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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 04 Hansard (Thursday, 1 April 2004) . . Page.. 1590 ..

to tonight’s debate, we note that the synergy between adult and embryonic stem cell research is a central feature of the work done through the national stem cell centre.

It is important to place on the record the number of embryos that are currently available. It is widely stated that there are around 70,000 excess ART embryos. My understanding is that that figure is not correct and that there are, in fact, about 70,000 embryos in storage because the couples for whom they have been created still want them, have not decided if they are no longer required or, if the embryos are excess, have not determined what they want to do with them. It is not known how many of these are excess in any given year or how many would be available for research. Westmead Hospital, for instance, advised that more than 60 per cent of their frozen embryos are used each year in IVF treatment cycles. According to the South Australian Council of Reproductive Technology, in 2001 only 137 embryos were donated for research in that state.

At Westmead Hospital, only three out of the 150 couples who responded to a letter from the hospital seeking advice on their excess embryos chose to donate their excess embryos for research. While the number of excess embryos is not known, it is safe to say that the number available for research is quite small. (Extension of time granted)

To repeat the point that I have made: the bill we are debating tonight provides a strict and nationally consistent means of regulating the use of excess embryos. It will align the ACT with the Commonwealth and ensure that we have access to the expertise of national bodies in examining these issues. There are huge possibilities for advances in both knowledge and treatment for a wide range of developmental and degenerative diseases. We need to allow research to continue as it may provide enormous benefits to our society.

It is important to note that Ms Tucker’s amendments could mean that the ACT is not seen as part of the national regulatory scheme. We could be the only jurisdiction in Australia left out of that scheme. That would send a very poor message to our research institutions in the ACT about the attitude of the ACT to research, especially when there are rigorous national protocols in place to regulate such research. People working in the ACT are known internationally for their outstanding medical research. I cannot support the amendment moved by Ms Tucker because I do not want to limit research. As I have said, this legislation provides for an extremely strict regulatory scheme for the conduct of human embryo research. The only embryos that may be used are unwanted embryos that have been generated by ART technology—and then only by donation. I stress again that these embryos would be accessed only by choice of the people donating them. The conditions under which they may be used are very strict. The embryos are only able to used when they are 14 days old.

I think I have put my position quite clearly on the record. I am in support of human embryo research. I do not think that these amendments, which try to limit its application in the territory, are helpful. I stress again that these technologies can be used only on embryos that are donated by choice. A very small number are in storage. The benefits are quite fundamental and address a whole array of issues. We should not cut this work off as it is just beginning to move forward.

MR HARGREAVES (9.56): I will be very brief. I think the case both for and against embryonic stem cell research in general has been put fairly well by Mrs Dunne,

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