Chadwick Steve: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Chadwick Steve: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:667;Page:14461] 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call in the third reading debate on the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill. I think that most of the issues have been canvassed but I too want to put on record that in 2004 the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act was leading-edge legislation. I worked with Dr Paul Hutchison at the time and Sue Kedgley was on the Health Committee. We were very aware that technology was moving faster than those in the clinical field and that there was a real need at that time to look at the environment which needed policies regulation and the law. I acknowledge Di Yates for the legislation. It resulted from a member’s bill and it was remarkable to have such leading-edge legislation come forward as a member’s bill so I want to acknowledge her and put that on the record. 
In New Zealand the first baby born as a result of in vitro fertilisation treatment was born 26 years ago. That occurred in New Zealand not long after the first baby in the world was born as a result of that treatment. I think about 4 years later we developed the same technology in New Zealand. We started to move very fast because New Zealand clinicians are very nimble in the field to pick up global trends. It is amazing to think that from 2004 to 2010—6 years later—really there are only minor amendments to the legislation. We always said we would come back to have another look at the legislation. The call for this amendment did not come from the field from clinicians; it came I understand from a legal opinion that went to the Minister seeking clarification. I understand the Health Committee worked really well together again on this bill. 
There is another issue that I would like to raise. It relates to a provision that I am pleased to see is maintained in this bill and has not been knocked out and that is the empowerment of the Advisory Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology to issue and promulgate guidelines. When we first discussed the legislation that was an issue for us because guidelines were not developed at that stage and we thought they needed to be developed in order to keep up with the really rapid trends in in vitro fertilisation. It is great to see that the guidelines remain part of the advisory committee’s function because it was very important for the Ethics Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology to be advised on that matter. It is difficult to put guidelines into primary legislation but the right to review guidelines and keep them current is still here. 
I think that in vitro fertilisation is an issue for people. The research is moving rapidly. I read in research just a couple of weeks ago that fresher gametes may lead to a greater growth in height. We had never heard of that when we considered the legislation in 2004 so we can see how the technology really ramps along and how we learn about best practice safety in practice and quality of practice in this field. 
This is a good amendment. I think that at the time we always felt the limit on storage was 10 years and never retrospective from the date in 2004. There were issues then and there are some interesting issues now when we talk to a younger generation of women like Nikki Kaye and others like my daughters who say they may not have found the perfect partner yet to have a child with so they will put their eggs on ice. I think heavens that is something we would not have considered. I can see Georgina looking bemused but that is how young people use the market health research and health practice to make decisions now. They do so because they might be 38 or 40 and a bit over the edge by the time they look at having a child so they will put an egg on ice now and it will be pretty fresh when it is thawed. Those are things that we do not even think of as legislators. The mind boggles really about where the technology could go in the future. At the time I can remember Di Yates being very concerned about the cloning of the human embryo and we kept that at the top of our minds too as something that would be banned in New Zealand. 
On this bill I say “cheers” to those who worked on the 2004 legislation and got it pretty much right. It is great that we get legal opinions to say we need to keep up with advice or give clarification. We are very happy to support this bill. I was on the select committee and I was called in one day when the committee was talking about the grace period of 6 months for storage before the disposal of the gamete. I think that is sensible. If in 6 months’ time we have not found the donor of either the sperm or the egg I think disposal is probably acceptable and we thought that 6 months was a sensible time. I wonder whether in 6 years’ time we will be back here and saying we need to make some more amendments to this legislation. I am sure that we will because the technology in the clinical field races ahead of legislators. I congratulate all those who work in this field. At the time I can remember that the environment was one of being rather scared of this legislation; even in 2004 people were timid and cautious about the future and how fast we were going into the future. But again New Zealanders are seen being as quite leading edge in our approach to human-assisted reproductive technology. I congratulate the practitioners and all those in the field and say we support this bill. Thank you.