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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 04 Hansard (Thursday, 1 April 2004) . . Page.. 1596 ..

life. I do not know—and I do not believe anyone else knows—what is the solution to this problem. What are we to do with 70,000 unused embryos? For the purposes of the act those embryos are not all excess, but it has been estimated that there are 70,000 unused embryos in Australia. What do we do with those potential 70,000 lives?

Somewhere along the line someone will have to make a decision about this issue. At the moment those embryos can be thawed out, allowed to die and then destroyed. As a legislator who is charged with upholding life I cannot support that provision in the bill. It will start the process of destruction of the existing 70,000 embryos and the destruction of any embryos created in the future. We have to draw a line in the sand. We cannot make it licit for excess embryos to be allowed to succumb or die quietly at night. I commend this amendment on humanitarian grounds.

MR CORBELL (Minister for Health and Minister for Planning) (10.25): I do not support this amendment and I encourage other members not to support it. We have to question whether this amendment will have any effect, as Commonwealth legislation, which contains a similar clause, will apply in certain circumstances in the ACT. In many respects we are dealing with the same question that we dealt with when we considered Ms Tucker’s amendments earlier this evening—that is, whether or not the Assembly wants to create a regime in the ACT within which certain institutions can do certain things and other institutions cannot. Fundamentally, that question must still be addressed and considered by members.

I accept that Mrs Dunne is putting forward a philosophical and moral point of view. However, in that scenario I have to ask: What will happen if the donor of that excess embryo states, “I would like that material destroyed?” Mrs Dunne is stating that that cannot occur. I accept that that is because of her philosophical point of view but, from my perspective, it is questionable. If the donor states, “I do not want any material that came from me to exist any longer”, it leaves that embryonic material in some sort of no man’s land.

If donors wanted that embryonic material destroyed, as they do not consider it to be life, they would not adopt the view that has been adopted by Mrs Dunne. Why then should that material be left in some sort of limbo? If the donor’s intention was clear, that material could not be used without consent. Mrs Dunne is proposing that these embryos be held in some strange form of legal limbo in an attempt to satisfy her philosophical position. I do not accept the amendment. I hope that all members consider this matter carefully before they come to a decision in relation to it.

MS DUNDAS (10.29): This evening both Mrs Dunne and Mr Corbell raised some interesting points about this proposed amendment. I do not support the amendment that was moved earlier by Mrs Dunne, but I think she raised some interesting points. To use the term used earlier by Mr Corbell, those embryos would be left in limbo. I am concerned also about other issues that are dealt with by this amendment, which I am sure will be dealt with later.

I do not think anyone wants to see excess ART embryos lying around. That scenario would be even more frightening than the assisted reproductive technology scenario that was put forward by Mrs Dunne. The statistics show that there are more than 700,000 excess embryos and that embryos are still being created. The couples that created them

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