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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 04 Hansard (Thursday, 1 April 2004) . . Page.. 1583 ..

scientists to perform the research that we need, we will never progress further than we are today. In 10 years time we, friends, relatives and others will look back on a debate such as this and say, “For Christ’s sake, why were there people who tried to prevent something like this going through. Ten or 20 years ago, I lived with the issue but now it is commonplace.”

I commend Mr Corbell for bringing this bill forward. I reiterate that I am not supporting embryonic stem cell research because it is being done in every other state or territory, although it does bring us into line. I have been an advocate of embryonic stem cell research for a very long time. I have seen people suffering who could have benefited from something like this had it started earlier. Let us hope that those who have suffered from quadriplegia, paraplegia and other serious diseases will some day achieve some quality of life because of the research and the benefits from embryonic stem cell research.

MR PRATT (9.23): I rise to talk to this amendment. Having missed the in-principle stage, I would like the opportunity to take a broad approach.

MR SPEAKER: It is not open to you, Mr Pratt. You have got to stick to the amendments.

MR PRATT: My focus will definitely be on the amendment. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am trying to support Ms Tucker’s amendment. The reason is that I see some good in it. I have wrestled with this issue for quite some time not only in the moral sense but also in the ethical and the medical sense. Some Christian and Muslim advice supports the use of excess ART embryos for ethical medical research. The wise counsel of my wife in recent days has perhaps tipped me over to taking the decision to support the Human Embryo (Research) Bill. The progressive Muslim view is that “God breathes life into an embryo after about eight weeks.” Certainly the Christian view that I have drawn upon to help formulate my position, which is why I cannot support this amendment, is that Jesus said, “Don’t get too tangled up with covenants. You’ll make the right decision so long as you respect and love your fellow man”—and, of course, in politically correct terms, your fellow woman.

I suppose, in a sense, I have been guided to making that decision. I do support ethical, medical, lifesaving embryo research. I am satisfied that the NH&MRC provisions in this bill will lock into place the ethical guidelines, checks and balances; therefore, I do not want to see the NHMRC provisions of this bill amended at all. I remind members that the Commonwealth model act that this legislation is based on was very well researched and supported by bioethicists of high regard. I am confident in my reading of this act and the Commonwealth model act, that an applicant will have to proceed through at least four checks and balance gates before they can get a licence. The important issue here is that there must be full disclosure on the use of embryos. I am satisfied that this bill will guarantee that.

The NHMRC benchmarks for what the embryo research can be used for are watertight. I do not think that there is a danger that embryos are going to be misused for exploitative commercial reasons. Medical research aimed at saving life is fundamental. I would have to echo what Mrs Cross said a moment ago—that is, science and medicine must progress. Embryo stem research is taking us down that progressive path; therefore, I will

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