Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. You might recall that the last time this bill was before the Committee I raised a concern that New Zealand First has—that by voting split votes we were not able to identify who was for and who was against. I subsequently raised it as a point of order in the House, and the Speaker referred me back to the Committee to raise it, which I am doing now. I believe that in the interests of true democracy the public are entitled to know from each party who voted for, who voted against, and who abstained.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I have a ruling to give.

I would like to speak to the point of order, if I may. In respect of the original motion that was put by Lindsay Tisch at the commencement of this bill, and the motion that was put to seek leave from the House that Standing Order 144(1)(b) be suspended—that being the Standing Order that requires a vote for either the Ayes, Noes, or abstentions to be cast—at that point New Zealand First, along with any other party or any other individual in the Chamber, had the opportunity to object to that Standing Order being set aside in order that the split voting of more than two parties—I think it was three parties—could occur during the course of this bill. I suggest, through you Madam Chairperson if I may, that if Mr Brown and New Zealand First wish to see an amendment to that Standing Order and to have the issues relating to individual members’ votes known, he and his party should make a submission to the Standing Orders Committee. I say to Mr Brown that should he wish to identify which members voted for which part, I can speak on behalf of the National Party and say that he is very welcome to ring each individual member.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I thank the member for his contribution. I say to Mr Brown that there is no contention on this. The point is that leave has been given for split party votes on this bill. There is no argument.

Let me just clarify one or two things. I say to the honourable member, through you Madam Chairperson, that I do not think that anybody in New Zealand First believed that access would be denied to finding out who voted which way.

💬 Simon Power: Read the Standing Orders.

The member says I should read the Standing Orders. If upon request I went through the Committee and asked who was voting this way and who was voting that way, I believe we are entitled to know. I have had telephone calls from the public urging me to pursue this matter. I have looked up Standing Order 6, “Amendment or revocation of Standing Orders”, which states: “A Standing Order may be amended or revoked only by motion with notice.” I have a notice of motion here, if necessary. On behalf of New Zealand First I am not prepared to let any other bill receive a split vote unless we get an assurance that we will get the names of the people. I suggest that this issue should be addressed.

I think, with respect to the member, that the Standing Orders are clear. The practice has been clear since the Standing Orders were changed. I think the suggestion made by Mr Power is a very good one. I say to any member or party that has a concern about a particular Standing Order that we have a committee at which such matters can be raised. I urge the member to give a considered submission to that committee because it is an environment in which it will be looked at carefully and all the permutations and implications could be examined by a group of senior members who have spent years looking at those things. It is how the Standing Orders are improved. I suggest to the member when he makes such a rash statement that it may be that his party may want to use the split-vote capability. I suggest for his consideration that any day when a party gives a party vote that is less than its full entitlement he does not know which members have voted for or against a matter. It is simply in the nature of the way in which we vote in this Chamber, and I give that as an example of how there are wider considerations here. I urge the member to use the Standing Orders Committee as the appropriate vehicle to address his concern.

I just to want to make our position clear. We have used a split vote and we will probably use it again, but we have never used it on the basis that we will not divulge who voted for and who voted against.

💬 Simon Power: Nobody is saying we won’t. Give us a ring and we’ll tell you.

I say to Mr Power that I am not prepared to do that.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Mr Brown was speaking. He had the floor on a point of order. I just want to clarify the matter. It is actually very simple. The point is that the House can give leave as it so wishes, and that is exactly what it has done. Mr Power is right, as Mr Burton has reinforced, that the member has the right to take the matter to the Standing Orders Committee, and I certainly suggest that he could do that. However, I assure the member that everything has been done correctly. There is no intention on anybody’s part to stop a member from doing anything, but the House has taken the action that it did, and it had every right to do that. If the member wants to know how individual members have voted he will have to contact them individually. It is not a matter for the Chairperson to look behind the numbers in any party vote. If a member calls a party vote the Chairperson, or the Speaker for that matter, has no right to know who did not or did vote.

National concurs with your ruling, Madam Chairperson, as we did the last time this subject came up. The member said he was unaware that names would not be divulged, but it is very clear—

💬 Peter Brown: That’s not the point.

No, it is very clear that the House gave leave, which I sought. Every party agreed to it, otherwise it would not have happened and we would have gone back to a party vote system. I recall that Mr Brown actually sought the leave of the House to have a party vote when he was not happy with the result the last time this subject came up. The member sought leave, and it was denied because we were already proceeding by way of a split vote. We have agreed that on this bill there can be split votes, and that is the way it has to remain. Simon Power and Minister Burton have identified the process that can be gone through and we concur with that. Unfortunately in the member’s case the House has given leave and that is the process we need to follow through to its conclusion.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I have ruled on this matter. It is a very simple ruling. There is nothing more to be said or added to the ruling.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Is it a new point of order, because I have ruled?

It is a new point of order, Madam Chairperson. The point is that it has been indicated that this is a matter that Mr Brown should take up with the Standing Orders Committee. That is the right advice and I do not dispute the ruling. What I would ask is whether the Chair or the Speaker, in these circumstances, where this has been the subject of debate in the Chamber, would provide an opinion to that committee. I believe that people listening to the debate may be concerned that this device could be a cover to enable members of Parliament to say one thing to one group and another thing to another group without being outed. That is not good for the reputation of the House. I ask you to form a view or to have an input, given that it has arisen when you have been the Chairperson. It is a concern to me that people listening will be concerned that we are trying to cover up votes. The ACT party is quite prepared to make it plain what its split vote consists of.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member makes a fair point.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson—one brief point, if I may. I think it is very important, especially after that last comment, to stress that this procedure has not been used in any way to provide secrecy or to cover up the voting. It seems to be a most efficient way of allowing people to differentiate rather than having to ring the bells and take up hours and hours of members’ time. As I invited Mr Brown last time, I am sure if he were to write to the whips, they would be more than happy to raise that with their caucuses, and let him know absolutely who voted which way. I do not think there is an issue there for each individual whip to call. But I would just like to repeat the invitation I made to him 2 weeks ago.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. This is related, and I am not disputing your ruling at all.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): We are dealing with Mr Franks’ point of order.

I wish to speak to that. We are now in a slightly difficult position, actually. Because if Mr Franks’ view, and Mr Brown’s view, is that members are trying to cover up the way they are voting, by the use of the mechanism provided in the Standing Orders for a split vote, that is quite a serious accusation, which reflects on all 120 members of Parliament. I made the offer right at the start of these points of orders in relation to Mr Brown’s matter, to cooperate with him in any way, as Minister Benson-Pope said would be appropriate. But I think we need to think very carefully about where we leave this ruling. Because, yes, there are points to be made about the public’s view on how this voting system works, and it is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, and the right forum to deal with it is the Standing Orders Committee. But to let that accusation lie on the table in the Committee is something that I do believe you will have to deal with.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Well, I am not too sure whether Mr Franks really made an accusation. He made it more as an observation that, in listening to the debate, there might be an impression given. I do think that if we took the original suggestion, which I certainly can pass on to the Speaker, that the matter be raised with the Standing Orders Committee, as was first suggested, that would deal with Mr Franks’ point of order.

I was hoping that this might be seen by the Chair as a matter that affects Parliament generally, and not seen just as a hobby horse of Mr Brown. I do not think that this is a party matter—this is a matter where we all have an interest in not looking as if we are colluding in trying to hide our views on these matters where there is strong emotions.

Yes, but the proper course is for the Standing Orders Committee to look at it, and that certainly can be done, as was suggested originally. Did Mr Brown want to add something more?

Yes, I do want to add something, because it was in an earlier discussion with Mr Franks where I alerted him to the fact that I had had a phone call that made me pursue this matter with some vigour, because a member of the public did not know who was voting which way on this bill, and there was an inconsistency in the way parties were voting, and that person was entitled to know. Suggestions were made to me, and I cannot prove it, that MPs were saying one thing here, and another thing there. That is why I raised the issue in the first place.

I just want to make it clear, Mr Brown, that if anyone is making an allegation of improper motives, that is dealt with as a matter of privilege. It is not a matter on which the Chair can rule.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I regret taking another call, but I think the matter cannot be left with uncertainty. I think it is incumbent on all of us not to add to the confusion of members of the public who are listening. I am sure that is what is being done. I tell Mr Brown that we need to be very careful about that. The voting system is as it has been for a considerable period of time, and I repeat, every time a party vote is less than its full entitlement the question as to who is voting which way could arise in the mind of anyone listening if he or she thought about it.

Now I do not know about the member, but I am regularly asked my views on things by people, and I give them my views. If they ask me how I voted, I tell them how I voted. In the end, that is our individual and collective accountability. But I think it is important that we do not leave, and add to, the confusion that people may be feeling. If there is a question—and there is, because it has been raised here—I urge the member, because he has taken it seriously, to put it down on paper and make a submission to the Standing Orders Committee. Clearly the Chair has indicated she will raise it with the Speaker as well, and I think that is fair and proper. I think we should all give careful consideration to the matter, but not add fuel to the fire of confusion by perhaps getting into any more speculation on what people may or may not be thinking.

I think the matter has been fairly dealt with, and certainly we need to move on. A ruling has been given.

I will continue on from the excellent speech made my colleague Dr Lynda Scott, who was talking on Part 4, “Enforcement and miscellaneous provisions”. There was some concern as to the transitional provisions and powers that the Director-General of Health might have in relation to the advisory committee, pending its establishment. I think one of the concerns was that here was an individual who was not elected and could take on powers that were inappropriate.

It is important to point out again the fact that human assisted reproductive technology in New Zealand has been operating very successfully, and without any major problems, for over 20 years without specific legislation. One of the great strengths has been the fact that all the fertility clinics are required to be members of the Australasian reproductive technology group, which, in itself, is a policeman of standards and requires extraordinarily high levels of accountability. Over the years that body has closed down clinics and has required individuals to stop practising. For instance, one individual in Western Australia was known to over-stimulate the ovaries of women, which consequently managed to produce many eggs. That practice subjected women to having multiple births, which would obviously endanger both them and the resulting babies, and it was firmly, from within the group, put on its head.

I know that the clinic I worked in had some small statistical analysis accounting that we had failed to do. It was a very minor thing, but we were threatened with closure. We were given a period of 6 months in which to right this, which we did for a whole variety of reasons, including the professional reputation that was so important. I want to assure the Committee that there is this 9-month interim period where the Director-General of Health is deemed as the advisory committee, which should not cause any problems. In fact, I think it is extremely unlikely that that would be the case.

It is also important to realise that in clause 65, “Powers of authorised persons”, there are some very clear powers in terms of enforcement whereby the authorised person can enter the place, inspect the place, make copies, and also search and seize. It is very important to have the right balance in relation to these powers, because clearly if authorised persons have the possibility of searching and seizing in vitro gametes, embryos, or in vitro foetuses, it is hugely important that they have very judicious reasons for doing so. However, what we do not want in this country is the possibility of a mad scientist in some corner of Kaitāia, or deepest, darkest Dargaville, carrying out illegal operations, and clearly clause 65 will ensure that that does not happen.

Clause 66, of course, goes on to refer to the entry of dwelling houses, where the same powers of searching and seizing can take place if they are justified. In the miscellaneous provisions we turn to clause 72 and the regulations and regulating powers that the Governor-General may, by Order in Council, make.

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to Part 4, “Enforcement and miscellaneous provisions”, of the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill. New Zealand First will be supporting this part.

One of the strengths of Part 4 is that enforcement is very clearly specified. There is no misunderstanding about what can or cannot happen. Clause 65 specifies the powers of the authorised persons. Clause 66 outlines what has to happen when a dwelling place is entered. Clause 68 lists the notice requirements when a place is entered. Clause 69 specifies what has to happen with the disposal of property seized. So the part very clearly outlines what enforcement there will be. There is no misunderstanding about what can or cannot happen.

It is very pleasing to see that the fines for operating outside the law are quite considerable. Clause 72(1)(b) specifies that the fines must not exceed $20,000. We know that the fertility clinics are operating professionally already, and that this would be a considerable fine for them. A wide range of enforcement instruments are available within this bill, so people who have concerns need not have them. As Dr Paul Hutchison pointed out, we need to be aware that the fertility clinics all belong to one professional group, the Australasian reproductive technology group, and have done for the last 20 years. As he pointed out last week, those clinics are audited very regularly to ensure that they are following the very strict standards and quality requirements that are set down, and that are necessary to follow in order to be a member of this group. We must say that in the past operators have worked very ethically in this particular area.

We were quite reassured to see that the Minister has included on Supplementary Order Paper 267 a new clause 69A, concerning the detection of import and export offences to any gamete, embryo, etc. It is an additional safeguard for those concerned about this area. The procedure that has to be followed has been listed. We must admit that the existing situation has worked very well for the last 20 to 25 years without legislation of this nature. However, it is pleasing to see that legislation has come up in this area, which is one that is advancing quite rapidly. New Zealand First will be supporting this part.

The previous speaker said that New Zealanders should have no concerns. She was very, very appraising of the existing situation. She said that no one should have any concerns, and mentioned the stipulations in this bill about search and seizure powers for illegal activities, the fines, and so forth. Although the Green Party is very happy with the powers that exist in Part 4—we are happy they are there, that such powers do exist—we have very real concerns about how one would know when a fertility clinic was committing an illegal act. The reason for our concerns is that the body that sets the rules about what is legal and what is illegal is a ministerial advisory committee, and it issues guidelines. Essentially, it is the guidelines that will decide which activities fertility clinics undertake are legal and which are illegal.

As I have previously pointed out in the debate, when we look at the fine print of these guidelines we find they are extremely vague—so vague that I believe that in many circumstances it would be very difficult for the police, or whoever would be using these search and seizure powers, to work out what is legal for fertility clinics to undertake and what is illegal. It is all well and good to have all these search and seizure powers and to have fines—everything sounds very reassuring, as the previous speaker said—but in truth, when we look at the earlier provisions and at how the decision will be made as to what activities are legal and what are illegal, then I am afraid to say that this is where the bill falls down utterly. We do not even have regulations. Therefore, the people who do the search and seizure will be acting on policy that is not even in regulation. How can we enforce, through search and seizure powers, something that is not even stipulated in regulation? It is simply a very vaguely worded guideline. It states that if possible we should do this and wherever possible we should do that, but there is no clear and prescriptive wording. How can we then expect officials, when they enter a fertility clinic to use their search and seizure powers, to be able to decide what is legal and what is illegal?

I am afraid to say that this whole part, while it appears to be reassuring to the member for New Zealand First, is not reassuring to us. We cannot see how, in the absence of any regulations in this area, there is clear guidance for people to go in and use these powers. Admittedly, schedule 1 lists some activities that are prohibited, so presumably for people trying to create an animal-human hybrid embryo or a cloned embryo, or trying to develop a genetically modified gamete or embryo, then those activities are clearly stipulated as illegal under the Act, as are the things they would be able to do. But anything that is not in the prohibited section in schedule 1 basically will not even be spelt out in regulation and, in our view, will therefore be very, very difficult to enforce.

I think it is very, very sad that this bill is so weak. Although it is great that we do have the search and seizure powers that will act as a deterrent, presumably on fertility clinics, I am afraid they are weak deterrents, because the legislation is so loose, so flexible, so weak, and so lacking in regulation.

I stand on behalf of United Future to speak to Part 4, including schedule 2, of the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill. I want, just very briefly, to carry on from my Green colleague and say that although United Future applauds the fact that schedule 2 has a very sensible search warrant process by which any activity that has not been approved can be investigated, I think we have to understand that it is the implementation of guidelines that will be policed.

I have here the draft consultation document on the guidelines for the preimplantation genetic diagnosis procedure, which has already been circulated for consultation. These are the kinds of guidelines that the search warrant will be used to enforce. When we flick through the document—and I will not bore the Committee with some of the contents—we can see that at this stage it is certainly a document for discussion. This is what has been recommended. I can find nothing in here that provides for something to be enforced. It is really a list of information, facts, concerns, and comments on societal trends and attitudes towards certain procedures. Nowhere does it state in black and white what somebody can or cannot do. In fact, some of the recommendations put the responsibility to develop appropriate procedures on to the fertility clinics themselves. We could hardly go in and arrest people in a fertility clinic for procedures that they themselves are responsible for developing.

This strikes at the heart of my concerns. When one thinks about what guidelines mean, one assumes that a sense of direction is suggested or implied. When we read this very first set, which has a direct implication on the legislation, the warning bells go off, because there is no clear direction. It contains a series of facts and pieces of information that I recommend the member from New Zealand First has a good look at, because that is what the search warrant will be used for to try to enforce. There is nothing to enforce, because the content is so general. Our concern has always been that we should be able to understand very clearly what is and what is not allowed. The original schedule 2 in the bill—which has now been superseded—was very much more prescriptive and clear about what needed to be enforced and what was acceptable and unacceptable.

I also have here—almost in response to the original schedule 2—some of the issues that do not even get a mention in this bill. These, I guess, will now be subject to the ministerial advisory committee, which will make a series of recommendations and develop a set of guidelines to give—once the Minister has given them the tick—to the ethics committees. A huge number of procedures and possibilities are not even mentioned or outlined in this bill, and the decisions on them will be handed over to a whole raft of people. Somehow, under this new schedule 2, we will be able to enforce them through search warrants. I am hugely concerned. I am kind of glad in some ways, although I question why we already have guidelines when this bill has not even been passed into law yet. How are we already so far down the track on this procedure? It is full steam ahead, and there are media releases stating that the Minister has pretty well made up her mind about which way she will vote on this matter, despite the fact that the consultation date has not even closed yet.

So already some huge concerns are developing before the royal assent has even been given. United Future is concerned—certainly I am very, very concerned—about the search warrant and enforcement provisions in the bill. Although they look good, my big question is: what are they enforcing? They are enforcing some very vague guidelines that are left hugely open to interpretation. I do not know how anybody will be held accountable under this legislation.

I rise for the ACT party on this part of the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill. As I have indicated previously, I believe that this legislation is a classic example of slogan law: it responds to itches without identifying a mischief. The ACT party’s position on this will be a split vote, because although some members believe that the issues warrant some of the attention the bill gives them, most of us believe that this is smokescreen-type legislation.

This is legislation that tries to appear caring about children and that focuses on an almost non-existent problem. It focuses on children who will be born to parents who could hardly care more about the welfare of their children. It focuses on areas of research that are cutting edge—areas whereby, if New Zealand does not participate, others will. So if the people who are promoting this legislation are worried about the overall morality of this kind of research, then probably all they are doing in this legislation is pushing quite a bit of it offshore—for example, by putting a blanket 10-year ban on the life of a suspended embryo, or putting a blanket 14-day limit on the periods that an embryo can be kept in development in vitro.

This enforcement provision says that if people suspect that that is going on somewhere, then they can come without warrant, with as many people as they think are needed, to bust the joint. They can come into a building and seize equipment. Indeed, they can seize the embryos that may well belong to other people—people who have sacrificed enormously to get to a position of perhaps being able to have a child. They can interrupt what is going on, take records, copy, mark, and close down an operation. They can do that on pain of a $20,000 fine. They can do all this in a society that allows kids to be born who are not even wanted, that allows kids to be conceived by mothers who are in a state of total inebriation or drug intoxication, that allows kids to spend their first vital 12 or 14 weeks—whatever period is crucial to a particular development—in a state where they are permanently damaged, and that allows thousands of kids every year to be born without any way of knowing who their father is. This part provides that, without a warrant, people can enter premises where they think that that kind of thing might be happening, where someone is breaching this law, or even where someone is researching without complying with the conditions of the ethics committee. This bill says that those risks, none of which have matured—Dr Hutchison told us in his speech how well-managed and how ethical the people in this industry already are; I think he said that in all the years this industry has operated, he has not been aware of any non-compliance, or words to that effect—

💬 Dr Paul Hutchison: No.

I am sorry, have I said too much?

💬 Dr Paul Hutchison: I said there had not been any major problems.

I am sorry, I am not trying to put words into the member’s mouth. But with this bill Parliament is searching for a non-mischief and is giving draconian powers to officials to exercise, when all the conduct we are talking about is probably well-intentioned. Parliament has enough deliberate evil to worry about—enough offences, enough recklessness, and enough people who are breeding and producing children who will never be loved, and who will have all kinds of problems in their lives because no one cares about them. And here is Parliament patting itself on the back—and I am sure that the member in the chair, Dianne Yates, who is sponsoring this bill, is sincere—without reflecting on just what the bill says about our priorities, about the medical profession, about researchers, and about New Zealanders’ efforts generally.

I think this is a disgrace, and Part 4, which gives the enforcement powers, simply underpins it. It imposes $20,000 fines for offences that can be created by a committee. The committee creates the offence when it imposes the conditions. We do not have any idea what kind of conditions it may impose. For all we know, it may suddenly impose a condition that Māori embryos can be under the control only of Māori people. I believe that would be racism. It could be that someone who objected to that kind of racism would then be busted by the officials and have to pay a $20,000 fine.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

I want to take another call on this part, because other parliamentary colleagues have talked about several things that I want to talk about. Before the dinner break Mr Franks talked about what he saw as a complete nonsense for those of us who have some serious concerns about the bill. He talked about a society where large numbers of children are born in unplanned and unfortunate circumstances—children who arrive unwanted and who live unwanted, maybe even for large parts of their childhood—which is somehow a lot more scary than this very planned approach to parenthood.

I remind the Committee, because this applies to Part 4 where we talk about the implementation and policing of those provisions, that part of this technology allows for the fact that children may be brought into being for purposes other than those we would normally think of bringing children into the world for. We imagine that most people want to bring children into the world to love and nurture, but there are a whole lot of other reasons, which now become possibilities, for why one would want to have a child.

Firstly, there is the huge possibility that a child may be designed to provide body parts for a sickly sibling. That is a rather interesting motive. As this technology is advanced under these very flimsy guidelines, another concern I have is that we start to bring into being children who have been so tampered with—I guess advocates would say in a positive way—that those children are now born with a whole new set of expectations upon them that most of us never considered when we had our children. We had our children, we accepted them as they came, and loved them regardless of any warts and glimps that might have been part of who they were.

The new potential that this technology brings along is that we can now have a far greater say, and a huge investment—and I am talking in monetary terms—in the outcomes of the children who are born. Because of the investment we have made, these children now arrive with a huge set of expectations upon them to perform and to succeed in ways that, previously, loving parents did not have the ability to have expectations about. We need to be very clear that this legislation has the potential, at one end of the spectrum, to change the face of parenting completely.

I can remember reading stories of early days in England where people were not allowed to marry, or were discouraged from marrying, below their class. When a gene-rich generation of babies is developed who have had a huge amount of money invested in them by their parents, maybe a new class of people will be developed with a similar set of biases, concerns, and pressures upon them that we thought we had moved away from. That is why I am so concerned about the very loose nature of the guidelines that this legislation puts up.

When one looks at the British system that the original bill of Dianne Yates was based upon, which is a strongly regulatory and licensing regime, we see that it has never stopped the British medical profession from developing that technology, and from moving forward and making genuine advances in that area. Nothing has been held back by that system. The fear that by going into a more tightly regulated system we would somehow be holding back medical advances and increasing levels of suffering, is just a complete nonsense. In other jurisdictions that is certainly not the case when Parliament has chosen to keep a very close eye on the development of this technology, and to make informed choices.

I wish to take a short call on Part 4, “Enforcement and miscellaneous provisions”. The reason for this call is that over the dinner break I had been considering the speech made by Stephen Franks and his great concerns about the powers of search and seizure without the authorisation of a District Court judge or court registrar. As the bill stands, it allows an authorised person to carry out those powers in clause 65, which include entering a place, inspecting, taking or making copies, and search and seizure, including search and seizure of any equipment, but also of an in vitro gamete, an in vitro embryo, or documents or records.

The major concern is the inappropriate seizure of in vitro gametes, embryos, or in vitro foetuses by the so-called authorised person, without having gone to the length of getting authority through a District Court judge or court registrar. Clearly, on the practicality of this situation in New Zealand, it is unlikely to occur. However, they are quite draconian measures if one considers the importance of in vitro gametes, embryos, or foetuses, and the likelihood that in their removal from a laboratory, or in transportation, those elements could be destroyed, or certainly ruined for the purposes for which their biological parents expected them to be used.

I am aware of the fact that in some of the clinics around Australasia there has been fierce competition and there have been situations whereby, for one reason or another, they have brought law suits against each other. One could be concerned if for some commercial reason the so-called authorised person was indeed given false information leading to seizure of gametes, embryos, or foetuses. I thought that there may just be some use in putting in a new clause 65(1)(j) that would state: “In order for authorised persons to exercise their powers of seizure they must first obtain the authority of a District Court judge or Court Registrar.” Really, that is just to ensure that appropriate process has been gone through, and that every effort is made to ensure that delicate gametes, embryos, or foetuses would not be inappropriately transported, particularly without the knowledge of the people who had the greatest interest. I would like the Committee to consider that amendment. It is a small amendment, but I think that in very exceptional circumstances such a situation could cause extraordinary damage.

I would be very pleased if Dianne Yates were prepared to take a call to give us her opinion as to where, and how far, those powers of search and seizure could be abused. I believe that my amendment does give belt and braces to ensure that in the very rare likelihood that that happened, there would at least be a court registrar or District Court judge ensuring that the proper process had taken place.

First of all, I think that the matter just brought up by Mr Hutchison was discussed by the Health Committee. But I would also like to talk about the amendment in the name of Bill English to clause 75, “Director-General of Health to be advisory committee pending its establishment”. Subclause (1) states: “Until the expiry of 9 months after the date on which this Act receives the Royal assent, the Director-General of Health is deemed to be the advisory committee for the purposes of this Act.” Mr English’s amendment proposes that we change the expression “9 months” in clause 75(1) to the expression “5 years”, which I think is a very strange amendment. I cannot see why we would delay the appointment of an advisory committee for 5 years, when we already have clause 79, “Provisions to be treated as guidelines in interim period”, and when a considerable lead-in is already provided for in the bill. So I really do not see any point to that amendment in the name of Bill English, nor do I understand why we would want to continue with one person, rather than with an advisory committee, for a longer period of time than the transition period. I do not see much logic behind that amendment put forward by Bill English.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to the amendment to clause 64 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 267 in his name be agreed to.

to omit subclause (2)(c)(i), and substitute the following subparagraphs:

(i) involves a contravention of any of sections 8 to 13:

(ia) involves a contravention of section 25A:.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 267 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to clause 64 as amended be agreed to.