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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 04 Hansard (Thursday, 1 April 2004) . . Page.. 1580 ..

observation; micromanipulation, lasering, cutting and dissecting—so we are just cutting them up for the sake of it; studies in genetic makeup, which might be permissible in some context. (Extension of time granted.) Excess embryos can also be used for quality assurance to see whether our systems work. The most alarming use in this list is to use embryonic stem cells for drug testing and toxicology studies.

At the moment, although it is considered immoral and in most places illegal to test cosmetics on animals, it would be possible, under this legislation, to test cosmetics and perfumes on human embryos. It gives a whole new meaning to the signs that you see on cosmetics these days “Not tested on animals”. I ask members when they see that sign next time to question “If it is not tested on animals, on whom is it tested?” Is it tested on embryos? Under this legislation, and under legislation that currently exists in other states, it would be possible for this to happen.

These are the sorts of things that Ms Tucker’s amendment seeks to stop. The Minister for Health says that we cannot possibly do this because then we would be out of step with other jurisdictions and there would be inconsistencies within this jurisdiction as to who could do what to whom. Quite frankly, I am not moved by those arguments. It is quite clear that, as things currently stand, Commonwealth institutions like the ANU, specifically the John Curtin School of Medical Research, the CSIRO and corporations are already governed by the rules passed by the Commonwealth. There is a grey area about what happens to ACT institutions. My understanding is, from what the minister has said and from the briefings that we have received, that if we pass Ms Tucker’s amendments we will not be able to conduct embryonic stem cell research at the Canberra Hospital, the University of Canberra and other private research institutions. If we can find some way of limiting this abominable practice, I am prepared to support it. Ms Tucker’s amendment puts the brakes on this research, which is absolutely out of kilter with modern humanitarian approaches to medicine.

If we go ahead, people at the Canberra Hospital, the University of Canberra and other institutions will be able to extract cells from nascent human beings without consent and without the usual moral and ethical procedures. As a result, these nascent human beings will die from the extraction of those cells.

I have always supported the right to life from the moment of conception. The reason I opposed Mr Berry’s bill last year, supported Mr Pratt’s protection of the unborn bill and attempted to move amendments to the Human Rights Bill was to underline our responsibility as legislators to protect people from the outset of their life until it naturally concludes—not to have it concluded by the microsurgical techniques of some researcher. An excess embryo in olden days parlance was an unborn baby, but now it is an excess embryo. I will not be part of any legislation that allows us to test perfumes or cosmetics on excess embryos.

MRS CROSS (9.13): I will not be supporting the Greens’ amendments. In my view, the utilisation of excess assisted reproductive technology—also known as ART—embryos should not be prohibited. I am on the record as having said that in this place two years ago when I put forward an MPI on stem cell research. While I recognise the need for a regulatory system framework to ensure the ethical use of such embryos, I strongly advocate the provisions of the Human Embryo (Research) Bill licensing the use of excess ART embryos for stem cell research. I am supporting this not because every other

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