Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 8 Hansard (31 August) . . Page.. 2780 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

So I support the idea of the sunset clause being set at some point in the future. I think June of 2002 is a reasonable time and I sincerely hope and believe that we will have a report from the Law Reform Commission by that time. Incidentally, I must correct members about the title of this body. It was known at one stage as the Community Law Reform Committee. It is now the Law Reform Commission of the ACT, just to be clear about what it is called.

I think that it is logical to provide for a reasonable period of time to operate these provisions while we consider our position and while we establish whether legislation needs to remain in this form on a permanent basis on our statute books or whether it should be replaced by something different.

MR TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just to assist the Attorney, I understand it is July, not June.

MR HUMPHRIES: No, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, if I can correct you there. It applies to a child conceived in the territory before July 2002, so the effect is that it cuts out on 30 June 2002.

MR TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER: Good, thank you very much. So the house is clear on that amendment.

MS TUCKER (5.08): I agree with Mr Humphries in his response to Mr Osborne's proposal to have this sunset clause take effect much sooner. I support Mr Humphries' concerns about the unfairness of that. I am concerned about the sunset clause from Labor as well. I would like to go back again-I know Mr Berry did that. We have a situation in the ACT which is not satisfactory on a number of levels. It is obviously not satisfactory for those individuals who have borne children through this sort of technology and who feel that they do not have the rights that they need, so I have sympathy with those people in their situation.

As somebody who works in the Legislative Assembly as an elected representative, I do not believe it is satisfactory in terms of making law either. The more I have the opportunity to look at this, the more what-ifs, as Mr Stanhope called them, appear. This led me to look at what other places around the world were doing in response to assisted reproductive technology. It led me to look in detail at the reference to the Law Reform Commission and to the intention of Mr Osborne's proposed amendment to the legislation.

You can see a very common theme in all these responses. In the UK, a human fertilisation and embryology authority was set up in 1991. That authority basically ensures that all UK treatment clinics offering IVF or donor insemination or storing eggs, sperm or embryos conform to high medical and professional standards and are inspected regularly.

It collects comprehensive data about such treatments, and provides detailed advice and information to the public. It also licenses and monitors all human embryo research, supervising controlled research for the benefit of humankind, considering the ethical implications of a number of key issues and always taking account of the national debate which these often stimulate.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .