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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 04 Hansard (Thursday, 1 April 2004) . . Page.. 1599 ..

MR CORBELL (Minister for Health and Minister for Planning) (10.43): I stand to be corrected but I believe that Mrs Dunne’s proposed amendment will delete all of clause 10 (3) (b). It is not just about deleting the circumstances in which an embryo is found to be unsuitable for biological implantation in a woman’s body; it is also about removing other courses of action associated with assisted reproductive technology. Clause 10 (3) (c) states in part, “for the purposes of achieving pregnancy”.

Mrs Dunne: My amendment will remove clause 10 (b) paragraphs (i) and (ii). It will not remove clause 10 (3) (c). Other members have made a similar mistake.

MR CORBELL: I apologise for that. Nevertheless, the amendment would have the effect of denying people an opportunity to develop further assisted reproductive technology to enable a woman to achieve a pregnancy. That is the extreme end of this debate. Tonight Mrs Dunne is arguing that IVF should not be permissible technology. I accept that that is her philosophical position, but I—and I am sure many Canberrans—would find it difficult to accept that it was no longer appropriate to have IVF procedures in the territory. I respect Mrs Dunne’s philosophical view, but I most strongly disagree with it. I am sure that many Canberrans share my concern.

Every year assisted reproductive technology benefits thousands of Canberrans by enabling them to achieve a pregnancy and experience the joy of having a child. Mrs Dunne is stating that, because of her philosophical perspective, that should not be allowed to occur. What an extraordinary proposition! She wants to remove access to a facility that many people in society presently have. Medical research gives those people an opportunity to achieve those things. Members should not accept the proposition that IVF technology is evil and that it should be denied to Canberrans and to everyone else in the ACT.

MS DUNDAS (10.47): I place on the record my opposition to this amendment. Mrs Dunne said earlier that she is uncomfortable with the use of assisted reproductive technology but it is not an argument that I support. IVF and assisted reproductive technology should be allowed to continue in the ACT—and I support their continuance—because they bring benefits to families in the territory.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 10 agreed to.

Clause 11.

MRS DUNNE (10.48): I move amendment No 3 circulated in my name [see schedule 5 at page 1616].

To some extent this amendment is similar to my previous amendment because the subject matter is essentially the same. It has been pointed out on a number of occasions that assisted reproductive technology inevitably results in surplus embryos. That is one of the many reasons why I oppose the use of assisted reproductive technology. The problem is that it allows most of the new life that is created by technology to succumb.

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