Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill

Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) Link to this

I move, That the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. I thank the Health Committee for its careful consideration of the bill and its recommendation that the bill be passed with some amendments.

The bill clarifies and implements the policy intent of section 10 of the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act 2004, which deals with the storage of human gametes and embryos. The Act provides that gametes and embryos may be stored for only 10 years, although it allows for extensions to the storage limit in particular cases. The 10-year limit on storage starts from when the Act came into force on 22 November 2004, or from when the storage of a gamete or an embryo began, whichever is later. The Government received legal advice that indicates that as the Act is currently written, the 10-year limit starts from when a gamete or embryo was stored. This means that some gametes or embryos placed in storage prior to 22 November 2004 are in unintentional breach of the Act. To enforce the Act as it stands would require the destruction of these gametes and embryos. That would be unreasonable and unfair on the couples concerned and on fertility clinics who had been acting in good faith.

The bill also clarifies the roles of the Ethics Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology and the Advisory Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology under the Act in extending the storage of gametes and embryos. When approving extensions to the storage limit, the ethics committee must apply the relevant guidelines and advice issued by the advisory committee.

The Health Committee received eight submissions on the bill.

Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) Link to this

That was a wonderful exposé from the Minister of Justice, and it was quite accurate. I was on the Health Committee with Dr Paul Hutchison at the time the House passed the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) Link to this

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill. I must agree with Stevie Chadwick that the science in this area has gone a long way over the last 30 years. The first birth of an in vitro fertilisation baby was in 1979, but prior to that, certainly in New Zealand, it was an area that was extraordinarily unregulated. The member’s memory of obstetricians going out to collect sperm and bringing them back, with few records kept, is absolutely accurate.

During the first reading of this bill Lianne Dalziel questioned why it was that it came to the attention of the House. I understand that it was the media—the good old media—that had made inquiries of the Ministry of Justice as to whether some of the clinics, even though they were acting in good faith, were illegally storing embryos and gametes. Of course, gametes are defined as sperms and eggs. There was a little bit of confusion about this from Radio New Zealand during the first reading, and it is important to make sure that it is aware of that.

This bill endeavours to make the rules absolutely crystal clear, because that is vital for the clinics involved and, of course, for the patients, who are very emotionally involved in these issues. Embryos and gametes must be disposed of after 10 years from 22 November 2004, or, subsequently, 10 years after the date of storage. The Ethics Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology has the ability to extend storage, and that is very important in situations where, for example, a young person aged 17 or 18 who has testicular or ovarian cancer may not want to start a family until they are 28 or 29. So it is very important to have that flexibility.

There were eight submitters on the bill and all of them supported the need to clarify the storage times. I believe that the Health Committee worked extremely well together and that, in general, there is cross-party agreement on the essence of what this bill is about. I also note that Dianne Yates, in her submission, was concerned about the science behind storage. She had the view that it was not well evidence-based, whereas in actual fact we do know that, provided there is a steady-state freezing environment that is devoid of irradiation, sperm, embryos, and eggs can be stored safely and consistently for many decades, probably. The technical difficulty is in both the freezing process and the thawing process. If the environment is not even, then one may damage the embryos and gametes. I think Dianne Yates compared it a little bit to Wattie’s frozen peas and their recommended life of 2 years. That is certainly not the case in the very sophisticated environment where human eggs, gametes, and embryos are stored.

Just to give a bit of an idea as to the extent of what is going on in New Zealand, every year about 1,100 babies are born as a result of in vitro fertilisation. In Australia it is about 8,500, and around the world it is literally hundreds of thousands, mainly from the Western World. They comprise between about 1 and 3 percent of all births in most OECD countries. The data we were given showed that in 2010 there were 12,000 embryos, about 68,000 eggs, and 75,000 straws of sperm—each straw containing many, many millions of those excellent little sperms—stored in New Zealand. Fertility Associates estimated that 33 percent of its stored sperms and 18 percent of stored embryos would be affected by the bill.

As the Minister said, issues were brought up during the submission period, including a grace period after the expiry of the 10-year storage limit. This is important so that patients have time to appeal to the ethics committee if they want an extension, and also there is the technical applicability for clinics of not being able to dispose of the gametes and embryos on a particular date. I think that is a very practical and realistic thing. There is the issue of stored gametes used to create embryos that are then stored. Of course, the clock starts from the moment the gametes themselves are stored. One cannot have two goes at it by converting the gametes into an embryo and then having another 10 years. In relation to gametes and embryos stored in other countries, it will apply from the beginning and will extend for 10 years. We were told at the Health Committee that this was becoming more and more of an issue as people came to New Zealand who had undergone an initial harvest overseas and required the treatment here in New Zealand.

The ethics committee’s role in making decisions about storage periods is very important. As I pointed out earlier on, each case is quite distinct. It could be a young woman of 16 with ovarian cancer who wants to have children in the future. Her ovarian tissue may be stored for a period of time of more than 10 years. It is clearly impossible to legislate for each specific case.

I note that during the first reading Te Ururoa Flavell made the point that the Māori Party has a considerable sense of sadness that we even have bills such as this in front of the House. He went on to say: “I cannot say that anyone in the Māori Party is at ease with the discussions around assisted reproductive technology, but we would be even more uneasy if these discussions went on without Māori being engaged in a real way.” I absolutely agree that it is vital that Māori are included, but it is important to bear in mind that the genesis of the original Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act occurred over a long period of time—over a decade—and it involved ethicists, consumers, scientists, clinicians, psychologists, and lawyers. Eventually the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill was enacted in 2004. I think it is also important to point out that the clinics, the consumers, and the clinicians have really not found any major problems with the Act at all, and although it is very useful that we are making this amendment today for a minor point regarding clarity, in terms of a review the fact that the Act is flexible is very much in tune with the complexity of the science and the change of science with time. I do not believe that there is a need for a review at this stage of events as the legislation was enacted only 6 years ago, but maybe that is something for the future.

Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) Link to this

I will make a few remarks on the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill. The first thing I should do is recall the work of Di Yates in this general area. I am sure that other colleagues on my side of the House, and hopefully those on the other side, will have done that, as well. She pushed this policy area for years, and she did so not because she was for or against human-assisted reproductive technology but because she knew it was here and that it needed to be well regulated. She did not see it as being an issue of ethics, or of anything of the sort; she just knew that a good nation, if it was to run well, would pay attention to the detail about how this new technology would be regulated and put together. It is just as we did with genetic modification technology, and just as we must do with all technologies that come our way and all the nuclear technologies that have come our way in recent decades, and on it goes. Di Yates picked up the human-assisted reproductive technology regulation and championed it, if you will, over the years.

I would watch with some amusement, because veterinarians, and I as a veterinarian, have been involved with some of these technologies for decades—for longer than has been the case in the human area. The reason is that reproductive technology in humans is a sensitive issue. It is sensitive because one needs to be clear about how gametes are collected, how gametes are stored, and how gametes are destroyed, when destruction is the right thing, and about the fact that a little child can be born with these human-assisted reproductive technologies. There is a little child in my life—she is coming on 2 years and 4 months—who is here because of this technology, and who would not be here without this technology. She is a delight, and I last saw her on Sunday. I do not know when she is coming for her first sleepover, but it will not be long. Human-assisted reproductive technologies have altered my life, as well, but in much earlier times I was involved in the equivalent technologies as a veterinarian. I say let us hear it for Di Yates.

It is interesting that this legislative change is tiny—it is tiny. The reason we are giving it the time of the House is that it is important that we get our legislative framework clear, accurate, and unambiguous, so that everyone knows what the rules are. Whatever the rules are, so long as they are clear, people can follow them. But they have not been clear. They have not been clear about at what date the age of an embryo starts—what the birth date is of an embryo. It was not clear whether that birth period started in 2004 when the legislation was passed, or whether the birth of an embryo was the time when the embryo was collected. This bill makes it clear that it is the latter, so that is good.

The reason we are taking that time is that it is easy for society to get upset about something that is perceived to have gone wrong. The best way to avoid that is to be clear about the rules, and so it is with other technologies that are similar. Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis—if that is the right terminology, and I will be in trouble if I have got it wrong—

KEVIN HAGUE (Green) Link to this

I will begin by heaping some praise on the officials who worked with the Health Committee on the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill, both those officials who helped us out with the technical aspects of what is in fact quite a technical bill and those who worked on the extensive task of drafting the amendments to the bill and assisting us with that aspect of our work.

Previous speakers have referred to the submissions we received, and I greatly appreciated those submissions. They were not great in number but they were high in quality. All of them made, I thought, useful and thoughtful contributions to the debate around the issue, so I pass my thanks to the submitters. As the chair of the select committee has indicated, there was a high degree of agreement from submitters on the central points of the bill, and where there was difference between submitters it tended to be on issues that were not included in the bill.

The third point I would like to make is to say that it was a pleasure to participate in a discussion at the select committee that was non-partisan in nature, where all members of the committee were looking for the best outcome and worked very well together, as I think the chair has indicated—a pleasure that is all too rare, I have to say.

HEATHER ROY (ACT) Link to this

The ACT Party will be supporting the second reading of the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill. As the debate has been going on this evening, I recalled being on the Health Committee at the time that we grappled with many very thorny issues concerning what at the time was still quite a contentious issue. Things have moved on. Dr Paul Hutchison mentioned Louise Brown, the first baby born by in vitro fertilisation in 1978, and things have moved on significantly from then.

We were very fortunate at the time of the 2004 bill to have Dr Paul Hutchison on the select committee to provide us with some quite technical expertise, and we are fortunate to have him here with us now so that he is still able to provide that very good advice to us. Dr Hutchison said tonight that 1,100 babies a year are born through in vitro fertilisation, which is a staggering number, and it makes such a huge difference to the lives of so many families.

The bill, as several other members have mentioned, is just a very tiny amendment bill. I have to say that it is gratifying, 6 years down the track, for those of us who sat on the select committee that heard the original bill to know that largely we got it right. We had to grapple with many thorny issues at the time, as I have said. Some issues were very contentious, and some of the submitters we heard from came and spoke with a great deal of passion and emotion, but they took very different sides of the arguments. As we are making only this very small amendment here in the House now, it is gratifying to know that we did largely get it right.

I think that the intention of the committee at the time was certainly for the 10-year period that gametes and embryos could be stored for to be from the time of storage, so the 2004 argument, which has become the legal aspect of this debate, was not what was originally intended. It is good that we have the opportunity to clarify that tonight and to do something about that. Others have also mentioned the 6-month period of grace in the bill. I was not able to hear the submitters, but I understand that that was a popular concept. I think it makes a good deal of sense, and certainly the ACT Party is happy to support that measure tonight.

The other part of the bill that I think is important—and the Green member mentioned it just prior to me getting to my feet—is that the clarification of the roles of the ethics committee and the advisory committee is very important. Unlike Mr Hague, I support guidelines as opposed to regulation, but I do not think that that will come as any surprise to him. I think that the ethics committee and the advisory committee are chosen very carefully. The people who are on them are there because they have a breadth of experience. They have a lot of technical expertise. I think that they need the freedom that guidelines can provide, so that they can have flexibility and are able to make the decisions they need to make wisely, but it is also welcome that this amendment bill is providing clarification of the rules for those committees.

Some of the problems that arise are still thorny, and the expertise of the people on the committees is greatly valued. They take their jobs very seriously, and it is important that they have those guidelines within which to operate. The ACT Party is very proud to support this bill tonight. We welcome it, and I think it is worth thanking the members of the Health Committee in 2004 who did a very good job at the time. Thank you.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) Link to this

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa e te Whare. The Māori Party wants to raise three very specific concerns in this discussion to amend the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act 2004 to state that in vitro embryos must be disposed of before the expiry period of 10 years or any later date approved by the ethics committee. The first is the lack of consultation regarding tikanga Māori, the second is the status of whakapapa, and the third is the critical issue of ethical responsibility in respect of Māori ownership and participation in decision making. All of these concerns are wrapped up in Te Tiriti o Waitangi. As tangata whenua and as a Treaty partner, we restate the constitutional obligation of all agencies of the Crown, including ethics committees, to ensure Māori participation, protection, and partnership in all decision making.

When we think about tikanga in this field, I note that a separate Ethics Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology has been established to review and approve research involving new technologies or treatments for human reproduction and infertility—technologies that can be highly invasive and even exploitative. They are technologies such as tissue banking, genetic engineering, the manipulation and storage of human embryos, therapeutic cloning, pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, the splitting of embryos, and the creation of hybrid embryos or transgenic life forms. Although this legislation is specifically restricted to the storage of embryos, I want to make reference to the wider field and the particular risks and concerns it poses for Māori.

One of the Ethics Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology’s seven guiding principles states that “The needs, values, and beliefs of Māori should be considered and treated with respect.” Those needs, values, and beliefs are all part of the tikanga that we desperately want to see applied throughout all processes, be it the process used for the handing over of, the storage of, or the burial or cremation of embryos. These are specially charged moments for Māori, and they need to be properly considered, managed, and handled in line with tikanga Māori.

The Advisory Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology has already highlighted Māori concerns about the protection of whakapapa and the need for collective discussion about cultural implications, kaitiakitanga, and appropriate tikanga in its report Consultation on the Use of In Vitro Maturation in Fertility Treatment, which was released last year. Having documented the concerns, we believe it is now time to take action to give effect to the report’s recommendations. Yet in this bill, both the issues and recommendations in respect of Māori concerns are simply nowhere to be seen.

The second critical aspect is about the law recognising the authority that whānau should have over their whakapapa and any embryonic material that contains such whakapapa. It is a concept that is clearly spelt out in an article by Dr Mārewa Glover and Dr Benedicta Rousseau, entitled “ ‘Your Child is Your Whakapapa’: Māori Considerations of Assisted Human Reproduction and Relatedness”. Their study noted that for Māori these issues could not be confined just to the mechanics of technology or objective technological interventions; they were about what constitutes human life and relationships. They were about the importance and uniqueness of Māori identity. They were about whakapapa, and they were about the right of whānau to determine what happens to their embryos rather than allow that decision to be made by a few people on a detached committee. The reason is simple: those eggs, those embryos, those foetuses, those babies, belong to the whānau, not to the scientists.

I come to the issue of the ethical responsibility of what happens to unused eggs after 10 years—who owns them, whether or not they are destroyed, and how decisions are made about them. I refer the House to a key resource on ethical consent around Māori issues, Te Tauranga Waka. It was put together by the Pūtaiora Writing Group of Khyla Russell, Barry Smith, Moe Milne, Paul Reynolds, Stephanie Palmer, and Māui Hudson. The group recommended gathering and reporting data relevant and meaningful for Māori to provide for proper assessment of issues, understanding critical issues such as kaitiakitanga and their place in the decision-making process, and ensuring Māori participation in decision making itself.

Finally, we raise again the whole question of whether human embryo use in research will help sustain us or contribute to our demise as a people, the ownership that whānau should have over any of their own embryonic material, and the right of whānau to be fully involved in all relevant decision-making concerning any issues to do with their whakapapa.

There are too many weighty issues involved in this bill. Although we understand and support its general intention, we simply do not believe that there has been sufficient korero with whānau, hapū, and iwi for us to do anything other than oppose this bill at this time. Kia ora tātou.

Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) Link to this

I am pleased to speak in the second reading debate on the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill. I would like to make some introductory comments about infertility in New Zealand and about in vitro fertilisation. As members know, in vitro fertilisation was first undertaken in New Zealand in 1983, 5 years after the first in vitro fertilisation baby, Louise Brown, was born in England. Since then in vitro fertilisation has become an increasingly common treatment for infertility. It has certainly improved over the last decade or so, with drug treatment regimes and egg retrieval mechanisms. There are better fertilisation techniques and better methods of culture, cryopreservation, and transferred embryos.

In New Zealand about 15 in every 100 couples have difficulty conceiving a child, and about five in every 100 go on to have in vitro fertilisation treatment. We have heard tonight that hundreds and hundreds of in vitro fertilisation babies are born each year to New Zealand couples. It is excellent to know that success rates are increasing all the time. About 50 percent of women under the age of 38 who have in vitro fertilisation treatment become pregnant in their first cycle, and that is a fantastic result. For women under the age of 38 the chances of pregnancy increase to over 70 percent after two cycles, and to 90 percent after three cycles. These are excellent success rates.

Unfortunately, infertility has been rising in New Zealand, and there are a number of reasons for that, but it is pleasing to know that treatment centres are available around New Zealand. The causes of infertility are numerous. A common reason is the increased age at which women start a family. Other reasons include obesity levels in men and women, sexually transmitted diseases, and reduced quality of sperm.

This amendment bill was introduced because there was uncertainty over when one could dispose of gametes and eggs that had been stored prior to the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act coming into force. Although this bill concerns only a technical amendment, it was felt that there should be some clarification, and this bill clarifies that sperm, eggs, and embryos stored before 2004 can be stored until 2014.

I acknowledge the important work of Dianne Yates and the Health Committee during the last Parliament, and I acknowledge the comments to the effect that the committee got the original legislation pretty much right. This bill just amends the Act and improves on it. If fertility clinics have clients who wish to extend storage beyond 2014 they will require the approval of the Ethics Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology before that 10-year storage limit is up.

The select committee made a number of changes to this bill, and these changes have been adopted by the Government. We heard about some of those tonight, such as the 6-month grace period in relation to the expiry of the 10-year storage limit and any extensions to it. Importantly, during that 6-month grace period any other uses of the material are prohibited. That amendment has been made for more logistical reasons, to make it easier for fertility clinics to dispose of gametes and embryos in accumulated lots.

Another recommendation that was agreed to was that the permitted 10-year storage period for embryos created by stored gametes should run from the earliest storage date of those gametes. Also, there is clarification that any storage period outside New Zealand should include a calculation in relation to the 10-year storage limit on gametes and embryos in New Zealand, and that was taken into account. This bill is not contentious. The changes and amendments are minor, but they will improve the original Act. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) Link to this

It gives me a lot of pleasure to speak on the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill. Although it is mostly a technical amendment bill, and a bill that is largely uncontentious and has gained almost complete consensus within the House, nevertheless it is noteworthy for some of the reasons that members have already discussed. In particular, it deals with technology that is rapidly changing over time, and, therefore, legislation has to be able to keep up with that changing technology. Also, it deals with an area that is very emotive. It involves a lot of passion, often a lot of heartache, and a lot of difficulty for families. Knowing that the legislation is absolutely right and that people have clarity about the intention of the legislation is important. As Hone Harawira said, we are talking about human life and relationships. It is easy to forget sometimes that, despite all these words on a piece of paper or the submissions that we hear in a select committee in a very clinical environment, we are actually talking about human life, relationships, and people and their desire to grow a family. It is important that we get these things right.

For the most part it seems that the original bill had it right. The amendments being made in this bill are fairly minor, given the area we are dealing in. They ensure that current practice is legitimate and is appropriately accounted for in legislation. I was interested to hear from Heather Roy that when the original bill went to the select committee, there were submissions from either side of the fence, it was a passionate argument, and there was a lot of heat in the debate in those days. It was quite different from what we heard at the Health Committee hearing on this bill, where the submitters were all more or less of one mind and were looking for us just to tidy up some aspects of the bill as it was written. That shows that people can move on, how issues that seem very divisive can settle down, and how people can take the path chosen by the Government of the day and see it as being the right direction. It is important to remember, when the debate seems quite vehement and heated on a particular issue, to stick to our guns and follow a path, if we believe and know that is the right thing to do. This legislation has turned out to be absolutely the right thing to do.

The bill we are debating tonight makes some technical amendments to the original Act, mostly on the storage of sperm, eggs, and embryos. The current 10-year storage limit applies retrospectively, and there are some practical problems in the way fertility organisations have been storing those gametes and embryos. Labour passed the original Act when it was in Government, and members have acknowledged the work of former MP Di Yates. It is important to acknowledge her efforts in an environment in which this was a difficult issue to grapple with. It is much easier for us to look back on that problem retrospectively, but at the time it was a difficult issue, and I have no doubt that Di Yates had people lobbying her in all different directions. The fact that she guided such good legislation, which needs such a small amount of amendment, through the House in that environment is something worth noting. Fertility treatment and reproductive research had been advancing rapidly for some time, and Labour was keen, at that stage, to ensure that New Zealand kept pace with the changes, while ensuring that decisions made were consistent with the values of all New Zealanders.

The use of in vitro fertilisation is growing in New Zealand and tonight we have already heard that around 5 percent of couples use in vitro fertilisation treatment, and around 1,100 to 1,150 babies are born annually using embryo transfer cycles. The first baby born through assisted reproductive means was born back in 1978 which, as it happens, was the year I was born, so it sticks in my mind.

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) Link to this

I begin my short call on the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill by acknowledging the growing number of New Zealand couples for whom fertility issues are not straightforward. I think Steve Chadwick mentioned that 15 percent of New Zealand couples have difficulty conceiving naturally, and 5 percent resort to in vitro fertilisation treatment. There could be any number of reasons for that. First-time parents are getting older, and diet, lifestyle, and even men wearing jeans that are too tight have all been considered causes.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) Link to this

As prior speakers have said, the Labour Party will be supporting the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill. The bill does a number of things. It clarifies that the 10-year limit on the storage of embryos or gametes began when the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act came into force, rather than at the earlier date when those gametes or embryos were first stored. That is necessary for practical reasons. The bill also clarifies some of the powers of advisory committees.

One thing that I will mention, which arises from this debate, is the contribution from the Māori Party. I was somewhat surprised to hear Hone Harawira say that there is a special Māori perspective here that has not properly been taken into account. I do, at times, get a little tired of the assertion that the Māori perspective under the Treaty is different from the one that applies to the general populace, and I think this is a case in point. After Mr Harawira made his contribution—which did not make common sense to me, given that Māori men and women suffer from infertility problems on occasions, just as non-Māori men and women do—I could not see the difference in principle that arose.

It caused me to look at the paper record that we have before us in this Parliament. We heard from other contributors that public submission processes were available to people in respect of this bill, and I am sure they were faithfully recorded by the Health Committee. I looked at the select committee’s report to see whether there was any special circumstance relating to Māoridom that would mean some special rules were necessary to protect some alternative interest in respect of Māoridom that was not properly catered for by the current law. What did I find? I found nothing. There was not one submission that said there was some special principle, as articulated by the Māori Party, that was applicable to Māori that was not adequately covered by the current law.

Then I thought to myself: what is this law doing that is so offensive to the Māori Party that causes its members to come to the House and speak against this bill? I looked at the provisions in the bill, and I considered what Hone Harawira had said. He was concerned that there be appropriate recognition of different interests. What we are doing here, in respect of this bill, is tightening up the rules for the advisory committee. We are also adding the power of the advisory committee to revoke a prior approval that it had given. That seems to me to be exactly the sort of thing that would be assuaging the concerns of the Māori Party. But, no. The Māori Party came down with one of its, at times, cant repetitions of its normal position in these things—that there has to be some sort of separate system to take account of their interests, which cannot be properly taken into account through the normal processes of the advisory committee.

Given that that was the submission, I would have thought that the Māori Party might have turned up to the select committee and made that point, but they did not do that either. Having heard the contribution from Hone Harawira, I think that in this case it had as much substance as some of the Māori Party’s rhetoric in respect of the foreshore and seabed debate, which we can see laid bare this week as being largely smoke and mirrors as well, given that the Foreshore and Seabed Act does not change nearly as much of substance as the Māori Party has previously pretended was necessary.

This is a good bill. It clarifies that the limit on the period for which gametes and embryos can be stored is 10 years normally, but there can be a period of extension. Paul Hutchison told the House why that is necessary, and I agree with him. There are circumstances when a storage period of greater than 10 years can be appropriate where, for example, the person for whom the gamete or the embryo is being stored does not yet want to have children. That could be for a proper medical reason. The person might have needed medical intervention, or might have become infertile for a reason, and might want to have children in the future. It is appropriate that there be some discretion to enable the storage period to be longer than 10 years. The general rule should be that it is 10 years, but that the 10 years should run from the date of the Act, rather than from the date of the original storage.

I also think it is appropriate, for some of the reasons that the Māori Party said, that we make clearer the advisory committee’s role. But I reject the idea that this legislation is somehow flawed because it does not properly take into account the interests of Māori. The interests of Māori in this instance coincide with the interests of non-Māori. Were that otherwise, I would have expected at least one submission to the contrary, which we did not receive. With that, I am happy to close by recording once again that the Labour Party supports this bill.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) Link to this

I am very pleased to stand in support of the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill. As we understand it, this amendment bill is necessary because of the Government’s receipt of legal advice that fertility clinics, acting in good faith, may have unknowingly breached the storage limit because the law was not clear. It is incredibly important to have some clarity, good sense, and parameters around this bill. It is an issue that is full of concern, emotion, aspiration, and disappointment for people, so it is good that we have clarity and sense around it. We understand that a number of couples in New Zealand have great difficulty with fertility issues—20 percent has been the figure quoted—and it is great that we have the technology to assist them.

Subsequent legal advice has raised concerns that the 10-year limit starts whenever a human sperm, egg, or embryo is stored. This means that any person who stores sperm, eggs, or embryos for more than 10 years is in breach of the Act. This bill now clarifies that situation. Sperm, eggs, and embryos stored before 2004 can be stored until 2014. If fertility clinics have clients who wish to extend storage beyond 2014, they will require approval from the Ethics Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology before the 10-year storage limit is reached.

This amendment bill brings some clarity to one particular issue that needed addressing, and it does so with largely the support of the House. I am very pleased to support the bill. Thank you.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) Link to this

I forgot to record our party’s vote. I seek leave to record it.