Hutchison Paul: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Hutchison Paul: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13724] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill. I must agree with Stevie Chadwick that the science in this area has gone a long way over the last 30 years. The first birth of an in vitro fertilisation baby was in 1979 but prior to that certainly in New Zealand it was an area that was extraordinarily unregulated. The member’s memory of obstetricians going out to collect sperm and bringing them back with few records kept is absolutely accurate. 
During the first reading of this bill Lianne Dalziel questioned why it was that it came to the attention of the House. I understand that it was the media—the good old media—that had made inquiries of the Ministry of Justice as to whether some of the clinics even though they were acting in good faith were illegally storing embryos and gametes. Of course gametes are defined as sperms and eggs. There was a little bit of confusion about this from Radio New Zealand during the first reading and it is important to make sure that it is aware of that. 
This bill endeavours to make the rules absolutely crystal clear because that is vital for the clinics involved and of course for the patients who are very emotionally involved in these issues. Embryos and gametes must be disposed of after 10 years from 22 November 2004 or subsequently 10 years after the date of storage. The Ethics Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology has the ability to extend storage and that is very important in situations where for example a young person aged 17 or 18 who has testicular or ovarian cancer may not want to start a family until they are 28 or 29. So it is very important to have that flexibility. 
There were eight submitters on the bill and all of them supported the need to clarify the storage times. I believe that the Health Committee worked extremely well together and that in general there is cross-party agreement on the essence of what this bill is about. I also note that Dianne Yates in her submission was concerned about the science behind storage. She had the view that it was not well evidence-based whereas in actual fact we do know that provided there is a steady-state freezing environment that is devoid of irradiation sperm embryos and eggs can be stored safely and consistently for many decades probably. The technical difficulty is in both the freezing process and the thawing process. If the environment is not even then one may damage the embryos and gametes. I think Dianne Yates compared it a little bit to Wattie’s frozen peas and their recommended life of 2 years. That is certainly not the case in the very sophisticated environment where human eggs gametes and embryos are stored. 
Just to give a bit of an idea as to the extent of what is going on in New Zealand every year about 1100 babies are born as a result of in vitro fertilisation. In Australia it is about 8500 and around the world it is literally hundreds of thousands mainly from the Western World. They comprise between about 1 and 3 percent of all births in most OECD countries. The data we were given showed that in 2010 there were 12000 embryos about 68000 eggs and 75000 straws of sperm—each straw containing many many millions of those excellent little sperms—stored in New Zealand. Fertility Associates estimated that 33 percent of its stored sperms and 18 percent of stored embryos would be affected by the bill. 
As the Minister said issues were brought up during the submission period including a grace period after the expiry of the 10-year storage limit. This is important so that patients have time to appeal to the ethics committee if they want an extension and also there is the technical applicability for clinics of not being able to dispose of the gametes and embryos on a particular date. I think that is a very practical and realistic thing. There is the issue of stored gametes used to create embryos that are then stored. Of course the clock starts from the moment the gametes themselves are stored. One cannot have two goes at it by converting the gametes into an embryo and then having another 10 years. In relation to gametes and embryos stored in other countries it will apply from the beginning and will extend for 10 years. We were told at the Health Committee that this was becoming more and more of an issue as people came to New Zealand who had undergone an initial harvest overseas and required the treatment here in New Zealand. 
The ethics committee’s role in making decisions about storage periods is very important. As I pointed out earlier on each case is quite distinct. It could be a young woman of 16 with ovarian cancer who wants to have children in the future. Her ovarian tissue may be stored for a period of time of more than 10 years. It is clearly impossible to legislate for each specific case. 
I note that during the first reading Te Ururoa Flavell made the point that the Maori Party has a considerable sense of sadness that we even have bills such as this in front of the House. He went on to say: “I cannot say that anyone in the Maori Party is at ease with the discussions around assisted reproductive technology but we would be even more uneasy if these discussions went on without Maori being engaged in a real way.” I absolutely agree that it is vital that Maori are included but it is important to bear in mind that the genesis of the original Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act occurred over a long period of time—over a decade—and it involved ethicists consumers scientists clinicians psychologists and lawyers. Eventually the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill was enacted in 2004. I think it is also important to point out that the clinics the consumers and the clinicians have really not found any major problems with the Act at all and although it is very useful that we are making this amendment today for a minor point regarding clarity in terms of a review the fact that the Act is flexible is very much in tune with the complexity of the science and the change of science with time. I do not believe that there is a need for a review at this stage of events as the legislation was enacted only 6 years ago but maybe that is something for the future.