Woodhouse Michael: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Woodhouse Michael: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13733] 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I begin my short call on the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill by acknowledging the growing number of New Zealand couples for whom fertility issues are not straightforward. I think Steve Chadwick mentioned that 15 percent of New Zealand couples have difficulty conceiving naturally and 5 percent resort to in vitro fertilisation treatment. There could be any number of reasons for that. First-time parents are getting older and diet lifestyle and even men wearing jeans that are too tight have all been considered causes. 
Hon David Parker 
: Cycling. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: Exactly—apparently cycling has some problem associated with it which is a very good reason not to do too much of it. There are a number of reasons that scientists are still coming to understand. 
There is no doubt that it is a difficult journey but I think it is made easier thanks to the outstanding work of our medical scientists. I was amazed at the statistic that my colleague Dr Jackie Blue came up with when she said that 70 percent of people having two courses of in vitro fertilisation treatment are successful in conceiving. That is probably considerably more successful than the old-fashioned way although not nearly as fun. It certainly is a tribute that in the 32 years since Louise Brown was born our human-assisted reproductive technology has come as far as it has. 
It would also be a rare thing indeed for a health select committee anywhere in the world to be chaired by someone who could speak with as much authority on human-assisted reproductive technology as the Health Committee’s chair Dr Paul Hutchison. He has been an obstetrician and gynaecology specialist and has a wealth of experience on this issue. Under his leadership the Health Committee which is pretty collegial overall certainly benefited greatly from his wisdom and experience in this area. That is not to say that we agreed on all things; the Green member of the committee Mr Hague is an example of that with his suggestion that the bill should be subject to review which Mr Lees-Galloway also mentioned. I think that 5 years was suggested as the review period. 
I will pull back from the bill specifically and touch on the issue of review generally. It seems to me that there is a bit of a mood for review among the Greens and a preference for somehow curtailing the powers of the executive by instituting the review process in bills that are passed. To my mind it is both unnecessary and logistically cumbersome. In the case of this bill an issue was identified a remedy was put in place and amending legislation in the form of this bill will hopefully be passed. There is no need for an arbitrary review. It would be cumbersome as we could easily become bogged down in reviews of legislation because an Act arbitrarily requires it getting in the way of other matters that might be more pressing. 
As Mrs Roy mentioned the science in the past may have been described as uncertain but I prefer to consider it dynamic. As Heather Roy and Paul Hutchison pointed out the old uncertainty about how long embryos gametes and eggs will last in that state has largely gone away. In the UK I understand in certain circumstances there is provision for storage of embryos and gametes for up to 55 years. I am not sure who on earth would want them after 55 years but it is an indication that the science allows for storage over that length of time. The recommendation that the 10-year limit not be a hard limit is a really good one. There are many reasons why we might not be able to find the people who have ultimate ownership of them and it would be inappropriate to have the embryos destroyed after 10 years and 1 day. 
Finally I add my thanks to the officials who did a great job of answering our questions and the suggestions of the committee and the submitters. I think the officials were mostly from the Ministry of Justice. I thank Mr Beresford in particular whom we will be seeing during the Committee stage. I commend the officials for helping the committee through this process. With those comments I commend the bill to the House.