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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 04 Hansard (Thursday, 1 April 2004) . . Page.. 1594 ..

Many people have said many things on this issue. I am sure that all members have received many letters on this subject. I received an interesting letter, which I will read out. I am sure other members can read out letters to support either side of this argument. Basically, the letter that I received from this person was of interest to me. He is a scientist who has hairy lupus leukaemia. He stated that, if this legislation was supported and a cure was found for his disease through embryonic stem research, he would not be able to accept that cure because he would not be able to live with that on his conscience.

People might say to him, “That is your decision, which is tough. You did not want to accept that and you do not have to, but all those other people will benefit from that research.” The point that he was making as a scientist was if that same cure and research were delivered through adult stem cells he could still take advantage of that cure without having to make a decision between taking advantage of the cure or going against his conscience. As I said earlier, there are many different perspectives to this issue. However, I believe that we are going too far. There is obviously potential for eugenics. I am sure that members are aware that people with disabilities have also expressed concerns about this legislation.

Although I have received many letters on that issue I will not go through them all. I do not believe that reading letters is all that useful in these sorts of debates. I state in conclusion that this is a conscience issue. I respect the right of everyone to hold the views that they hold, but I do not accept a lot of the utilitarian arguments that have been put forward tonight as justification for this legislation. I said earlier that I would not be moving my other amendments. I state again that I will not be supporting this bill.

MRS DUNNE (10.13): As Ms Tucker said earlier, members put forward a number of utilitarian arguments to justify the fact that the use of embryos—which would be destroyed in any event—would be a legitimate way of proceeding. If we go down that path this legislation would inevitably lead to the creation of embryos so that we could experiment on them in the hope that some day we might learn something from that process. Members should remember that there is a sunset clause in this bill. After the expiration of that sunset clause there will be no protection and the creation of embryos will become lawful as opposed to legitimate.

Mr Hargreaves: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I thought Mrs Dunne had already spoken in debate on this issue.

MR SPEAKER: She can speak in debate a couple of times. Mrs Dunne is in order.

MRS DUNNE: As Ms Tucker said earlier, there has been much debate about whether it would be legitimate for medical purposes to use the knowledge that is gained through this cruel experimentation. This argument is the same argument that was used in Europe post-World War II. Did scientists gain that knowledge after the cruel experimentation that was conducted on prisoners in concentration camps? If any worthwhile information was gained as a result of those experiments was it legitimate for them to use that information? Clearly, the answer to that question is no. That same argument applies in this case. In The Age dated 8 April 2002 Guy Rundle said:

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