Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill

I move, That the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill be now read a third time. I wish to express my gratitude to the House on the passing of my bill, the main aim of which is to ban the cloning of humans for reproductive purposes. I wish to speak a little on the history of the bill, the progress of the legislation, the issues involved—moral, legal, and ethical—the risks, doubts, and problems, and the need to monitor the outcomes. I will also give thanks to those who assisted at all stages of the process.

The bill was lodged and balloted way back in 1996, and it was unanimously sent to the Health Committee in 1997. It was imitated by a previous National Government bill in 1998, and was the subject of Supplementary Order Paper 80 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope in April 2003. The bill was considered by the Health Committee, which reported back on it on 6 August 2004. The bill has taken 8 years to get to this stage. The original bill and subsequent amendments have been influenced by the UK Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, by predominantly Canadian and Australian legislation and reports, by international debate and bioethics conferences, and by the public submissions to the select committee.

Even after that process this bill poses as many problems as it answers, and I believe that the revised bill still leaves some highly controversial technologies to decisions that will be made by a ministerial advisory committee, which will formulate mere guidelines and not regulations. Some of those decisions relate, in particular, to the issues set out in clause 37 of the bill: the donation of embryos, embryo splitting, gametes derived from a deceased person, requirements for informed consent, the selection of embryos using pre-implantation genetic analysis, and the import into or export from New Zealand of in vitro donated cells or in vitro donated embryos. Although we have put high public consultation processes in around those matters, they are still covered by guidelines rather than regulation.

I point out that in contrast to some newspaper reports, pre-implantation genetic diagnosis has not yet been approved. It is still highly controversial, and there is consultation out now about what types of controls need to be set up. I also point out that, given the low success rate of some technologies, the cost of the technologies, the incidence of premature birth and the risks associated with those births, and the possibilities for the exploitation of women, I would have preferred to see tighter controls not only of the technologies but also of the research on embryos, especially stem cell research. That is now largely deferred to future legislation to amend the Human Tissue Act and the Medicines Act and to some of the Environmental Risk Management Authority’s considerations of those matters.

I am also concerned about the consent processes around the use of embryos. Those consents, I believe, are not in the same category as medical treatment consents, and could include such matters as who owns embryos if the parent donors divorce. Are they to become relationship property? As we have seen overseas, there are some interesting legal cases around those issues. One important aspect of this bill is that women, wombs, babies, and embryos should not become commercialised, and the select committee agreed on that. Women should not become rent-a-womb machines, nor should babies or embryos be for sale.

I am pleased that the bill has progressed. There is legislation now where there would otherwise be a void, and I am pleased that after 8 years my initiative in 1996 will, at last, result in law. It is interesting that a child may now have six parents—and that may be good for the child, especially on birthdays. A child could have a contracting mother and father, a sperm donor, an egg donor, a gestational mother, and a social father. That may be very confusing for the child; it could also be very good for the child. In fact, some novelists have suggested that to have five or six parents is better for the child, if not for the parents, than a nuclear family, and that our present system may not be the best for children, anyhow. At least the present bill insists on records being kept, so that children can trace their heritage and we can monitor any defective practices.

I welcome the changes that other members have made to the bill. I am particularly pleased that the revised bill includes an amendment in the name of Judy Turner to have the Children’s Commissioner represented on the ministerial advisory committee, in order to cater for the interests of the children born from the technologies.

I am sure that we will continue to monitor the application of this law. As I have said, the bill deals with big questions: the big questions of what it means to be human, of who decides which embryos should survive, of who is eligible to access the technology—at present, it favours the well-off—and of how we deal with mistakes or discarded embryos. Any mistakes in creating humans cannot be reversed, and babies cannot be thrown away or uprooted like hybrid corn. The risks associated with gene technology in humans are intergenerational. I believe that we must proceed with the utmost caution, within a regulatory framework with strong penalties.

I wish to thank all those who have been involved with this bill, from the original drafter who worked with me, Debbie Angus, and the work that she did in modifying the British Act to fit in with our system, to the Hamilton researchers, lawyers, and medics who offered their opinions and advice, and to people in overseas agencies.

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

I was in the process of thanking the various people who have contributed to the bill, and in particular the original drafter who worked with me, Debbie Angus. The original bill had four main points: first, to license clinics, as they do in the UK, second, to keep centralised records of babies that are born from assisted reproductive technology, third, to prevent the cloning of human beings, and, fourth, to outlaw the sale of babies’ body parts, tissue, and fluids—that is, the non-commercialisation of any of the processes. I must say that we have achieved three out of those four goals, and three out of four ain’t bad. The other point made by the original bill was that it was not a bill to forbid technology but to control it, so that we can keep very good records that enable us to know what is happening, to whom, and where.

In that regard I thank Rebecca Hamilton, a young New Zealand woman who was an in vitro fertilisation baby. She is part of a group of such young people in Australia, and, as Dr Hutchison knows, she went to great pains to try to find out who her sperm donor was. I also wish to thank the Hamilton researchers, people in agencies overseas, the Parliamentary Library, and parliamentary and ministry staff. I thank my fellow select committee members and the chair for working through this legislation. I thank the people who have served on the National Ethics Committee on Assisted Human Reproduction for a number of years and who have given ethical advice. Lastly, I want to thank Dolly the sheep—I am one of the few people who went to Edinburgh—and her cloner. Without Dolly the sheep, very few people would have taken this bill seriously. In 1997 when the bill came into the House many members of Parliament, when Dolly was born, asked whether that was the sort of thing we were thinking about in relation to human beings. So I thank Dr Ian Wilmut and Dolly the sheep for making people, both in New Zealand and overseas, realise that the cloning of human beings is a reality.

I would also like to thank the New Zealand Bioethics Council, my former flatmate here in Wellington, Jill White, and Sir Paul Reeves. I thank Sir Paul Reeves for a radio broadcast last week during which I heard him say that he was not terribly keen on cloning human beings, because he was a bit afraid that we may all end up the same. I can assure him that even if we were cloned we would not end up the same, because we would walk on different pavements and breathe different air—one of the best arguments for environment over heredity that I have ever heard. I thank everybody who has been involved with this bill, and I thank all my parliamentary colleagues for their support and their encouragement throughout what has been 8 years of patience. Every 6 months I would sign the bill over for another 6 months, and then another 6 months. But we have made it. I look forward to the implementation of the bill, which the Minister David Benson-Pope is now in charge of. I do not envy him his job, but there is a lot of work still to be done, so I give my thanks to him in anticipation of that.

I rise to speak on this very important, and in some respects, historic evening that brings in the long-awaited Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill, which has been in genesis for well over 8 years, in many respects. One of the remarkable things is that New Zealand has had no specific legislation surrounding this area for the time that the assisted reproductive technologies have been controversial, particularly since in vitro fertilisation and the first test-tube baby back in 1979. What has often not been appreciated is the fact that over those years without specific legislation, there have been very professional and well-organised reproductive services in New Zealand.

I want to take a few moments to talk a little bit about the clinics that carry out the reproductive technology procedures in New Zealand. Those clinics probably investigate about 3,500 new couples every year, and undertake in the order of 1,700 to 2,000 cycles of in vitro fertilisation, as well as hundreds of cycles of donor insemination and intrauterine inseminations with partner’s sperm each year. There are smaller numbers of donor egg technologies performed, and, of course, a few in vitro fertilisation surrogacies, which are non-commercial. About half the treatments are publicly funded, and the work of the various clinics, both public and private, results in the birth of about 800 children each year. That actually is fairly significant, given the fact that we have annual birth numbers in New Zealand of about 55,000—I think it was about 58,000 this year—so it is probably in the order of 2 percent of all births. That is quite a significant number.

As I was pointing out, the extremely significant point is that we have not had specific legislation in this area. A variety of other legislation has been relevant, including the Status of Children Amendment Act, the Adoption Act, the Contraception, Abortion and Sterilisation Act, etc. In New Zealand the working of these technologies has been very successful. The clinics have voluntarily become involved in, and joined, the Reproductive Technology Accreditation Committee, which is primarily Australian-based, and which requires very high standards of information gathering and high standards of quality assurance. I think that that is one of the good things about some aspects of professionalism in New Zealand. I remember vividly one of the people at the centre of this whole debate, Professor Robert Jenson, talking about Aldous Huxley’s book Brave New World and saying that minimal State interference is so important in terms of allowing the inevitable progress of science. The balancing act of this legislation was between those who felt there should be highly prescriptive legislation and those who felt there should be little legislation whatsoever. I think the balancing act has been reasonably well worked out, in that there is flexibility and a degree of future-proofing, so that the rapid changes that will inevitably occur in the next 5 to 10 years are, indeed, able to occur.

As well as the Reproductive Technology Accreditation Committee’s regulations, which all reproductive clinics in New Zealand followed, by the early 1990s local hospital ethics committees recognised the heavy responsibility of making decisions in the area of assisted reproductive technology, and that led to the establishment of the National Ethics Committee on Assisted Human Reproduction. From there some very worthwhile work by Dr Papaarangi Reid and Mr Bill Atkin resulted in the production of Assisted Human Reproduction: Navigating our Future in 1994, which was a very good basis to work out the legislation that would eventually come before us.

There were three very important points made by the submission of the fertility clinics. The first point was that the clinics had submitted themselves to a decade of voluntary self-regulation through the use of the accreditation committee. They did that at their own choice, and at their own expense. The Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act should be a reminder to us that if professionals, whether they are nurses, chiropractors, acupuncturists, or doctors, do not carry out their own proactive quality assurance mechanisms and educative activities, and if they do not police them themselves, then there will be a call for the Government to do so. I think that that is one of the balances that we must keep in mind.

Secondly, in New Zealand the health professionals who are engaged in assisted reproductive technology have built a close relationship with the people they treat. Unlike most other countries, where health professional groups and consumers have set up their own separate professional interest organisations, in New Zealand the health professionals and consumers made a conscious decision to establish a single organisation: the New Zealand Infertility Society, recently renamed fertilityNZ. I think that the contribution the society has made—the interchange and constant communication with both the professionals and the consumers—has led to a very positive, powerful, and worthwhile dialogue in making inputs into this legislation. I would like to salute the members of all the organisations that have been involved.

Thirdly, it is important that New Zealand is the only country in the world where, without legislation, the clinics have moved entirely to the use of sperm and egg donors who agree to be identifiable to their offspring. That was achieved through the efforts of medical practitioners, counsellors, and patients, and after considering the best interests of children in terms of what was known at the time about the damaging effect of secrecy in families. So I think that it is highly relevant for us to appreciate that this legislation has, indeed, been brought about by a lot of thought over many years from a great number of people.

Naturally the way ahead is hard to predict, and one of the beauties of this bill is the fact that it does have flexibility. I am often mind-boggled by the possibilities, technically, that are presented to us—the possibilities of men having children, and the possibilities of actually doing what Brave New World suggested and incubating babies out of the uterus as a matter of convenience to society. But when we think of those mind-boggling things, we can recall that the mere thought of in vitro fertilisation in 1979 was pretty amazing, and yet that was only 24 years ago. Dianne Yates has mentioned the dimension of genetics and genetic modification in relation to the new technologies. Although we must be mindful of the royal commission talking about proceeding with caution, I would also make the impassioned plea that we do not surround ourselves with hurdles that are too great to allow us to take advantage of the exciting new technologies ahead of us. I am concerned that the Bioethics Council—Toi te Taiao—could get a little bogged down in the lofty philosophical considerations that it may have to dwell on. I think it is very, very important that we do not get the situation we have with regard to the genetics debate, where huge advantages to New Zealand could be blocked by great hurdles.

It is a pleasure to see this bill finally have a third reading. I believe it will serve New Zealand, and New Zealanders, very well for the future.

It is with considerable pleasure that I rise today in support of the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill, which is a member’s bill in the name of Dianne Yates, MP for Hamilton East. The enactment of this bill will mean that, for the first time, New Zealand will have a comprehensive regulatory framework governing assisted reproductive procedures and research. The rapid pace of science and technology in this area means that it is becoming increasingly important to have the robust and flexible framework contained in the detail of this bill.

The most important part of the bill is the clear identification of activities that are simply unacceptable in this country. Such activities include human cloning for reproductive purposes, the implantation of a human embryo into an animal and vice versa, genetically modifying embryos using gametes from foetuses for reproductive purposes, and sex selection for social reasons. These activities are at the extreme end of the spectrum of assisted reproductive technology and will be prohibited outright. Prohibiting such activities will place New Zealand on a par with other countries that regulate assisted reproductive technology.

The bill also contains a robust and flexible regime for considering whether New Zealand human assisted reproductive procedures are acceptable, and for keeping current procedures under review. It does this by establishing a ministerial advisory committee and an ethics committee. The ministerial advisory committee will comprise experts and lay people. It will also include a person to articulate the interests of children. This is as a result of the proposal by Judy Turner, which received the support of the majority of the House. The ministerial advisory committee will consult the public and provide policy advice to the Minister of Health on new reproductive procedures. Guidelines issued by the committee for permitted activities will set the parameters for the decisions of the ethics committee when considering individual applications. The ministerial advisory committee will also keep current procedures under review and monitor the health and safety impact of those procedures.

The framework is robust and is not, as some suggest, reliant on guidelines. Regulations can also be made on any assisted reproductive procedure or research. Where decisions are made that the risks of an activity outweigh the benefits, or that it is ethically unacceptable for use in New Zealand, the legislation will be amended so that the activity is added to the list of prohibited activities.

It is important never to forget the very real human impact of assisted reproductive technology. One of the most significant features of this bill is its world-leading national information-keeping scheme for people born as a result of donated eggs or sperm. This scheme reflects New Zealand’s experience of the consequences of closed adoption, and recognises the importance of knowledge about one’s identity, family, and genetic heritage. Fertility service providers will be required to collect, retain, and pass on certain information about donors and donor offspring to the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths and Marriages, who will maintain a register. Donors, donor offspring, and guardians of donor offspring will be able to access information about one another subject to certain conditions. Information can also be shared about siblings who have the same donor.

During the Committee stage of this bill I was pleased to support the proposal of Dr Hutchison MP to extend this regime by creating a register of information supplied voluntarily by doctors and donor offspring where the treatment resulting in the conception of the donor offspring occurs before the commencement of this legislation.

That this legislation is about to be enacted today is testament to the commitment and dedication of Dianne Yates who introduced the bill back in 1996. The bill’s long history reflects the complexity of issues surrounding assisted human reproduction. Indeed, New Zealand is not alone in having spent a significant amount of time grappling with these very difficult issues. We should all be pleased that this bill, which covers matters that are both technically and ethically challenging, enjoys such a high level of support in this House. This is the result of the time spent by the Health Committee to reach understanding and agreement on the benefits of this technology to assist reproduction, the potential benefits of research, and to ensure that the proper safeguards are protected in relation to health, safety, and cultural values. I particularly acknowledge the role of our colleague Steve Chadwick as chair of the Health Committee in accomplishing that accord.

The bill today is different from that which was introduced in 1996. We have benefited from the legislative developments and experience of other countries, particularly the United Kingdom and Canada over this period. The result, I believe, is legislation that is appropriate for our country and our people. I thank Dianne Yates for the enormous amount of work she has put into the bill’s development and congratulate her warmly on successfully bringing it to fruition.

On behalf of New Zealand First, I rise to support the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill. It is a very important bill, and it is appropriate for the New Zealand environment. We must acknowledge the tireless work of the officials who assisted with the many amendments and ensured that the implications of those amendments were very clear to us. We must also acknowledge the tireless work of Dianne Yates on this bill, and the two doctors on the Health Committee, Dr Hutchison and Dr Scott, who helped us in so many areas with practical working advice. As Dr Hutchison pointed out in his speech, legislation in New Zealand has currently been non-existent as until now this area has been governed only by regulation. This is a challenging area and it will continue to be so. Dianne Yates outlined in her speech some of those challenges about which there will no doubt be a lot of further debate.

We have seen many advances made in the field of reproductive technology and research since the birth of the first test-tube baby, and it is timely that with further advances there is now legislation to give a very clear direction to those people involved in these fields. In the past, regulations have been sufficient, thanks to the professional and responsible attitudes and practices of fertility service providers, and there has never been any major evidence of harm. However, that does not mean that there will never be any incidents.

This bill is very technical—perhaps that is one of the reasons it has been on the Order Paper for so many years—and it will form the basis for many amendments that may need to be made at later dates, as technology and scientific knowledge develop further, or until such time as it may be necessary for the regulations to become legislation. We are all aware in this House that fertility is a very personal issue and that it can be very stressful for all involved, so it is very pleasing to see that this legislation is balanced and provides a consistent regulatory environment that can benefit from new medical technologies and advancements, along with protecting the rights of potential offspring.

Ultimately, all decisions made about the use of reproductive technology must reflect the fact that its use will impact on those children throughout their entire lives. There is also some flexibility in the legislation so that new procedures can be developed and used after approval from the ministerial advisory committee and the ethics committee. It is realistic to say that technology is developing at a very fast rate and an advisory committee and an ethics committee are well placed to keep up to date with the latest developments in those fields. It is pleasing to see that any human reproductive research that is not an established procedure, as well as all research applications, are subject to mandatory ethical review by an ethics committee. That is how it should be.

The fact that the designation, the functions, and the duties of the ethics committee are so very clearly prescribed should ensure that everyone is aware of what is happening and also of what is to happen. There can be no doubt with this bill. The fact that information from the ethics committee must be made public must please many people who take an active interest in that area, because we all know that awareness is a key factor in accountability. So the role of the ethics committee in this legislation is very clearly spelt out. The bottom line is that in this legislation we are dealing with human lives, and, of course, the procedures must always be as safe as possible.

The establishment, the appointments, and the functions of the advisory committee that must be established by the Minister are also very clearly outlined. The persons and their qualifications to be a part of the committee are clearly specified. Again, the advisory committee will work in conjunction with the public and hear submissions as appropriate. The fact that some of the members of the committee will be lay persons must be reassuring. We welcome the strengthened requirements for public involvement. New Zealand First believes that the number of people on the advisory committee may be too large, particularly with the number of lay persons, and we will be most interested to monitor this. We would have liked to see a member of the ethics committee on the advisory committee by right.

One of the positive aspects of this bill is the fact that the guidelines for the ethics committee to actually work with will be determined by the ministerial advisory committee. The people on the advisory committee are professionals and are concerned about professionalism and about the ethics around that technology. The bill as it is presently written means that there is some flexibility to take advantage of scientific developments and technology in this field, and this framework should enable fertility clinics to move forward into the future.

We are only too aware that the health risks to children born as a result of assisted reproduction procedures are generally higher than is the case for children conceived naturally. So New Zealand First was very pleased when the Government announced earlier in the year that it would increase the funds for in vitro fertilisation and that it would also provide a second cycle to people meeting the set criteria. We all know that single embryo transfer is to become standard practice in most cases, and that is one of the issues where New Zealand First has called on the Government to revise its funding policy as a matter of urgency, and that has been done. It has been obvious for some time that the implantation of multiple embryos with one cycle to maximise the chances of success was actually increasing the adverse affects on the health of many of the children born as a result of those procedures. Care for premature babies is costly and very intensive. Parents want to see healthy children. In fact, all of us in this House could not dispute that premise.

This bill does provide safeguards around human assisted reproduction, and these are clearly outlined in the schedules to the bill. There is a prohibition on practices that most people find unacceptable now and will continue to find unacceptable into the immediate future. Most countries around the world have a similar list of banned procedures, and it is excellent to see that New Zealand legislation has listed what we consider to be totally unacceptable. Transgressions should therefore be few. We would expect to see the items listed remain banned for a long time to come.

We were pleased to see included in this bill provisions that prohibit the genetic engineering of humans, and new provisions that prohibit the sex selection of embryos for any reason other than treating or preventing genetic disease. We did not want to see the growth of a designer baby industry. The requirements for information keeping are very clear, as was outlined by the Minister. Prospective donors must be made aware that extensive information will now be recorded and made available to their donor offspring, and that will give children the opportunity to be aware of their ethnicity and also their medical history.

New Zealand First believes that it is imperative for any legislative framework to allow for those affected by infertility to gain maximum benefit from any technological developments approved by the advisory committee and the ethics committee, just as those affected by other medical conditions are able to benefit from new technological advances. New Zealand First supports this bill.

The Green Party will vote for this legislation tonight, but with deep misgivings. We are voting for it because it does provide some safeguards, and prohibition of the worst excesses of assisted human reproductive technology—namely, the genetic engineering of humans and the sex selection of embryos other than for serious genetic disease; also, because having some legislation is certainly better than having none and having the present situation continue, which is a totally unregulated free-market situation, and allows fertility clinics to do what they like. But it is only marginally better. Regrettably, the Government has taken what was a really impressive bill—Dianne Yates’ member’s bill—that would have set up a good regulatory regime similar to one that exists in England, Canada, Australia, and other jurisdictions, and gutted it to such an extent that this legislation sets up one of the weakest, most permissive regulatory regimes for assisted human reproductive technologies in the world—a regime that relies on guidelines, rather than regulation, and a regime that bypasses Parliament completely and delegates policy making in that highly contentious, ethical minefield area to a committee of unelected and unaccountable experts meeting behind closed doors.

I think it is ironic that this Parliament is able to debate and decide on an issue raised in yet another of Dianne Yates’ member’s bills—namely, whether a couple of thousand dogs in New Zealand should have their tails docked—but will not be able, once this bill is passed, to debate or make decisions on far-reaching controversial issues that will help shape the future of the human race. I refer to issues such as what genetic defects will be able to be eliminated from the New Zealand population by embryo selection, and what will not; whether scientists will be able to split embryos; whether we should be able to use gametes from deceased persons; and so on. Those issues are not minor and technical in nature; they are fundamentally important issues and policies that give rise to an ethical and public policy minefield.

It is astonishing that we are here tonight enacting legislation that will basically take away the right of this Parliament to make policy on those fundamentally important issues. We will not even be able to challenge, debate, or discuss those issues in the Health Select Committee, because all those contentious issues have been delegated to the unelected, unaccountable ministerial advisory committee, which will make decisions without any parliamentary scrutiny.

The Green Party put up amendments that would have instituted some degree of parliamentary scrutiny and a regulatory regime. These, alas, were defeated by the Government and the Opposition voting in unison. I believe that only United Future supported the Greens on our amendments.

There are no accountability provisions for the unelected committee of experts. There is no ability even in the Health Committee for us to monitor them, to question them, or to challenge the decisions they have made. I predict, as I have before, that this legislation will return to haunt us at some time in the not too distant future, and we will be obliged to set up further legislation that seeks to give Parliament back some sovereignty over making decisions on these fundamentally important issues.

By setting up a framework for policy—and I am glad to see that the chairman of the Regulations Review Committee has just entered the Chamber—to be made in a committee that is not even accountable to Parliament, the bill breaches the very well established parliamentary principle and parliamentary convention that matters of policy should be dealt with by this Parliament and that only technical issues of implementation should be able to be dealt with by delegation in committees such as the ministerial advisory committee.

In the select committee we were told not to worry that this legislation breaches the well established parliamentary principle that Parliament should decide on matters of policy, because it is just an advisory committee giving advice to the Minister of Health. But in fact, the terms of reference of the advisory committee and, interestingly, the recently released National Ethics Committee on Assisted Human Reproduction make it absolutely unequivocally clear that the role of this committee will be to set policy in this area. The committee says in the latest consultation document it has just released: “The new ministerial advisory committee will develop policy and advice on new procedures and guidelines for permitted activities.” It will develop policy—that is what it states. In other words, the process this bill sets up is a breach of parliamentary convention which will deny Parliament the opportunity to debate and decide on these hugely important ethical issues, that will confront us and continue to confront us in the near future.

There is a very real danger that without parliamentary scrutiny or a proper regulatory regime, this legislation will permit medical technology to continue to race way ahead of the rest of us into uncharted and ethically troubling territory. Proponents of assisted human reproductive technologies paint a rosy picture of a future where these technologies can be used to overcome the limitations of the human body. But these selfsame technologies that can be used to cure a child of cystic fibrosis can equally be used to threaten human dignity and human rights, eliminate human imperfections, and create a perfect person or indeed a perfect human race. In other words, they can be used for eugenic purposes.

The Green Party believes a line must be drawn to protect future generations from growing up as laboratory experiments. There are huge controversial issues in assisted human reproductive technology. Where do we draw the line between what is acceptable and what is unacceptable use of pre-birth selection? Who decides what genetic defects are allowed to be eliminated from the human population? This bill leaves those decisions to an unelected and unaccountable committee that meets behind closed doors. When we read the guidelines we discover that what is proposed is that the committee leaves the decision on how we draw the line between cystic fibrosis, spina bifida, etc., to the providers, the fertility clinics of New Zealand. Instead of drawing a clear line in the sand, they are to consider everything on a case by case basis. That is extraordinary.

The Green Party is pleased that we at least managed to get one amendment that means there must be extensive consultation. This unelected and unaccountable body must go through a process of consultation. Although that is some comfort, it is, based on our recent experience, only a little comfort because all of us have written thousands of submissions to various bodies and they have completely ignored those submissions. We hope that the ministerial advisory committee will not behave like so many expert committees and ignore public submissions, but we cannot be certain of that. But at least we got some improvement in the bill.

We also are pleased that Paul Hutchison’s amendment has been passed. That basically sets up a voluntary register to help people already born to try to work out their genetic origins. We are frustrated by the fact that assisted human reproductive technology has been touted as the solution to growing fertility problems in our society when virtually no resources are allocated and virtually no research is undertaken into the underlying environmental and other factors that have caused the dramatic drop in fertility over the past 5 years.

This bill creates three categories under which reproductive technologies, including reproductive research, can be managed. The first category is called “Established procedures”, and would immediately cover in vitro fertilisation and the related practices that have had a long track record of ongoing use in the New Zealand context. Additional procedures may be declared established by Order in Council and are therefore unlikely to cause much of a ripple amongst the general public. Some of us, however, in this House have concerns about some of the procedures included in this category because we believe that the jury is still out on whether those procedures offer lifelong safety to offspring born as a result of those methods. Animal trials were certainly not conclusive, and we are yet to witness the long-term outcomes for the first generation of IVF offspring.

The second category declares procedures that can be approved on a case by case basis by an ethics committee. The ethics committee makes decisions by interpreting guidelines set out for it by the ministerial advisory committee, and those guidelines have also been approved by the Minister. It is this category that causes most of us who are concerned about this bill the most trouble. Dianne Yates’ original member’s bill did not propose guidelines but clear and unambiguous regulations.

Regulations draw a clear line in the sand regarding what is and what is not allowed. Regulations, however, do not prevent the line from shifting when it is desirable, and certainly the experience of the British regulatory model is that it has not halted medical progress. However, regulations do mean that the line establishes acceptable and unacceptable practice and that it has to be deliberately moved, rather than driven by exceptional cases that set a precedent for unexceptional cases.

Guidelines are written in vague terms, leaving the door wide open for a huge range of interpretations and applications. A classic example of this vagueness can be found in the recently published consultation document of proposed guidelines for the management of the controversial pre-implantation genetic diagnosis procedures. Those guidelines seem to attempt to summarise several sides of a given argument, without coming to a definitive conclusion.

Let me give an example. On the matter of sex selection, it says: “Sex selection is seen as a demeaning reason for creating and discarding human embryos, in that it challenges the special status frequently bestowed upon them, in view of the potential they represent. This status is generally considered not significant enough to preclude the destruction of embryos for the prevention of the birth of a child with a serious genetic disorder, but is significant enough to preclude its use for sex selection on social grounds.”

What they are roughly saying in this argument is clear, but where is the recommendation? Where is the guiding principle? An ethics committee could literally rule in several directions, based on this guideline.

The third category proposed in this bill is a list of prohibited activities. These include activities deemed to be ethically unacceptable because of serious implications for offspring, or because of a serious challenge to the definition of what it means to be human and what it means as a society to value difference. It is this category that seems to have lulled the Greens into a false sense of security. Genetic modification of gametes and embryos is banned—or is it? The schedules certainly ban implanting into a human a genetically modified gamete or embryo, but on the issue of research the door is wide open. In fact, clause 36 leaves open the opportunity by requiring the ministerial advisory committee to develop guidelines for genetic modification research on humans. Why would we allow research and development of a technology if we were not planning to use it in the future?

I am trying to imagine right now how Green supporters will feel when they discover that the Green Party has supported more restrictions around the genetic engineering of corn than the genetic engineering of humans. Their party of preference is voting to support this, and this poses a huge credibility crisis for the party going into an election year. In all the speeches given by Sue Kedgley on this bill, she has been unable to give one positive comment about this bill, yet the Greens are supporting it.

I am sure that Green Party supporters, like most other New Zealanders, remember the huge song and dance the Greens made about GM technology immediately before and after the last election. They even demanded a royal commission into genetic modification, whose terms of reference they helped to set up. The Greens launched a major campaign against it when the findings did not reach the conclusions they were hoping for. They were so determined to stop GM technology that they virtually destroyed their relationship with their only potential coalition partner, Labour, and caused both parties significant electoral damage at the polls.

This issue was their bottom line, yet what happens when legislation arrives that potentially allows the genetic modification of human beings themselves? Well the Greens let it pass without a whimper. In fact, the Greens vote for it. Where is the consistency in that? Where is the Greens’ commitment to their own constituents over the GE issue now? Or are we proving, once more, that the Greens care more about plants than they do about human beings?

I am expecting, as I speak, to see Rod Donald and Jeanette Fitzsimons rush into the House, grab the bill, and look at clause 36 to discover the huge mistake they are about to make in voting for the third reading of this bill. If the media are listening on their radios right now, they will be very interested tomorrow morning to ask Green Party members why on earth they would vote for a bill that has left the back door wide open for the genetic modification of human beings. This is a party that postures as the protector of all that is pure and right on this matter.

💬 Jim Peters: Are you for or against it?

That is an interesting one! Sue Kedgley said that having some legislation is better than having no legislation, yet that certainly was not the position the Greens took at the lifting of the moratorium. We had very sound and very tightly organised legislation to allow the lifting of the moratorium but it was never good enough for the Greens, yet on this bill they are saying that something is better than nothing and that they will go along with it, they will play the game, they will roll over in the way they always accuse United Future of. The most essential element of what it means to be a Green supporter has just been blown out of the water tonight by the Green Party voting for this bill at its third reading.

I am dying to hear talkback radio tomorrow morning, when Green supporters wake up to the fact that they have been completely betrayed on this very issue. The genetic modification of human beings, the very essence of defining what it means to be a human being, has just been completely abandoned by the Green Party tonight at this third reading. I think there should be some serious concern that their voters will have to ask some very serious questions about whether they continue to support a party that is happy to monitor the genetic engineering of plants, animals, and particular parts of the food chain, while completely supporting legislation that will allow the development of genetic modification of human beings. I think it is a very telling moment in the House and I am expecting that the Greens’ emails will be running hot as of tonight, from supporters asking them what on earth they are thinking of—[Interruption] The member will hear our vote soon.

💬 Nandor Tanczos: You have spent your whole speech talking about us.

None of us have quite postured ourselves to be the protector of life as we know it, as the Green Party has. I think that the Green Party has really missed the boat; it has really dropped the ball on this particular issue. I think it is high time that their supporters, who are genuinely people who care very much about what it means to be human, and genuinely do care about the sort of environment into which children are being born and raised, discovered that the party they have supported all these years is making this huge mistake and is showing itself to be hugely inconsistent on such a vital matter.

It is clause 36, for people listening on the radio who want to double-check what I am talking about. Clause 36 is very, very clear. Let me just read it. It states that the advisory committee is to provide specific advice in respect of human reproductive research for cloned embryos, donated human embryos, and genetic modification of human gametes and human embryos. Clause 36 is throwing open the back door, and allowing the ministerial advisory committee to set up these very loose guidelines that will be able to be interpreted in any direction we want to take them, for the genetic modification of human gametes and human embryos. This provision, this hugely wide open back door, is being supported tonight in the House by the Green Party.

ACT New Zealand will be having a split vote, as it has all the way through the deliberations on the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill, mainly because we, like many of the submitters, have quite divergent views about the provisions within it. Some ACT members believe that there is not a lot of mischief, and that there should be no legal framework in this area. However, we do not all agree on that. Personally I think that the provisions we have come up with, after going through the select committee process, as a result of hearing the submissions to the Health Committee, and through the Committee stage, have produced a very good balance.

This is a very emotive area. We can hear that in the debate tonight, and I must say that the vehemence with which the United Future member has just given her views is a good example of that. Her very vocal criticism of the Green Party was quite surprising, when we have in United Future a party that has supported the Government many times on issues that it campaigned against. I think it is very important that members are able to make their own decisions about things, and our party certainly intends to do that.

The bill is about two large areas—I think we can break it down to that. The first is reproductive technology, and the second is research. I have voiced my concern about putting both those big areas together into this one bill, when we might well have been better served by having two pieces of legislation: one for reproduction, and one for research. However, I certainly feel very pleased with the result, and pleased that after 8 years the bill is finally at this point. Previously the field was very messy, in terms of the technicalities.

The select committee process was very interesting. People came from widely divergent views, which they put to us vocally, and I felt we were able to talk through the issues in a constructive manner. We have moved forward to provide New Zealand with guidelines that I think will serve us well in both the reproduction and research areas. I felt that the guidelines were particularly important, and I spoke strongly about them at the select committee level. I was opposed to very strict regulation, which would mean there would be very little flexibility in the whole process. People who have worked in research, as I have, know that it is never possible to foretell or foresee every possibility or eventuality. That is particularly so in the area of reproduction. Frequently problems arise that could not be foreseen, and they need to be dealt with quickly if they are to be overcome and couples are to be able to have live, well babies at the end of it. Those guidelines are very important. The other area is that of research. Technology has advanced at such a pace that I felt—and I had the general agreement of the committee on this—that regulation would not provide the flexibility needed in order to allow research to proceed in a reasonable sort of manner.

In vitro fertilisation has been given as an example in the House in that regard, and it is a very good example of how quickly technology has developed from a very experimental, for want of a better term, manner to a stage where many couples, not just in New Zealand but around the world, have become dependent on it to produce their families. For some people for whom the wish and desire to have children and produce a family is overwhelming, in vitro fertilisation is the only possibility available to them. It is important, given the technology we have, that that choice is available to them.

I was also very pleased to see that Dr Paul Hutchison’s amendment regarding a voluntary register was put to the Committee and supported. I think that the provisions were in the bill when it came from the select committee, but his provision for a voluntary register has strengthened them significantly. As we all know, many children, when they reach a certain age, are very keen to know many things about where they have come from. That is a very important area for them, as they grow and develop into well-balanced human beings. So I am delighted to see that provision there.

There has been much comment tonight about the Ministerial Advisory Committee on Assisted Reproductive Procedures and Human Reproductive Research. Its chief role is to report to the Minister and produce the guidelines to which the ethics committees will work. That is a very important role for the ministerial advisory committee. I would rather have seen a slightly heavier balance towards the experts, but in the end we have an even balance between experts and lay people. Although, I would have preferred to see a slightly heftier balance towards the experts, I think we have reached a reasonable compromise in that regard, as well. The ministerial advisory committee must consult the public—that is a very strict requirement. I think the concern that the committee will be able to bowl through unhindered, and make all sorts of decisions that are unethical and immoral, is totally groundless and unfounded.

The Green Party mentioned that there will be no parliamentary scrutiny as a result of the establishment of the ministerial advisory committee, and I say that is a jolly good thing. We are 120 people, two of whom I feel may be well enough informed to serve on such a committee. One is Dr Paul Hutchison, who has worked in the area for many years and is particularly well informed. We were very lucky to have him on the select committee. With his thorough knowledge he was able to help us through very tough technical issues. Many times we were delighted to have him there to explain things to us, along with the advisers. The other MP who may perhaps be qualified to sit on the ministerial advisory committee is Dianne Yates. She, of course, would be there as a lay person. As members know, she has spent the last 8 years investigating, researching, and looking very thoroughly into all the issues. But the other 118 of us would have absolutely no right to be on that committee, because we do not have the appropriate knowledge. The discussions we had at the select committee highlighted exactly why parliamentarians should not be involved in that process. That is totally inappropriate, and it would result in no better decisions than would result from opening the issue up to the general public through a referendum. I feel very strongly that the ministerial advisory committee is the appropriate body both to report to the Minister and to decide on the guidelines to which the ethics committees will work.

The moral and ethical issues have taken quite a hefty place in this debate, which is quite right. On issues like this, that is totally predictable. As I say, the ACT MPs will be voting according to their consciences on this bill, so we will have a split vote. Certainly, we want to see medical advances move forward, so that we can have progress both in research and in reproductive technology—as there should be. There are many very unfortunate diseases that children, in particular, have, which nobody would wish on them. If we are able to make medical advances and have reproductive technology that can deal with terrible diseases such as cystic fibrosis and muscular dystrophy—things that nobody would ever wish on anybody’s children—then I see that as a good thing. If this bill is able to facilitate that, then I think we will have done a particularly good job.

I am delighted to take a call on the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill, and to open by congratulating my colleague Dianne Yates. This has not been an easy journey. It has taken 9 years, which is an enormously long time in which to wait to see a dream and a vision come to reality. This is a wonderful day for my colleague Dianne Yates. We acknowledge, as have other members of the Health Committee, her absolute passion and determination to get this bill through the House. That has not been without some problems with regard to my role as chair of the committee. That was because the bill was really a morphing-together of two previous members’ bills. That was our difficulty, and then we also had to consider Supplementary Order Paper 80 in the name of Lianne Dalziel. We were trying to meld together the best of the two diverse philosophies: the approach of the Hon Doug Graham and of Dianne Yates. That is always difficult, on such a complex and technological issue.

The Supplementary Order Paper came up with a very flexible regulatory regime that could respond to the new technologies that move so quickly in the area of assisted human reproduction technology. I acknowledge that it is not the licensing regime with strong regulation that the member promoting the bill wanted to see, and that was our difficulty. I think, when we hear the speeches from the other members of the select committee, that we will realise we were reflective of the House, and probably of the country, in our divergent views. The one thing on which we all agreed was that we did need to have legislation. I think we all came to that view at the end of the very long process.

This is unusual, but I would like to acknowledge the Opposition members of the select committee. Lynda Scott was a member, and I also mention Paul Hutchison, in particular. With their medical background and their understanding of complex medical issues they contributed constructively to the debate on this bill. It is unusual too for a Government member to congratulate and thank ACT, but I think that Heather Roy, with her very strong research background, gave us some wonderful perspectives on the role of the ministerial advisory committee, which does have to consider research.

Yes, we did provide for research to be part of the committee’s functions, and that caused some concerns.

I think we have come up with a very good, flexible regulatory regime. I take issue, though, with the concerns that people still have. It is sad that a member, at the third reading of her own bill, has to say that she thinks it is still a bit loose and that she is worried about it. I think that is really sad, because I would like Dianne Yates to feel excited tonight, and to go away saying that we all did a wonderful job and produced a robust piece of law. I believe it is robust, because we had to construct it in the context of our health system. New Zealand is not Canada, the United Kingdom, or Australia. We have a health and disability sector here that takes a safety and quality approach. We could not have a licensing regime and think that just by bringing accreditation to the licensing of clinics, we would have a robust system. So we must remind ourselves that this bill is reflective of the current health environment in which we all work.

I am concerned too that we have not convinced some of our colleagues of the robust approach to the establishment of guidelines in this bill. Making guidelines is not a flimsy process. In fact, it is a far better way than passing legislation through Parliament to get New Zealanders involved in the very technologies that will have such a huge impact on their lives. I believe that the pre-implantation genetic diagnosis guideline that is currently being developed is reflective of that approach. New Zealanders are having input into that guideline, which, under this legislation, will then have to go to the Minister. The guideline will not be accepted if we have concerns about it. I think that there are many, many avenues for challenging the construction of guidelines. I acknowledge too a comment that Paul Hutchison made earlier that for over 20 years, fertility clinics have functioned relatively well in this country. The gap was getting bigger, and the medical risk was growing larger, by not having a regulatory framework. We have that now.

I think the information provisions are one aspect that makes this bill world-leading legislation. Something that we in New Zealand have learned through open adoption is that it is very, very valuable for children to know about their origins—to know whether they were born as a result of assisted human reproduction technology. The information provisions in this bill are absolutely outstanding. I have heard back from those who have gone overseas that the overseas licensing regimes are deeply caught in red tape now. The information regime is one aspect of this bill that we can congratulate ourselves on. We have gone out on our own limb with the provisions relating to access to information held by the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages. The good intent of everybody on the select committee was demonstrated when it accepted the amendment from Paul Hutchison to set up the voluntary information regime. We as parliamentarians did genuinely work to try to get the best possible outcome, because we do not want to revisit this legislation. It has taken long enough to come into being today.

I believe that, on balance, this is an outstanding bill. I do not share the concerns and fears that have been quite legitimately expressed by the Green Party and United Future. They are perfectly entitled to their views. On the basis of my understanding of the health environment in which this bill will now become law, I do not share their views, at all. I hope that, over time, New Zealanders too will gain confidence in this legislation. It is very important legislation for New Zealand. I congratulate Dianne Yates.

I am afraid I do not share the sense of glowing self-congratulation that seems to imbue the House tonight. I think that is a real danger sign. It shows complacency, and it shows the lack of depth of the analysis and debate that has occurred, largely without the participation of the public. I repeat what I said during the Committee stage: I have no doubt that this legislation will be back in Parliament within the next 3 to 5 years.

I want to address two aspects of the bill. One is the process that has been set up, and the other is the list of banned activities. The problem with the process has been referred to by other speakers. It is now harder to register a chemical in existing use than it will be to get approval for a new process of human reproduction. The word “guidelines” has come up as the means by which flexibility is achieved. Flexibility does have some merits in any regulatory regime, but I get a disturbing feeling that, in putting this legislation together, the Health Committee has elevated flexibility to the highest priority.

Far from embodying the precautionary principle, we have an almost no-caution principle. Much of our regulatory activity embodies a sense of precaution. We could get carried away with that, as many do. The Greens, with their precautionary principle regarding genetic modification, are an example of people trying to construct regimes where no risk is allowed, at all. That is clearly counterproductive, but to say that we should abandon it altogether in favour of a guidelines mechanism is, in my view, a mistake. If a guidelines mechanism is so flexible and effective at containing risk, then why do we not use it for chemicals, potatoes, and vegetables? We do not, because we do not think it works. We use regulation, with its executive force, not guidelines. But apparently when it comes to gametes, embryos, and people—who, in my view, are somewhat distinct from potatoes—we resort to guidelines, consultation, and a committee.

I acknowledge the motivation of the select committee in coming to this structure. I can see how the argument, particularly in the case of reproductive technology, has come about. Circumstances give rise to the need to act quickly to change with regard to particular technology. To his credit, Dr Paul Hutchison even produced one example—the only one I have been able to find through the relatively recent history of this industry. It really is about the only example where there has been any need to take account of quite a short time period to change the rules so that the reproductive technology can be effective.

I also raise some issues about the membership of these committees. My concerns have been made deeper by the speeches I have heard tonight. I heard the member from ACT say that 118 people in this Parliament are not qualified to be on those committees, and that two people are. I absolutely disagree with that.

💬 Darren Hughes: She didn’t say that.

She did. She said that two people here are qualified—one of whom is my esteemed colleague—and that the other 118 are not. One does not have to have a PhD to know what it is to be human and to understand one’s instincts—a number of which are quite soundly reflected in this bill. One provision shows a great deal of caution about sex selection. There is no particularly rational reason why we cannot have sex selection—if we can select for other things, why can we not select for gender—but deep in our gut we know that it would be wrong to legislate for sex selection. We just know it is wrong—we do not need to have a PhD to know that. It is the same with some of the activities on the banned list. Why is there a list of banned procedures? Again, we do not have to have a medical degree in reproductive technology to have our stomachs turned at the concept of implanting a hybrid embryo—an animal / human embryo—into a human.

💬 Dr Lynda Scott: It is illegal.

Exactly. It is illegal in the schedule. The point I am making is simply this. Parliament has already demonstrated a will—[Interruption] well, people do feel strongly about these things—not to hand everything over to a bunch of experts, nor should it. I am saying that this bill hands too much over to committees that will inevitably be dominated by experts. That, I think, is a fundamental weakness in the process.

I do not think that the public of New Zealand have really got to grips with the extent to which the experts will decide where this goes. There is an argument, and I think it is a considered one, that for 20 years that is what has happened. I happen to believe the things I am told by the experts—that we are on the threshold of an explosion of genetic research, and that the possibilities for this to go off the rails are much greater now than they were when scientists were focused mainly on increasing the efficiency of in vitro fertilisation, which is inherently a very inefficient process.

I want to turn now to the list of banned activities. I am pleased to see this list in the bill, because if I listened to the self-congratulatory logic of the members of the select committee, I would wonder why there is a banned list. I mean, why have we bothered banning anything if the guidelines are so robust and the experts know so much! Well, thank goodness that common sense prevailed and we have in schedule 1 this wizened, shortened list of “Prohibited actions”. I want to deal with the first one. We can debate almost every one of these, but I will deal with clause 1. It is prohibited to “Artificially form, for reproductive purposes, a cloned embryo.” Well, we know what that means: it is not prohibited to artificially form a cloned embryo for research purposes—it is not. I do not think that that reflects the public view, at all. Experts might want to be able to clone things so they can research them. It will be very hard to tell, actually, with the restriction on the 10-day life of these embryos, whether they are meant for reproduction or research. But that will be allowed. We will, tonight, pass a bill that permits the production of cloned embryos for research purposes.

Clause 2 of this list states that it is prohibited to “Artificially form, for reproductive purposes, a hybrid embryo.” Therefore we will vote tonight, presumably in the majority, to allow people to form hybrid embryos for research purposes. I simply believe that that is wrong, and on the basis of clauses 1 and 2, the fact that they are permissive, there is good enough reason for me to vote against this bill, even though it has significant merits. We can see in clause 1 that the experts are at work: “For the purposes of this item, a cloned embryo is not formed by splitting, on 1 or more occasions, an embryo that has been formed by the fusion of gametes.” So they have even limited the definition of what a cloned embryo is. That is why this legislation will be back in front of Parliament. It is simply not cautious enough for the fire we are playing with. It is really that simple.

The legislation has some merit, and I acknowledge the efforts of the select committee, but I think its members have become a bit entangled in the wonder and self-congratulation of it all. The reason other countries have much more complex regimes is that they regard these as much more complex issues than we appear to. They regard them with more care and with more sensitivity to the humanness of the products of this process than this Parliament appears to have. In that respect, I am disappointed in Parliament, but we will no doubt get another chance to debate it, and it is as it should be that Parliament, ultimately, decides these things, not a bunch of ministerially appointed experts.

I rise to take a short call on the third reading of the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill. Having listened to the second reading, Committee stage, and now the third reading debate, I have been reflecting on the fact that Parliament is celebrating its 150th year of existence in our country, and I am sure that the sorts of issues in this bill that we are discussing were not even conceived of when Parliament was formed 150 years ago. The point I make about that is that often in this place we are required to deal with issues that preceding lawmakers of two, three, or four generations ago would never have thought would arise and would require the creation of legislation, as we are doing in this case.

I acknowledge that this is a difficult area, and an area where people have very strong personal, moral, and spiritual beliefs—particularly the Hon Bill English, as shown in his speech just previously. But in the end, as lawmakers we are required to try in some kind of way, as best we can and with the information we have at the time, to build or create some sort of legal framework that these kinds of things developing around us can operate in. That does not mean that we will get it exactly right at this point in our history, but it certainly means that we will build a skeleton of a framework for these kinds of things to develop within. That is why I pay tribute to my colleague the member for Hamilton East, Dianne Yates, who very early on in her political career introduced this legislation because she saw this as an emerging issue. I know that it has been through the select committee process over a number of years, and was considered in conjunction with a bill introduced by the Rt Hon Doug Graham in a previous Government.

The Health Committee has spent a lot of time going through this bill, and has added to its purposes that it try “to secure the benefits of assisted reproductive procedures, established procedures, and human reproductive research for individuals and for society in general by taking appropriate measures for the protection and promotion of the health, safety, dignity, and rights of all individuals, but particularly those of women and children, in the use of these procedures and research:”. It seems to me that at the point we are at right now, when we are trying to work out how these technologies can best be used, the purpose that the select committee has added is the best step we can make at this point without the full and complete knowledge of where these technologies can take us.

The one point on which I disagree with the Hon Bill English, however, is that he kept referring to this legislation having to be back before Parliament. I think it is important to note that the ministerial advisory committee will have the ability to decide, when new technology is developed, whether it needs to be banned, whether it needs to have a research component put on it, or whether it should be allowed. I guess that that, in the end, does give us a safeguard in a holding kind of way, and if Parliament becomes concerned in 20 years’ time that that technology has allowed us to do far more, or whatever, then we can bring more legislation back to the House. But, in the end, what we have to confront tonight are the technologies that are available out there in science right now, and what we as lawmakers can do to put some framework around that.

I am not an apologist for rampant cloning, or anything like that. I see in the Bills Digest reference to the catechism of the Catholic Church, and I guess that is what was driving the Hon Bill English’s comments tonight. I have respect for that, but believe we must put in place something in the meantime with the ability to have flexibility, which is what Dianne Yates’ bill does. After this long gestation the bill is now before us, to pass its third reading. I certainly add my support to it, acknowledging in doing so that we must be cautious in this area, which I think is what Dianne Yates, in good faith, has set out to be.

This is a conscience vote, and I will be supporting this bill. Human assisted reproductive technology legislation, which has included a National Government bill and Dianne Yates member’s bill, has had nearly 7 years’ gestation. It was born, I think, to caring parents, with few complications, due to good timing and cooperation between the midwife, who was the chairperson of the Health Committee, Steve Chadwick; our resident obstetrician and gynaecologist, Dr Paul Hutchison; the general practitioner, myself; and other members of the select committee, who were the support crew.

We have learnt from overseas experience. The timing of this bill is important. I was actually in England and in Australia when they were debating their legislation on this issue, and the debate was very heated. Look at us tonight—quiet as lambs! We have heard from Bill English, who has serious concerns—and he has been a Minister of Health. We have heard a few other speeches against the bill, but it is going through the House tonight with little in the way of major controversy. That is because other countries have gone before us. We have learnt from overseas experience, and that has made the passage of the bill easier.

The issues are complex and complicated. The select committee took a lot of time to tease out the issues that were before us. We have not answered the question of when a new life begins, which is what some of the debate has been around. An egg and sperm are both living; an embryo forms, then a fetus—life is continuous. So there has been debate about when life begins and what should and should not be allowed. With the cloning of Dolly the sheep, man moved another step closer to the cloning of a human being; it became only a matter of time. That cloning of an animal prompted a lot of countries to take the step of introducing legislation, which was often rushed. We have had the advantage of being able to take our time.

Legislation such as the bill we are passing in the House tonight is a response to that advance in technology. Schedule 1 lists nine prohibited activities. These include artificially forming a cloned embryo, artificially forming a hybrid embryo, implanting into a human being a cloned embryo, implanting into a human being an animal gamete or embryo, and so on. But in this legislation we have been somewhat more permissive about other issues. We are going to see the development of guidelines that will govern them.

I was recently talking to a colleague about the trauma of childlessness. People need to have been in that situation to know the heartbreak caused to a couple when they cannot have their own child, and to know what women and their partners go through when they try to conceive a child and cannot. There has to be a way to respond rapidly to new technology. I ask members to put themselves in the place of someone who knows that she cannot have a child, and who hears of breaking new technology that would allow her and her partner to do so. It might be that surrogacy is to be accepted, as it was not for a long time—not commercial surrogacy, because that is banned—or it might be that there is new technology that would allow her to have a child. Imagine the heartbreak of sitting for years, either waiting for this Parliament—which moves very slowly—to get a piece of legislation through, or waiting for an ethics committee to make a decision. Just imagine the heartache. The select committee heard from people in this position who for years and years have waited for a decision. That, I think, is very cruel, and the select committee was moved by some of those submissions.

The legislation we are dealing with tonight allows for less prescriptive assessment of new technologies around human-assisted reproduction. New technologies can happen slowly, or sometimes there may be a major breakthrough. Sometimes doctors and researchers are engaged in developing a technology, and accidents happen that lead to a major new development. This bill sets up an advisory committee to advise the Minister of Health on new technologies and whether they should become permitted activities. The Minister of Health is, obviously, responsive to public pressure. A one-off event is unlikely to gain much media attention unless it is something like the English case where Mrs Blood wanted the sperm of her husband, who had been killed in an accident, to be gathered so that she could have a child by him after his death. That went to court and caused a huge debate about the ethical implications, about whether she should be allowed to or whether he would have had to give consent. That one-off case got a huge amount of publicity. But most of the time one case would not receive that degree of publicity. If a new technology was developing that New Zealanders were uncomfortable about or did not like, pressure would certainly come to bear on the Minister of Health, and she—or maybe he—would be very unlikely to allow it to be put on the prescriptive list of what can happen. We have the prohibited actions list, to which amendments can be made and things added.

As I said before, surrogacy is allowed under this bill, but not commercial surrogacy. Parts of the bill are very much about the offspring of those who have a child using a donated egg or donated sperm. The select committee heard quite a few submissions from people in such cases who wanted access to information. We all want to know who our genetic parents are as well as who brought us up. We encourage all New Zealanders who have a child using a donated egg or donated sperm to be open and clear with their children right from the beginning—as with open adoption—about where their roots are, who they came from, and their genetic inheritance. A child up to the age of 16 can have access to genetic information but not to the identity of the donor. At the age of 18 he or she can get access to the identity of the donor. My colleague Dr Paul Hutchison brought in a Supplementary Order Paper that sets up a voluntary register for those who donated an egg or sperm before giving such details became mandatory as it is now. I have had emails from people who are very supportive of that, and I was pleased to see that the Government took up my esteemed colleague’s Supplementary Order Paper.

This bill will allow research to go on so that medical science can work hard to eradicate debilitating inherited diseases like Huntington’s chorea, cystic fibrosis, and muscular dystrophy. I think we would all like to see that. There are some issues in relation to other forms of selection concerning less severe diseases, or, for example, sex selection. We would not agree at this point to people being able to decide the sex of their child.

So there are important issues that still need to be decided by the advisory committee that sets up guidelines for the ethical committee. Overall, I congratulate the chair of the select committee, the committee, and the officials on the work that was done. I will be supporting this bill.

The last call is, by agreement, split into 5 minutes each.

I want to take the call tonight because I have a very personal involvement in this matter. My wife and I found ourselves many years ago unable to have our own children. After a significant diagnosis of the fact that the Dalkon shield had ruined our chances of having children, we tried to go through a number of scientific programmes. We went to the Royal Women’s Hospital in Melbourne, we tried with Freddie Graham at the National Women’s Hospital, and we spent a lot of money at the private clinic in Remuera. After a number of trials we were unable to have our own children.

The best thing that ever happened is that we were able to adopt. We have three of the greatest kids there are, simply because some other people were prepared to allow us to adopt those children. I want to stress to members in the House tonight that they can have simply no idea of the suffering created for people who would desperately love to have their own children and who will spend whatever and try whatever and cannot. We are just so grateful to the birth mothers of our kids.

Our kids know, without doubt. In fact, the best notice that we ever had from the Department of Social Welfare was that the children must never find out that they were adopted; they must always know. They must always know from the day that they can understand. Our three kids are the twins, who are now 6, and Simon, who is 14 and is part-Japanese. He knows his birth mother, Michiko, with a passion. They will spend some more time together next week, but every year they spend time together. She comes to New Zealand or he goes to her, and we have no feelings of any insecurities or concerns. Our children are our children, but we know that we needed help to get them there.

I guess the greatest concern that I have in this country is the number of people who end up pregnant, and for whom it is simply the last thing they needed to have happen. They may be very young, insecure, or have no family assistance. All I can say is that when we drive from Auckland to Pāuanui most weeks, we see a wonderful sign opposite the Maramurua golf course that says: “Adopt, don’t abort.” If I had any advice to give people about this whole reproductive cycle, if it is possible—and I know that sometimes it is not; I am not opposed to abortion, and I am very libertarian and believe that there will be times when people want abortion—and if there is a chance for people to make that choice and let someone else share in the life of that young child, could they please consider adoption rather than abortion.

I say to this House that there are also some technologies that will unwind over the years that we have not even thought of yet. There are already the gamete intrafallopian transfer programme and gamete fertilisation outside it. I did not even understand when we first started off that “in vitro” meant “in glass”. I thought in vitro was some wonderful technology, but it turned out to be “in glass”. Our first experience at the Royal Women’s Hospital was amazing. The medical staff asked me whether I would like to be in the theatre while they did the egg pick-up. They had a long needle, which nearly made me pass out. It was on a big vacuum pump, and they could squeeze it. They had the ultrasound and they were spotting where the eggs were. After about an hour of unbelievable sweat, torture, and pain, and finally picking up, I think, six on our first go—which we were very proud of—the nurse passed me the little plastic cup and said: “It’s your turn.” I did not even think that I could raise a mortgage at that point, let alone anything else.

It is terribly dehumanising and it is terribly difficult for human beings to work through, but let me just put in a bid, on behalf of those who cannot have children, to do anything we can do to assist, within the bounds of reason. I simply do not agree with part-man, part-donkey, or any of the other part-human and part-animal clones, and all of those other things, which is what this stuff is aimed at, and I agree with Dianne Yates on that. However, we should be very careful not to limit the way in which some technologies may allow us to assist. As a member of the Infertility Society, I met some of the most staggering people, who would make the best parents and who simply had nothing but love to give to some children, but who were being denied that right. As we pass this legislation, and I am very happy for it to be passed, we need to be very cognisant of those people and the fact that over the years, this Parliament will be tested on legal, moral, and ethical issues that make that able to happen.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Government has very generously given us the opportunity to have a split call on this legislation, with this being the final of the 12th speech, but under Standing Order 117(2), split calls cannot be between two parties. We want the Government to be able to take the other 5 minutes of this 12th speech, and so I seek leave that that occur.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

I have been in the Chamber for the previous two speakers and I acknowledge the previous speaker, in particular. One will try to control one’s contribution, because I strongly suspect that it will not surprise him that some of his experiences are probably a bit closer to those of a number of people in this Chamber than even he may realise. There are a variety of outcomes, and if members will forgive me, I will not go further than that, but obviously life teaches one some very valuable insights. One deals with such fundamental, deep issues between a couple and with people, and there are other outcomes and then there are outcomes, I guess. I think that is what the previous speaker was alluding to, and I honour him and I commend his courage in sharing that story with us.

I will not go into my own circumstances, if members do not mind, but I will acknowledge the author of this bill in that it could have been easy for her not to get involved. I want to pay tribute to my colleague Dianne Yates, and in particular—if members will allow me, in terms of the Hamilton context—to the researchers, lawyers, health professionals, her party colleagues, and her family who helped her with the time and money and all that was involved. Now I know, obviously, that it was not just Dianne Yates or that group of people, but if in the context of this, I can acknowledge that particular Hamilton contribution, I have to say that as a member of Parliament, I am very proud of it. I am also very proud of the Health Committee, and of Steve Chadwick and all the members who grappled with this issue.

I am absolutely respectful of the split voting reflecting the different viewpoints, because I think that all members here look very deeply into their hearts and do their absolute best to come up with what they believe will be the best way forward. I think, in a way, that it would have been an easy thing for this Parliament not to have grappled with those issues. This is kind of in the too-hard basket, but I believe that at least, while no legislation is perfect, it does set a template or a base for future Parliaments and for our society.

Obviously, it has been pointed out in the commentary as an understatement that: “Fertility issues can be very stressful, both for individuals and within relationships. In our consideration of these legislative proposals, we have sought to balance providing a consistent regulatory environment with acknowledging the differences in individual circumstances.” Then it goes on to talk about the intergenerational impact in terms of decisions around assisted human reproduction and the robust and transparent process for ethical decision-making.

I do not want to go on too long, except to say that I think there are a lot of people in this country tonight who, when they realise the impact of this bill, will say “thank you”. Parliament has tried to grapple with what is an incredibly immense and awesome issue, and I do not even have the language to really describe what we are grappling with here. I want to acknowledge the contribution of previous speakers—particularly the last two speakers whom I listened to—and also to acknowledge in particular Dianne Yates. There are moments of huge satisfaction for individual members of Parliament when they come here to make a difference. Dianne Yates has come here and she has made a difference. I want to thank her very, very much and also the people who worked with her. I also particularly want to thank the select committee for its very excellent work in this area.