Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. This bill clarifies the primary Act to reflect the intent of Parliament when it was passed in 2004. As enacted, the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act provides for a 10-year storage limit on gametes and embryos, including a mechanism to approve extensions. Though the common understanding was that this storage period would operate from the date of enactment in 2004, a recent legal opinion interpreted the storage period as beginning on the date of storage, even if storage occurred before the Act. In short, although most couples with stored gametes thought they had at least until 2014 to decide what to do with them, some of that matter stored prior to the Act may be already past their storage limit. This means that the current law would require these stored gametes and embryos to be discarded immediately, contrary to the intent of Parliament. This amendment bill corrects that error.

I am grateful to the Health Committee for its prompt and valuable contribution to the development of this bill. I would also like to express my thanks to all the submitters on the bill. Those who have particular expertise in this field have helped with thoughtful input and have made the bill stronger.

The bill clarifies a number of other matters relating to storage, including a new 6-month grace period after the storage period expires, which gives the fertility clinic that is storing gametes or embryos a reasonable time to dispose of them. The bill elucidates the powers and duties of the Ethics Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology when approving, changing, or cancelling storage extensions. The bill also clarifies how the 10-year storage limit is calculated when gametes or embryos have been stored outside New Zealand. Finally, the bill ensures that the principal Act’s enforcement provisions are available where any storage contravenes the storage provisions of the Act. Making these rules as clear as possible is most important for the participants in what is a very emotive and emotional process, where expectations are critical. I commend this bill to the House.

It gives me great pleasure to join the Minister of Justice in supporting what feels like the rapid progress of the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill through its third and final reading.

💬 Hon Simon Power: That’s right.

I beg the Minister’s pardon?

💬 Hon Simon Power: I said that’s right. We’ve got to get on to it. People are waiting.

We do have to get on to it. People are waiting. In fact, I imagine lots of people are listening to their wireless right now, hoping that we will get through all 12 speeches in the third reading before the House rises today. So I look forward to the Acting Leader of the House, the Hon Simon Power, moving that the House sits after 10 p.m. in order to get this third reading finalised. That would show a genuine commitment. I look forward to that and say we will support a resolution to do that if it is so moved.

As the Minister mentioned, this bill arises not as a result of Parliament making an error—well, certainly not intentionally or through rushed legislation—but as a result of a legal opinion that said the law could be interpreted in a different way from what Parliament had intended. Therefore, it was certainly the will—I think I recall this correctly—and the entire unanimous view of Parliament that the possible confusion about the storage period for sperm, eggs, and embryos meant that the issue had to be clarified immediately. So this bill was referred to the Health Committee as an amendment bill. The select committee was very anxious not to extend the scope of debate. We wanted to limit it specifically to just this amendment to ensure that people’s expectations did not start to be raised about any other alterations that Parliament might be considering, because, frankly, we were not doing so. The only reason that we had the bill before the select committee and the only reason that Parliament had voted to refer it to the select committee was that there was the possibility of a fertility clinic storing gametes or embryos beyond the time that was legally allowed, if this legal opinion was to be interpreted by the courts. That was the last thing that any one of us would want to have happen to a family who is in this situation.

During the select committee process it was interesting to learn a little more about in vitro fertilisation from families who were involved, even though we did limit our discussion quite specifically to the point of the bill, which is the storage period. But 2 percent of the babies who are born in New Zealand now are conceived with some sort of reproductive help, generally through an in vitro fertilisation clinic. That is quite a rapid increase from the time of the first baby who was born in New Zealand after in vitro fertilisation. It is important to make the law really clear, but also to have the ethical considerations relating to in vitro fertilisation robustly debated and agreed on as well. So the second part of the bill was the changes to the powers and the duties of the Ethics Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology. There was some debate and some confusion about whether the Advisory Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology could give advice to the ethics committee on the matters that needed to be taken into account when the ethics committee applied for approval for a longer storage period for eggs, sperm, and embryos. Our select committee worked very hard to make sure that the rules on what advice could be given, and on what basis and to whom it could be given, were made really clear, and I hope that the final outcome achieves that goal.

I also make note of the work of the officials and the other members of the select committee. It is becoming a bit of a habit to commend the members of the committee, but they deserve it. This is the second time that I have had cause to do that today. I think that in a number of areas, we occasionally have political commentary—just occasionally—but generally we work in a respectful way. I think that is really important for all members of Parliament. We treat our submitters in a respectful way, and that is across the three parties represented on the committee. Even when it is clear that we do not agree with submitters, they are still treated with respect, and I think that is a very important thing for select committees to do if we want to encourage participation in the democratic process. We took the issues on this bill very seriously, as we do on bills like this, because we knew that this is not just a technical issue and it is certainly not a political issue; it is a very emotive and emotional issue for the families who are involved. It added a burden of responsibility for us to make sure that nobody is under any misunderstanding about the length of time that sperm, eggs, and embryos can be stored. The point of this bill was to make sure that that time was made absolutely crystal clear.

I commend the Minister of Justice for his early contribution right at the very start of this debate. I have a quote from him. He stated: “This Government believes it would be unfair to require fertility clinics to destroy the sperm, eggs, or embryos that have been stored for more than 10 years, when they have acted in good faith and reasonably believed they could be stored until 2014.” Had the Minister not taken this initiative, I think we would have had a lot of distress amongst fertility clinics, and certainly amongst families, in New Zealand. None of us wanted that to occur. So the Minister took a very good initiative. There will be no need for further debate on this issue, I hope. In future, though, issues that are broader than this amendment bill will come before the House again. This is a rapidly growing area of technology, and more and more families are now taking advantage of it. It was certainly tempting for the select committee and the submitters to broaden the scope of their contribution to the bill. I commend all of us for putting a leash on our own interest in this area, and maintaining the rigour that we determined right at the very start of our select committee process, which was to quite strongly enforce the narrowness of our debate.

Since 1984, when the first in vitro fertilisation baby was born in New Zealand, this technology has leapt ahead in leaps and bounds. We have had a considerable amount of our parliamentary time taken up by debating it. We have had leaders in that debate—people like Di Yates, my colleague from Hamilton, who ensured that we had international expertise. We obtained advice from other countries that had already been through the legislative process. We looked at all the potential pitfalls and tried to avoid them as much as possible. But the legislation that we are amending has been in place only since 2004, so this is a relatively recent issue for the New Zealand Parliament to be debating. I hope that we have set a good standard for the debate. I hope that the select committee is looked on in future as having given this bill the attention that it requires. I certainly support the bill’s rapid progress through the remainder of its third reading.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill. I note that time is running out and that the Deputy Speaker will be leaving the Chair shortly. As pointed out by the Hon Ruth Dyson, the Health Committee worked extremely well together and collaboratively on this very technical bill. It is a bill that came about after media inquiries alerted the Minister of Justice that clinics acting in good faith could be illegally storing gametes.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.