Kedgley Sue: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Kedgley Sue: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15924] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I did not finish talking about the Green’s final amendment to clause 72. I would like to take a final call on this one. 
Richard Worth 
: You’re jumping ahead. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: I am sorry the member is absolutely right. I will go back to new clause 35A. I thank the member for pointing out that I have jumped ahead of myself. 
Basically I want to make it absolutely clear that the Green Party is supporting this bill but only because we believe it is slightly better than the status quo. We are not supporting this bill because we think it is marvellous and we are enthusiastic about it. What we did think was an excellent bill was Dianne Yates’ original bill before it was gutted. The original bill set up a proper licensing regime and a system based on what is used in the United Kingdom—a system similar to that in Canada and other places. 
The bill has been completely gutted. It must be distressing to Dianne Yates but I am sure she takes the view of the Green Party that it is better to have something in this area than nothing. At least we have outlawed some of the worst excesses—namely genetic engineering and cloning—and at least we will have a committee that will consider the issues and call for submissions. 
I am interested that some of our members were as horrified as I was to read the guidelines that have been put out. All we will have in the future are those waffly guidelines. I agree with Judy Turner. Frankly it is shocking that the guidelines would leave it up to providers to decide on such fundamental issues as what is a serious genetic disorder and what is not. It is completely left up to the fertility clinics. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: An excellent idea. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: Well that is not what Bill English was saying. Of course I know that some members on that side of the Chamber have a background in fertility clinics and from their perspective I am sure that fertility clinics would like the absolute minimum of regulation. Well they have it in this bill. They have virtually the green light to do whatever they like. We have a bit of a regulatory facade in many respects which makes it sound as though we have some sort of control over these areas but frankly when we look at the fine print we see that the guidelines are virtually unenforceable. What will happen if some fertility clinic goes beyond these wiffly-waffly guidelines? How will someone try to enforce them? I have read out some of these things such as “they should do this” and “they should take measures for that” but frankly the guidelines are completely unenforceable. 
I appeal to members to do the simple thing of putting them into regulation. The Associate Minister of Justice David Benson-Pope is here. I know he has taken this bill on at the last minute and I know he is very very busy but I appeal to him to show a little common sense. What is the problem with following the example that has just gone through the Canadian Parliament and giving the guidelines the force of regulation? Why is the Labour Party so utterly opposed to putting regulations on these extraordinarily contentious areas? We have regulations for almost every conceivable thing. The Regulations Review Committee deals with regulations morning noon and night. The chairman of that committee Richard Worth is sitting here. Why on earth would we not have a regulation surrounding such issues as the taking of gametes from deceased persons embryo splitting and other such contentious issues? Why would we allow that to go to an unelected unaccountable committee which as Bill English pointed out is basically a law unto itself and not accountable to anybody? Why will we not even allow those issues to be debated and discussed in this Parliament? 
I will let members know when we come to my amendment to Dr Hutchison’s Supplementary Order Paper that our amendment states specifically that if the issues are inconsequential and small then of course the Minister can say they do not need to come to Parliament. We are saying that only on contentious issues—those about which New Zealanders are likely to feel very strongly—should we in this House have the ability to discuss and debate them. Let us make no mistake about it this committee is basically setting policy.