Dalziel Lianne: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Dalziel Lianne: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:659;Page:8338] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I thank the member Dr Paul Hutchison for his kind comments but I think he inadvertently said that the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill had been subsumed into a Government measure. That bill was passed in the name of Dianne Yates. She originally introduced the legislation back in 1996 and it was a personal triumph of her tenacity in that regard that legislation was passed in this House. I understand that the member may have been referring to something other than that but the legislation was definitely passed in Dianne Yates’ name. It was really important to her and it drove her. 
I also acknowledge Dr Paul Hutchison for his support because I know that he was on the Health Committee that looked at that particular legislation. As he said quite rightly a lot of people were engaged in the process of developing legislation that is really really important in this very very difficult area. Although the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill is a justice bill—it was introduced by the Minister of Justice—it is being referred to the Health Committee which is a very good committee on which we have the Hon Ruth Dyson a tremendous member of Parliament and a great spokesperson on health. I think the fact that it is a justice bill going to the Health Committee indicates for anyone listening outside that it is a complex issue because it involves the law and it involves very human emotions. That is why I think it is tremendous that the Government is taking the step that it is taking today to address an issue that has arisen since the original legislation was introduced. 
The one thing that I am still a little bit unclear about is how this bill came to be introduced. I listened very carefully to the Minister’s speech and he talked about the fact that a legal opinion was obtained which indicated that a particular section of the original legislation created a question mark around whether the 10-year rule would apply from the date of introduction of the legislation or whether it was a 10-year limitation that applied carte blanche. I think the Government now has advice that it is the latter and that is why it is important to have the cut-off point at the introduction date of the legislation which takes us back to 22 November 2004. 
I was not quite sure what brought it up in the first place. Was something brought to the Government’s attention? Did the Advisory Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology itself bring a matter to the Government and say that it had a concern? Did somebody outside the parliamentary process or Government processes indicate that there may be an issue that could lead to somebody questioning the legality of holding the gametes for more than 10 years? I think answering these questions would be really useful and maybe the answers will come out as part of the select committee as these things work through. I see Dr Paul Hutchison nodding his head; as the chair of the Health Committee he could take a particular interest in this matter. 
On that basis we are very very keen to see this bill introduced and referred to the select committee. The previous speaker on this side of the House Steve Chadwick said that she was pretty sure that the bill had within it a mechanism for review but over the tea break I did not get a chance to double-check that. I think the select committee will probably refer to whether there is a review provision in the bill. It is probably precisely the sort of thing that we would want to be reviewed in terms of legislation that is necessary but often difficult because it is dealing with issues of the law and human nature itself. 
I am very pleased that the Government is obviously taking this issue very seriously. The original legislation itself is upheld by the fact that it is being amended in this way. The intention of that legislation is being upheld by the amendment before the House. I support the amendment going to the select committee and I look forward to the report back to the House.