Hutchison Paul: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15941] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Part 4 indeed does deal with enforcement and miscellaneous provisions. The Hon Bill English has once again asserted that the structure of the bill is too loose. The strength of the bill is due to the fact that it caters for the broad spectrum of conditions and techniques that are available and it allows flexibility. When he talked about transitional provisions and clause 75 which covers the powers of the Director-General of Health I think he should be reminded that the existing situation has worked very well for the last 20 years or so without any specific legislation. As we know a variety of Acts influence this area but now for the first time specific legislation is being applied. 
The other point that I think should hopefully give Mr English some degree of security is the fact that the clinics themselves are all very much affected by the fact that they belong to the Australasian reproductive technology accreditation group. That is a requirement of their being able to register and function. That group in itself has very very strict guidelines as to standards quality and information gathering and it has really served New Zealand and New Zealanders extremely well. It is because of the fact that we—unlike other countries like Canada UK and Australia—have not had specific legislation in this area that this bill has finally come into being after 9 years of gestation. 
While there is indeed under clause 75 the period of 9 months whereby the advisory committee will then come into power in the meantime some very strong safeguards are already in existence. The Hon Bill English should be assured or reminded of the fact that there has not been any major concerns in terms of people breaking the law with the whole spectrum of activities that are available. As I said Part 4 does indeed deal with enforcement and there are some pretty clear enforcement requirements. 
Clause 64 states: “An authorised person who believes on reasonable grounds that any assisted reproductive procedure is performed or any human reproductive research is conducted in a place may at any reasonable time exercise any of the powers in section 65 reasonably necessary to ascertain all or any of the following matters:”—and clause 65(1) lists a wide number of powers: to inspect to make copies of extracts and if suspicions are great to “(d) search for and seize—(i) any equipment or device … (ii) an in vitro gamete: (iii) an in vitro embryo or an in vitro foetus: (iv) a document or record …”. There is a long list of specific things that an authorised person can indeed do. It is right and proper that these enforcement requirements are there and that these powers are there and there are penalties for their being used inappropriately. 
There is no doubt that the bill does have a sufficiently wide span of enforcement instruments available to it and they include the clinics themselves entry of dwelling houses where it might be suspected that inappropriate activity is taking place and the ability to be able to seize equipment and look after it etc. 
One other area is clause 72 which relates to the regulations under the heading “Miscellaneous provisions”. Again a wide number of regulations can be applied by the Governor-General by Order in Council that include prescribing requirements for informed consent and providing for the use or destruction of in vitro gametes or in vitro embryos. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I rise to discuss an amendment to clause 72 that has been proposed by the Green Party. Basically we are providing a procedure whereby regulations would first of all have to be laid before Parliament so that Parliament could examine the proposed regulations and provide some response. It does not require the Minister to follow the advice of Parliament but if the Minister did not and chose to ignore Parliament he or she would have to provide reasons. There is also a provision which would placate Dr Hutchison that would allow regulations to be promulgated without first being laid before Parliament if they were minor or if they protected a person’s health and safety. All this is seeking to do is say that there should be some provision for regulations to be laid before Parliament before they are enacted. Basically this clause is taken from Canadian legislation and as I have previously pointed out Canada does not have the very vague guidelines that we have been talking about all night. It has very specific regulations. In Canada all the policy surrounding this highly contentious area is in regulation and those regulations must be discussed by both Houses of Parliament in Canada. Similarly we know that in England there is a licensing regime and there are regulations. 
This is a last-ditch effort by the Green Party to introduce some—just some—minor scrutiny by Parliament and some accountability into this bill. At the moment once the bill is passed in the next few weeks it will be the end of Parliament’s involvement in this whole contentious area. We will have an unelected and unaccountable committee making policy in the form of rather vague guidelines in these highly contentious areas. It will make policy that is of course technically illegal because our laws say that only Parliament should set policy. Committees like the ministerial advisory committee should only implement policy that is set by Parliament. 
This legislation as we pointed out in our minority report is in clear breach of parliamentary procedures which say that only Parliament should be setting policy. In fact once this legislation comes into effect Parliament will abdicate its role and its ability to make policy in this highly significant area—an area that is full of ethical minefields. If there is any area that Parliament should be able to set policy in it is this area. But no once this bill is passed Parliament will be abdicating its role and leaving it totally to an unaccountable and unelected committee. 
As I have previously pointed out the guidelines issued by the ministerial advisory committee 2 days ago on a highly contentious area of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis do not even suggest that that committee make decisions in this area but instead delegate it to the fertility clinics of New Zealand. It is quite extraordinary. So this amendment is an effort to say that we should at least have some mechanism by which reports and regulations would be laid before this Parliament. The Health Committee could then examine the contentious issues and make recommendations. The Minister would not be obliged to follow those recommendations or the advice of Parliament but would have to provide reasons if he or she chose to ignore them. 
Our amendment would introduce a small degree of accountability and a small degree of scrutiny. I suspect that it will be defeated as previous amendments we have put forward tonight will be. So we will be setting up the most permissive and the weakest regime for assisted human reproductive technology in the Western World and we in this Parliament will be abdicating our ability to set policy in this highly contentious and controversial area. I think we all need to be absolutely clear that that is what we are doing here tonight.