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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 04 Hansard (Thursday, 1 April 2004) . . Page.. 1577 ..

a licence issued by the NH&MRC licensing committee or is deemed to be exempt. This has been the case since June 2003. The Commonwealth legislation sets out strict criteria that the NH&MRC must consider before it may issue a licence authorising the use of excess ART embryos. These are set out in section 15 of the bill that we are debating tonight. In other words, the ACT bill presents the same strict criteria as deemed appropriate by the Commonwealth. Most other states in Australia have passed this type of legislation and have always maintained this type of regulatory control.

The question for members tonight is not whether or not this research and use of embryos in these particular circumstances can occur in the ACT, because the Commonwealth legislation already permits it in certain circumstances. The question is: should that be permitted in a uniform and consistent way across the ACT or should we decide that institutions which fall under the coverage of ACT law should have a more restrictive regime in place? For my part, I do not believe that it is anyone’s interests to have that sort of inconsistency in our regulatory regime. It simply flies in the face of the need to try and establish nationally consistent approaches on this very difficult issue.

The types of uses of excess ART embryos that must be licensed by the NH&MRC licensing committee may include, but are not necessarily limited to, use for research purposes—for example, to derive stem cells, to improve ART clinical practice or to better understand embryonic development and fertilisation. Ms Tucker’s amendment would prevent training people in ART techniques. I do not know whether Ms Tucker understands that that is a consequence of her amendments, but I can assure members that it is. I do not believe that it is appropriate to prohibit people being trained in ART techniques, but that is exactly the consequence of her amendments. Another consequence would be to prevent quality assurance activities such as examining the effectiveness of new culture media within an ART clinic. Ms Tucker’s amendments have fundamental impacts on the current process of artificial reproductive technology as it is supplied in the ACT. That is a fundamental question which members in this place need to consider very carefully because it has very significant implications.

The bill that we are debating tonight establishes very strict conditions under which excess ART embryos, with the donor’s consent, can be used for specific types of research. This is research that one day may—I accept that it “may”—save or greatly improve the lives of people who suffer from debilitating disease and severe injuries such as diabetes, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, cystic fibrosis, spinal cord injuries and juvenile diabetes. The passing of the amendments proposed by Ms Tucker will see these opportunities lost in the ACT and, given that the ACT is a significant area of medical research, could have wider ramifications. The ACT government has put considerable effort into building Canberra as a health and medical research hub. Passing these amendments would directly counter that effort and send a very clear signal to the research community that the ACT is closed to one of the most important fields in medical research available to us today.

I urge members not to accept these amendments but instead to support passage of the bill with the provisions intact.

MRS DUNNE (8.59): I will be supporting Ms Tucker’s amendment and the amendments which are consequential upon it. I will be supporting these amendments because they go to the heart of the matter. They do not go to the issue of whether we are consistent with

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