Hughes Darren: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Recommittal In Committee Third Reading Procedure 
Hughes Darren: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Recommittal In Committee Third Reading Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:16848] 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I rise to take a short call on the third reading of the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill. Having listened to the second reading Committee stage and now the third reading debate I have been reflecting on the fact that Parliament is celebrating its 150th year of existence in our country and I am sure that the sorts of issues in this bill that we are discussing were not even conceived of when Parliament was formed 150 years ago. The point I make about that is that often in this place we are required to deal with issues that preceding lawmakers of two three or four generations ago would never have thought would arise and would require the creation of legislation as we are doing in this case. 
I acknowledge that this is a difficult area and an area where people have very strong personal moral and spiritual beliefs—particularly the Hon Bill English as shown in his speech just previously. But in the end as lawmakers we are required to try in some kind of way as best we can and with the information we have at the time to build or create some sort of legal framework that these kinds of things developing around us can operate in. That does not mean that we will get it exactly right at this point in our history but it certainly means that we will build a skeleton of a framework for these kinds of things to develop within. That is why I pay tribute to my colleague the member for Hamilton East Dianne Yates who very early on in her political career introduced this legislation because she saw this as an emerging issue. I know that it has been through the select committee process over a number of years and was considered in conjunction with a bill introduced by the Rt Hon Doug Graham in a previous Government. 
The Health Committee has spent a lot of time going through this bill and has added to its purposes that it try “to secure the benefits of assisted reproductive procedures established procedures and human reproductive research for individuals and for society in general by taking appropriate measures for the protection and promotion of the health safety dignity and rights of all individuals but particularly those of women and children in the use of these procedures and research:”. It seems to me that at the point we are at right now when we are trying to work out how these technologies can best be used the purpose that the select committee has added is the best step we can make at this point without the full and complete knowledge of where these technologies can take us. 
The one point on which I disagree with the Hon Bill English however is that he kept referring to this legislation having to be back before Parliament. I think it is important to note that the ministerial advisory committee will have the ability to decide when new technology is developed whether it needs to be banned whether it needs to have a research component put on it or whether it should be allowed. I guess that that in the end does give us a safeguard in a holding kind of way and if Parliament becomes concerned in 20 years’ time that that technology has allowed us to do far more or whatever then we can bring more legislation back to the House. But in the end what we have to confront tonight are the technologies that are available out there in science right now and what we as lawmakers can do to put some framework around that. 
I am not an apologist for rampant cloning or anything like that. I see in the Bills Digest reference to the catechism of the Catholic Church and I guess that is what was driving the Hon Bill English’s comments tonight. I have respect for that but believe we must put in place something in the meantime with the ability to have flexibility which is what Dianne Yates’ bill does. After this long gestation the bill is now before us to pass its third reading. I certainly add my support to it acknowledging in doing so that we must be cautious in this area which I think is what Dianne Yates in good faith has set out to be.