliance or words to that effect— 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: No. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: I am sorry have I said too much? 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I said there had not been any major problems. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: I am sorry I am not trying to put words into the member’s mouth. But with this bill Parliament is searching for a non-mischief and is giving draconian powers to officials to exercise when all the conduct we are talking about is probably well-intentioned. Parliament has enough deliberate evil to worry about—enough offences enough recklessness and enough people who are breeding and producing children who will never be loved and who will have all kinds of problems in their lives because no one cares about them. And here is Parliament patting itself on the back—and I am sure that the member in the chair Dianne Yates who is sponsoring this bill is sincere—without reflecting on just what the bill says about our priorities about the medical profession about researchers and about New Zealanders’ efforts generally. 
I think this is a disgrace and Part 4 which gives the enforcement powers simply underpins it. It imposes $20000 fines for offences that can be created by a committee. The committee creates the offence when it imposes the conditions. We do not have any idea what kind of conditions it may impose. For all we know it may suddenly impose a condition that Maori embryos can be under the control only of Maori people. I believe that would be racism. It could be that someone who objected to that kind of racism would then be busted by the officials and have to pay a $20000 fine.  
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 I want to take another call on this part because other parliamentary colleagues have talked about several things that I want to talk about. Before the dinner break Mr Franks talked about what he saw as a complete nonsense for those of us who have some serious concerns about the bill. He talked about a society where large numbers of children are born in unplanned and unfortunate circumstances—children who arrive unwanted and who live unwanted maybe even for large parts of their childhood—which is somehow a lot more scary than this very planned approach to parenthood. 
I remind the Committee because this applies to Part 4 where we talk about the implementation and policing of those provisions that part of this technology allows for the fact that children may be brought into being for purposes other than those we would normally think of bringing children into the world for. We imagine that most people want to bring children into the world to love and nurture but there are a whole lot of other reasons which now become possibilities for why one would want to have a child. 
Firstly there is the huge possibility that a child may be designed to provide body parts for a sickly sibling. That is a rather interesting motive. As this technology is advanced under these very flimsy guidelines another concern I have is that we start to bring into being children who have been so tampered with—I guess advocates would say in a positive way—that those children are now born with a whole new set of expectations upon them that most of us never considered when we had our children. We had our children we accepted them as they came and loved them regardless of any warts and glimps that might have been part of who they were. 
The new potential that this technology brings along is that we can now have a far greater say and a huge investment—and I am talking in monetary terms—in the outcomes of the children who are born. Because of the investment we have made these children now arrive with a huge set of expectations upon them to perform and to succeed in ways that previously loving parents did not have the ability to have expectations about. We need to be very clear that this legislation has the potential at one end of the spectrum to change the face of parenting completely. 
I can remember reading stories of early days in England where people were not allowed to marry or were discouraged from marrying below their class. When a gene-rich generation of babies is developed who have had a huge amount of money invested in them by their parents maybe a new class of people will be developed with a similar set of biases concerns and pressures upon them that we thought we had moved away from. That is why I am so concerned about the very loose nature of the guidelines that this legislation puts up. 
When one looks at the British system that the original bill of Dianne Yates was based upon which is a strongly regulatory and licensing regime we see that it has never stopped the British medical profession from developing that technology and from moving forward and making genuine advances in that area. Nothing has been held back by that system. The fear that by going into a more tightly regulated system we would somehow be holding back medical advances and increasing levels of suffering is just a complete nonsense. In other jurisdictions that is certainly not the case when Parliament has chosen to keep a very close eye on the development of this technology and to make informed choices. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I wish to take a short call on Part 4 “Enforcement and miscellaneous provisions”. The reason for this call is that over the dinner break I had been considering the speech made by Stephen Franks and his great concerns about the powers of search and seizure without the authorisation of a District Court judge or court registrar. As the bill stands it allows an authorised person to carry out those powers in clause 65 which include entering a place inspecting taking or making copies and search and seizure including search and seizure of any equipment but also of an in vitro gamete an in vitro embryo or documents or records. 
The major concern is the inappropriate seizure of in vitro gametes embryos or in vitro foetuses by the so-called authorised person without having gone to the length of getting authority through a District Court judge or court registrar. Clearly on the practicality of this situation in New Zealand it is unlikely to occur. However they are quite draconian measures if one considers the importance of in vitro gametes embryos or foetuses and the likelihood that in their removal from a laboratory or in transportation those elements could be destroyed or certainly ruined for the purposes for which their biological parents expected them to be used. 
I am aware of the fact that in some of the clinics around Australasia there has been fierce competition and there have been situations whereby for one reason or another they have brought law suits against each other. One could be concerned if for some commercial reason the so-called authorised person was indeed given false information leading to seizure of gametes embryos or foetuses. I thought that there may just be some use in putting in a new clause 65(1)(j) that would state: “In order for authorised persons to exercise their powers of seizure they must first obtain the authority of a District Court judge or Court Registrar.” Really that is just to ensure that appropriate process has been gone through and that every effort is made to ensure that delicate gametes embryos or foetuses would not be inappropriately transported particularly without the knowledge of the people who had the greatest interest. I would like the Committee to consider that amendment. It is a small amendment but I think that in very exceptional circumstances such a situation could cause extraordinary damage. 
I would be very pleased if Dianne Yates were prepared to take a call to give us her opinion as to where and how far those powers of search and seizure could be abused. I believe that my amendment does give belt and braces to ensure that in the very rare likelihood that that happened there would at least be a court registrar or District Court judge ensuring that the proper process had taken place. 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 First of all I think that the matter just brought up by Mr Hutchison was discussed by the Health Committee. But I would also like to talk about the amendment in the name of Bill English to clause 75 “Director-General of Health to be advisory committee pending its establishment”. Subclause (1) states: “Until the expiry of 9 months after the date on which this Act receives the Royal assent the Director-General of Health is deemed to be the advisory committee for the purposes of this Act.” Mr English’s amendment proposes that we change the expression “9 months” in clause 75(1) to the expression “5 years” which I think is a very strange amendment. I cannot see why we would delay the appointment of an advisory committee for 5 years when we already have clause 79 “Provisions to be treated as guidelines in interim period” and when a considerable lead-in is already provided for in the bill. So I really do not see any point to that amendment in the name of Bill English nor do I understand why we would want to continue with one person rather than with an advisory committee for a longer period of time than the transition period. I do not see much logic behind that amendment put forward by Bill English. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to the amendment to clause 64 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 267 in his name be agreed to. 
to omit subclause (2)(c)(i) and substitute the following subparagraphs: 
(i)involves a contravention of any of sections 8 to 13: 
(ia)involves a contravention of section 25A:. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to 
Ayes 101 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 20; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 6; Progressive 2. 
Noes 15 
New Zealand National 4; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment to the amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 267 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to clause 64 as amended be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 97 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 20; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 2; Progressive 2. 
Noes 19 
New Zealand National 4; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 6; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment as amended agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to clause 65 be agreed to: 
to add the following new paragraph to clause 65(1): 
(j)in order to exercise the powers of seizure the authorised person must first obtain the authority of a District Court Judge or Court Registrar. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 41 
New Zealand National 20; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 75 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 4; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 267 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to insert new clause 69A be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 103 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 20; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 2; United Future 6; Progressive 2. 
Noes 13 
New Zealand National 4; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 267 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to clause 70 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 102 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 20; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 2; United Future 5; Progressive 2. 
Noes 14 
New Zealand National 4; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 3; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 267 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to subparagraph (iv) of clause 72(1)(a) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 103 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 20; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 2; United Future 6; Progressive 2. 
Noes 13 
New Zealand National 4; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 267 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to add new subparagraph (v) to clause 72(1)(a) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 97 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 20; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 2 Progressive 2. 
Noes 19 
New Zealand National 4; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 269 in the name of Sue Kedgley to clause 72(2) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 14 
Green Party 9; United Future 5. 
Noes 102 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 3; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 14 
Green Party 9; United Future 5. 
Noes 102 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 3; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Bill English to clause 75(1) be agreed to: 
to omit the expression “9 months” and substitute the expression “5 years”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 4 
New Zealand National 4. 
Noes 112 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 20; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 267 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to insert new clause 80A be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 103 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 20; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 2; United Future 6; Progressive 2. 
Noes 13 
New Zealand National 4; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 4 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 99 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 20; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 2; United Future 2; Progressive 2. 
Noes 17 
New Zealand National 4; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 6; Maori Party 1. 
Part 4 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 1 
20:00:20The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) put the question that schedule 1 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 103 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 20; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 2; United Future 6; Progressive 2. 
Noes 13 
New Zealand National 4; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 2; Maori Party 1. 
Schedule 1 agreed to. 
Schedule 2 
20:00:20The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) put the question that schedule 2 be agreed to. 
A party vote8 was called for on the question That schedule 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 103 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 20; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 2; United Future 6; Progressive 2. 
Noes 13 
New Zealand National 4; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 2; Maori Party 1. 
Schedule 2 agreed to. 
Clauses 1 and 2 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The question is that clauses 1 and 2 stand part. There will be one debate and two votes. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the title and commencement of the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill which I believe has the very same name as the bill introduced by Dianne Yates back in 1996. In my view it is quite appropriate that that name remain. Dianne Yates has certainly shown extraordinary perseverance over the years. Although in 1998 the Government of the time had a bill called the Assisted Human Reproduction Bill it seems to me only fitting that the title of this bill which has been ushered through for 8 long years and has finally come to fruition should give the sense of what the bill is about—and fairly and squarely it is about human assisted reproductive technology. 
I think it is worthwhile mentioning—while strictly speaking to the title of course—that it was in 1979 that Steptoe and Edwards presided over the first test-tube baby which really heralded this new age of reproductive technology. It was a particularly fascinating procedure for a variety of reasons. Firstly here was a provincial gynaecologist teaming up with a scientist from Cambridge. The provincial gynaecologist had wonderful technical knowledge and a view of the concept of retrieving eggs and sperm but did not have the expertise to know how they could be fertilised incubated then put back into the uterus successfully. It was the scientist Robert Edwards who had gained tremendous experience of tissue culture over many years and had experience in animals as well who knew how that might take place. It was a momentous occasion when it did take place because it opened up a totally new world of assisted reproductive technology. Prior to that literally millions of couples right around the world had no hope that they might be able to have their own biological babies. 
I remember 3 years later going to a conference in Melbourne—the Asian and Oceanic Congress of Obstetrics and Gynaecology—where much to my amazement 99 percent of the deliberations were on that exciting new reproductive technology. There was one paper given by the Indians that was on human sterilisation. I marvelled at the thought that the Indian subcontinent which had doubled its population—reaching towards a billion—from 1947 to that time in 1979 had enormous problems of population control and needed to have good contraceptive techniques and on the other hand the Asian and Oceanic group of reproductive experts were totally absorbed with that amazing new technology which at the time had given rise to fewer than something like 15 or 20 births. 
Since then that technology has adapted through the years into many different forms and shapes so that now we have to think of the mind-boggling possibilities that could occur in the next 20 years or so. For that reason the title is absolutely appropriate because all of them involve assisted reproductive technology. What is extraordinary is that we have seen the debate in the United States about stem cell research and the possibilities there but when we take the next step to the genetic manipulations that could take place clearly there will arise a great new brave world. 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 I will take a brief call on clauses 1 and 2. Although I understand how tidy and convenient the title of this bill is—it rolls off the tongue; it is the “HART” bill—in many ways I think the original bill proposed by Dianne Yates would have fitted this description. I do not believe that the bill before us now is described adequately by this title. This bill is now about the handling of all reproductive material outside the body and covers way more than just the assistance given to people who require assistance with reproduction. It also covers the use of gametes and embryos for research purposes and I certainly do not think that “human assisted reproductive technology” in any way alludes to the fact that a huge amount of research is now covered by this bill—procedures that will not necessarily impinge on a woman giving birth to a child but will certainly take us down some very interesting paths. 
I think a better title—if we were prepared to move away from our clever HART acronym—would be the “Human Assisted Reproductive and Research Technology Bill”. I guess we could say “HARRT” and put a bit of a roll on the “r” which would please our southerners! I think the title should be changed to reflect what will be at least 50 percent of the work covered by this bill which is the work of medical research. Certainly the title gives no indication that that aspect of the work is covered. 
The other matter I want to mention is the commencement date. It is rather interesting that a few provisions of the bill come into force on the date of the royal assent and that for some others there is a 9-month phase-in period. I understand that it is quite common in law to have a phase-in period for provisions of an Act. It is rather interesting to refer back to Part 4 where we find clause 75: “Director-General of Health to be advisory committee pending its establishment”. It kind of makes sense when one realises that those guidelines I was talking about earlier this evening—the consultation document for the pre-implementation genetic diagnosis procedures—obviously will not go to the committee. They will probably be processed by the Director-General of Health very quickly—in the next few months. 
I think we must understand that a lot will happen in that 9-month phase-in commencement period. It will not be an inactive time. There are technologies waiting in the wings to be processed and despite the fact that there is a 9-month delay things will be under way very quickly. I continue to have some concerns. It is interesting and it is a bit of a challenge to the Greens—it is never too late to change one’s mind. I was talking this evening to a gentleman from the UK. I was explaining the legislation we are working on tonight in the Chamber. His comment to me was: “Oh I bet the Greens are opposing that.” The Greens have taken a very active stand internationally on this area. He was quite shocked to hear that the Green Party in New Zealand is supporting this bill right the way through. He said that was quite out of step with what has happened with that party internationally. Green members present may want to relay that to their colleagues so that they can reconsider the position they are taking on this bill in the third reading. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to clauses 1 and 2 “Title” and “Commencement”. The title of this bill is exactly as it should be. It is clear short specific and concise. There can be no misunderstanding as to what the bill is about. Any title should convey the essence and the substance of the legislation and this title really does. The bill meets those criteria. 
When we look at the title of the Government bill introduced back in 1996—the Assisted Human Reproduction Bill—I say that those specifications would be hard to meet. Really the Assisted Human Reproduction Bill was about technology way back in 1998 so the word “technology” did need to be included and even now it more completely covers what actually occurs in this area. I would say too that that technology has provided many couples with the children that they had previously been unable to have and have desperately wanted. 
This bill has been a very long time in getting to this point and we are pleased to see that it is making progress through the House today. We need to remember that fertility clinics are professional bodies. Tonight with some of the arguments and debate that we have heard I was beginning to wonder. But we need to realise that fertility clinics are professional bodies that they do have strict standards and that they do have quality requirements. After all the bottom line is that they are dealing with humans. Humans are unique. We are special. We need to have the very best legislation that we can in this area and this legislation is a good start. 
I know that fertility clinics have worked in their field for over 20 years and we read in newspapers about only the very major occurrences. Nothing has happened with fertility clinics that really casts doubt on those bodies. When I look at the commencement date I can understand why there is a 9-month phase-in to set up this particular legislation. When all is said and done we need to have a ministerial advisory committee and an ethics committee set up and in this legislation it is very clearly outlined and set out as to what the requirements of those committees will be. Clauses 1 and 2 firmly cover what the bill is about. New Zealand First supports them. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 First of all for the benefit of the United Future member and anyone who may have listened to her speech I reiterate that the Green Party has huge concerns with this bill. We are supporting it only because it prohibits the worst excesses of artificial reproduction—namely genetic engineering cloning of human beings and sex selection for social reasons—and because the weak regime it sets in place is better than the totally unregulated free-market approach that we have at present. That is the only reason we are voting in favour of the bill. 
Basically proponents of human assisted reproductive technology such as Dr Paul Hutchinson paint a rosy picture of a future where these technologies can be used to overcome the limitations of the human body and in particular to overcome the limitations of infertility. But the very same technologies that can be used for example to cure a child of cystic fibrosis or to avoid such a child being born can equally be used to threaten human dignity and human rights to eliminate imperfections to create perfect persons and a perfect race—in other words to be used for eugenic purposes. The Green Party believes that we must draw a line to protect future generations from growing up as laboratory experiments. 
There are huge controversial issues in the area of assisted human reproduction such as: where does one draw the line between what is an acceptable and what is an unacceptable use of pre-birth selection; who decides what genetic defects are to be allowed to be eliminated from the human population through embryo selection and pre-implantation genetic diagnosis etc; and where does it stop given the pressures from consumers? How does our society decide what characteristics are permissible in offspring and where does one draw a line for example between cystic fibrosis Down’s syndrome spina bifida and coronary heart disease? 
Regrettably those profound issues will not be decided by Parliament because in this legislation we have delegated all those profound decisions to an unelected and unaccountable committee. It is ironic that in the next bill Parliament will decide on whether we can dock dogs’ tails but in this bill we are abdicating our right to decide on profound issues such as pre-implantation genetic diagnosis. 
Instead guidelines were issued a couple of weeks ago on the issues I raised. Basically those guidelines state that it is not the responsibility of Parliament to decide where we draw the line between cystic fibrosis Down’s syndrome coronary heart disease or whatever. No no that is left to the responsibility of the fertility clinics which the member from New Zealand First has so much confidence in. It is left for them to decide whether a disorder is likely to be serious in the offspring of a particular couple and therefore whether pre-implantation genetic diagnosis could be used. The clinics themselves will be making those very profound decisions. So it is quite extraordinary and I do not think people realise it. The population will wake up and realise down the track what we are doing in passing this legislation and delegating those profound decisions to an unelected and unaccountable committee and simply issuing guidelines rather than having any regulations in the whole area. 
People will wake up in the future. There will probably be a couple of scandals in a few years’ time and I can predict that there will be amendments to this legislation to strengthen it and at least embody regulations and to return it to the form that Dianne Yates’ member’s bill began with with strict licensing and regulations. But it has been completely gutted and watered down. Now we have something that I believe we will live to regret and everyone here needs to realise that members in progressing this bill tonight are abdicating their responsibility for those issues. 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I want to address the title of the bill. It was originally based as has been said on the United Kingdom’s Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act of 1990. I want to explain that I deliberately chose the term “Human Assisted Reproductive Technology” for the title of the bill. The bill that followed it in 1998 in the name of Doug Graham the then Minister of Justice was the Assisted Human Reproduction Bill. I deliberately put the word “human” before the word “assisted” even though it should be “Assisted Human Reproductive Technology” strictly speaking. I thought it made it easier to say—it is easier to say “HART” because we know that a huge title like that is very difficult to talk about—but I also thought that it is important that the word “human” comes first. We are talking about human beings what it means to be human and what it will mean to be human in the future when we are talking about anything to do with gene technology reproductive technology and human beings. That is why I deliberately put the word “human” first. 
I also mention that in the bill as introduced there were more restrictions around both research and consent. As Sue Kedgley mentioned the original British bill had greater controls and in the schedules greater emphasis both on what happens to embryos in regard to research and on the consent of the people who donate. 
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 I rise to speak to clauses 1 and 2 of this Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill and to say in respect of the title that I would have been more in favour of retaining the “Assisted Human Reproduction and Technology” title by which it is commonly known in the area of assisted human reproduction. I guess that is a small matter in the final analysis and I suppose “HART” does roll off the tongue. There is always a danger I think of reducing something to its initials though in that when we talk about the “HART Bill” many people have absolutely no idea what we are talking about. However if we have to say the name in full it does give the real meaning to the bill. 
ACT New Zealand members as we have said in the other parts of this bill will have a split vote. Some of our members think that there is no need for a legislative framework around this. I am one of the two people in the ACT party who is supporting the bill and I am very pleased in fact with the outcome that we have arrived at. 
I think that the Green member’s criticism of Dr Paul Hutchison of the National Party for painting a rosy picture was really quite a sad criticism because there are many infertile couples both in New Zealand and around the world whose lives have been greatly enriched by the addition of a child or children to their families. Without the assistance of human reproductive technology they would have had no hope of ever having children. It does sadden me when I hear criticisms like that. 
Another point that has been raised is that there should have been very strict legislative regulation around the provisions of the bill. I was delighted to see we had in fact opted for the guidelines. I think in reproductive technology and in the area of research it is very important to have a good deal of flexibility in a field that is seeing progress running at a huge pace. There is nothing worse particularly in the area of reproduction than something being held up and perhaps never being able to be retrieved when quick and wise decisions cannot be made in a timely manner. Several examples were given to us as we progressed through the bill where decisions could not have been made in a timely manner if some of these provisions were not put in place. 
I think the biggest advantage of this bill is that the very messy procedure of having to progress issues through a large number of ethics committees can now be avoided. There will be the ministerial advisory committee which set up the guidelines and one ethics committee rather than having to go to several committees around the country to have decisions made in different areas. Those decisions can now be made through one ethics committee and that too will assist the timely progress of decisions through the bill. 
Coming back to the title just for a moment I agree with the United Future member that the title refers to only half of the bill. The bill is about reproductive technology but it is also about research—the research provisions around reproductive technology. The research deserves to be acknowledged because we would not have reproductive technology if it were not for the fact that a great deal of research preceded it. I would have liked to see some acknowledgment in the title that the bill is about research in many respects and is heavily dependent on it. Again I come back to the fact that “HART” might roll neatly off the tongue but the whole point of having a title is to give a true reflection of what a bill is about. The research component is extraordinarily important. 
I want to make a final comment on fertility clinics which have been criticised heavily in the course of this entire debate. I think the fertility clinics that we have in New Zealand have demonstrated a good deal of integrity. We heard Dr Paul Hutchison who knows a great deal about this area say that there have been no major problems in the 20 years that fertility clinics have existed in New Zealand. They have existed with a great deal of integrity and have taken very seriously the professional self-regulation that they have always enjoyed. There is no reason to suggest this integrity will not continue into the future. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 I think the title is somewhat misleading because this bill is largely about the decision-making process and not so much about the technology itself. Despite what the last speaker said there has been almost no debate on how this bill might impact on research. That is why I think we will find ourselves back here in Parliament not next year but before too long dealing with issues that deserve wide public debate. 
This bill is really the “Human Assisted Reproductive Process Bill” and it is a process that seems to regard any issue to do with human-assisted reproduction as somehow the province of the people who carry out the activity and of a couple of committees who watch over it. I think that that is a bizarre notion and that is why I have opposed this bill right through. 
I want to take just one issue that comes up which was barely discussed in the Committee stage and that is the use in schedule 1 the list of banned processes of the term “for reproductive purposes”. Schedule 1(2) states we are not allowed to: “Artificially form for reproductive purposes a hybrid embryo.” That means of course that we are allowed to do it for any other purpose. Does the public of New Zealand realise that Parliament is about to pass legislation that not just implies but in terms of the debate specifically allows the formation of hybrid embryos for any purpose other than reproduction? Scientific interest or research of course is the catch-all for doing it. It is the same with cloning. We are not allowed to form artificially for reproductive purposes a cloned embryo but we are allowed to form a cloned embryo for research purposes. 
That means we are having no public discussion about an issue that is defined by the mind of the scientist—that is by his or her intent: was it intended for this or for something else? That is the test the only test and I do not believe that those decisions should be left to a couple of ministerially appointed committees. Of course over a period of exposure to the high integrity of people who operate in fertility clinics scientists ethical journals and advisers those committees become entirely used to these ideas but the general public does not. 
I do not believe that the general public supports scientific processes in New Zealand that form cloned embryos for research purposes. I do not believe that the New Zealand public supports the production of hybrid embryos—that is animal-human hybrids—for research purposes. At the moment maybe that process is not happening but when the bill is passed Parliament by implication will have given approval to it. I think that it is a matter that should be debated by the public. 
We have heard a couple of speakers talk about the timeliness of decisions on this matter. This Parliament passed the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act which means we have more hurdles for approving a common chemical that has been used for 25 years in New Zealand than we have for hybrid embryo farming. Because of the rules that we have made it is harder to get approval for widely used well-known almost non-toxic chemicals than it is to farm embryos for cloning research. In that respect I am conservative but I believe that this legislation is not conservative enough. 
The legislation is no longer about just making sure infertile couples can have babies—that is accepted practice. It is about a whole new world around which there is emotion and hysteria. We have only to look at the US presidential debate to see the bizarre claims made by someone who wants to lead the free world about how stem cell research will fix everything—when there is not a hope of that actually happening in the next few decades. 
 So there is no doubt at all that these issues have much wider resonance than a ministerially appointed ethics committee. That is not to question the integrity of those people; it is just that these issues deserve wider public debate. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 I welcome the opportunity to take a call on clauses 1 and 2 of the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill and on behalf of New Zealand First I acknowledge the great amount of work done by Dianne Yates to get the bill to this stage. It is obvious that she has spent a lot of time and done a lot of work on the bill since 1996 and that she has led a very good select committee on it as well. I congratulate her. I also acknowledge the work of my colleague in New Zealand First Barbara Stewart who has spent a lot of time on this bill as well. 
I would like to touch on a couple of points that I consider to be very important. They relate to the title and to timings. One of the main issues I have with the bill that I would like to raise at this point is the information about donors embryos etc. The information recorded by the provider does not have to be turned over to anybody for 50 years. The information has to be retained by that provider for 50 years or if that provider ceases to be a provider and there are no alternatives it has to be handed over to the registrar. 
That information contains some very important facts and aspects about the donor. It includes the donor’s name gender address and place and country of birth. It also records the donor’s height colour of hair and eyes ethnicity whanau and hapu. 
It also records medical history which is where if information is withheld for 50 years it can have devastating effects. There may be a situation where genetic flaws in the embryos or cells provided have not been picked up because not all defects carry over from one generation to the next. They often skip one two or three generations then reappear. That is where the problem arises. 
If there is a donor who in turn becomes a donor that information is hidden; it will not become available until 50 years is up. If the child of the donor dies at an early age say after donating cells for another process then I am not sure whether the genetic information can become available to the next generation formed from the donated cell of the donor. That is something I would like the member to take a call on because I would like to hear that that information is provided. 
For example it is very serious when something like cystic fibrosis appears within a family. It may not appear for several generations but then it can reoccur. Depending on the circumstances of donor parents the supposed information supplied has to provide information about grandparents but if the circumstances concern the donated cells of a donor the grandparents are not known at that point because the information is kept hidden for 50 years. 
There is no obligation to provide that information for 50 years therefore it can fall through the cracks and never be known. I would hate that to be the case. I am an avid family historian and that information is of interest to historians and family historians. But more important it is vital information when genetic defects start appearing that cannot be traced back to a family line or the original donors. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Once again while sticking strictly to the title of this bill—the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill of 1996—I will stray a little like my other colleagues. I want to follow up on the point that Dianne Yates made about this bill being modelled on the UK Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 or her original bill and she lamented that there had been departures from that. It is important to point out that just recently Lord Winston has said that that human embryology legislation is in need of quite radical revision. 
In my view one of the strengths of this bill is that it has done a very important balancing act in relation to the extremes of views we have heard. On the one hand the Greens talked of the dangers of eugenics being a logical conclusion and on the other hand we have heard from Stephen Franks and ACT who believe that any regulation in this field is absolutely inappropriate. My colleague Bill English talked about schedule 1 and the implication that while there is a list of procedures that are prohibited if they are for reproductive purposes that automatically implies they would be legal for non-reproductive purposes. That is inappropriate and in my view it is pretty far-fetched. He referred to procedures such as artificially forming for non-reproductive purposes a hybrid embryo. We do have within this legislation both the ministerial advisory committee and the ethics committee which can go through a considerably arduous process. Nevertheless if indeed the recommendation is to ban or to have an amendment to the bill there is no reason whatsoever that action cannot be recommended to the Minister to take up. 
It is important to point out that too much regulation or inflexibility could cause huge setbacks for personkind. I think specifically of what occurred with intracytoplasmic sperm injection in the 1990s. It is a technique introduced into New Zealand for which as has been pointed out many times specific regulations have not been in existence. It has opened the way in dealing with male infertility in New Zealand by means of a technique whereby a single sperm is injected into the nucleus of an ovum. The remarkable thing about this technique was that initially the sperm was injected just below the surface of the cytoplasm. The resulting fertility was in the order of 5 or 6 percent. But by serendipity some of the workers in that area started injecting into the nucleus and remarkably the fertility rates changed from 5 percent to 70 percent and over. That opened the way for a huge revolution and hope for many tens of thousands of men and couples right around the world. This was done without any specific regulation and has proven to be an absolutely safe procedure though one might think at first glance that putting a needle into a nucleus and injecting a sperm into it could hugely disrupt the genetics of the future being. 
The point that I wanted to make was that it is very very important not to be too rigid and to have the flexibility that I believe the framework of this Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill has indeed made possible. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 99 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 20; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 2; United Future 2; Progressive 2. 
Noes 17 
New Zealand National 4; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 6; Maori Party 1. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to clause 2(1) be agreed to: 
to omit the expression “section 64(a) and (b)(i)” and substitute the words “section 64 (other than subsection (2)(c)(ia) to (iv))”; and 
to omit the expression “80” and substitute the expression “80A”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 97 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 20; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 2. 
Noes 19 
New Zealand National 4; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 99 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 20; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 2; United Future 2; Progressive 2. 
Noes 17 
New Zealand National 4; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 6; Maori Party 1. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Procedure 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I seek leave for the House to proceed directly to the third reading of the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member has sought leave. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is objection.