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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 04 Hansard (Thursday, 1 April 2004) . . Page.. 1576 ..

(v) allowing the excess ART embryo to succumb; or

(b) the use is carried out by an accredited ART centre, and—

… … …

(ii) the use forms part of diagnostic investigations conducted in connection with the assisted reproductive technology treatment of the woman for whom the excess ART embryo was created; or

(c) … is for the purpose of achieving pregnancy in a woman other than the woman for whom the excess ART embryo was created …

Basically these uses are all in connection with assisting reproduction or allowing the embryo to die. If there are other ways necessary to define the use, that can be done through regulations. Regulations are disallowable and so subject to scrutiny. These are the only uses I am supporting today. My other amendments are all consequential and essentially remove references to the licensing system.

MR CORBELL (Minister for Health and Minister for Planning) (8.51): I will be speaking to all of Ms Tucker’s amendments because, as she has indicated, her initial amendment is followed by a series of consequential amendments. All these amendments appear to be designed to meet one particular goal—that is, to ban all research on excess assisted reproductive technology or ART embryos. Firstly, I will quickly describe what Ms Tucker’s amendments would allow to occur in the ACT. If these amendments were passed, then only exempt uses of excess embryos, as outlined in section 10 (iii) (a) to (d) would be allowed. These uses relate to the custodianship of excess ART embryos by ART providers, the conduct of necessary diagnostic investigations and achieving a pregnancy in a woman other than a woman that the embryo was created for. To summarise, it formalises activities which already commonly occur in the ACT. Much more significant is what Ms Tucker’s amendments would prevent.

The collective effect of the amendments is to ban research on excess embryos in the ACT and create confusion between Commonwealth and territory law. ACT Health has discussed Ms Tucker’s amendments with parliamentary counsel. The advice received confirms that Commonwealth legislation has limited coverage due to constitutional issues. Commonwealth acts do not cover state agencies, individuals or universities, particularly the University of Canberra. We should recognise that the ANU is covered by Commonwealth legislation because it is a Commonwealth institution. This means that, even if Ms Tucker’s amendments were to be passed, some agencies, which fall under the scope of the Commonwealth constitutional powers, would still be able to undertake embryo research. So we would have a circumstance where some agencies, some entities, some institutions in Canberra would be able to conduct embryo research but others would not. That is the effect of Ms Tucker’s amendments. It flies in the face of trying to achieve a universal nationally consistent regulatory regime.

For example, other institutions such as the Canberra Hospital and private hospitals would be prevented from doing so. The nationally consistent scheme will address these gaps and inconsistencies, provide uniform and consistent regulation and avoid uncertainty about the application of the regulatory scheme. The government legislation, as originally drafted, seeks to regulate certain uses of ART excess embryos. Under Commonwealth law it is already an offence to use an excess ART embryo unless that use is authorised by

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