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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 04 Hansard (Thursday, 1 April 2004) . . Page.. 1603 ..

The parliament here, tonight, has won the debate as to whether we should have this legislation. Now that we have decided to have this legislation, we should take control of it so that, if we want to go down the path of creating embryos for any purpose we like, we actually have to make that decision and it does not happen by default. This is why we should take out these provisions so that, if we want to change the dates or change the notion of excess embryos, we have to do it and we have to mean it.

MR CORBELL (Minister for Health and Minister for Planning) (11.05): Mr Speaker, there are two points to make in relation to this particular clause. The first is that Mrs Dunne suggests that, if this sunset clause is allowed to take effect, then embryos may be created for the purposes of research. The reality is that this is not the case. The cloning bill that we have just dealt with addresses that issue. The cloning bill does not permit an embryo to be artificially created except for the purposes of assisting a woman to achieve pregnancy. We are not in any way opening up a scenario in which embryos can be created for any sort of research in any circumstances. It is simply not the case.

The second point that should be made is that these sunset provisions have been deliberately put in place recognising that they are, in effect, a stopgap prior to the establishment of a national scheme that will regulate the use of excess embryos for research after this date. Again, it is not the case that we are going to enter into a scenario in which there is no regulatory environment. The Commonwealth and all state and territory governments have agreed that there will be a national scheme to regulate the use of excess embryos for the purposes of research. The reason that the territory legislature is including these provisions—and all state and territory legislatures are being asked to pass legislation including such provisions—is to address the issue in the interim, prior to the establishment of that national scheme.

I am afraid that Mrs Dunne’s premise is wrong. It is not a case of opening up a whole new scenario where unregulated activity can occur and embryos can be created simply for the purposes of research. It is simply not the case.

MRS DUNNE (11.08): I do need to speak again because the minister is partly right and I was partly wrong, and I apologise to members. What the provisions currently mean when you read them in relation to clause 15 is that, as things stand, we can only use embryos that were created before 5 April 2002. If the sunset clause comes into effect, we can then use embryos that were created for assisted reproductive technology after that date and on into the future.

The problem is that the situation that would arise then is that we would not be able to tell the reason for which an embryo was created. The researcher could say, “I created it for this purpose, but then the woman did not want it so it is surplus,” or “It was not created for a particular woman.” The whole problem is that, prospectively, there will be increasing pressure on people to create embryos and then to use them for non-ART purposes. If we want to do this, we should do it willingly and we should go into it with our eyes open.

It is not sufficient to say we have to do it like this because we have signed up to a national agreement and everything has to be the same. Without reflecting on the debate in the Architects Bill, I point out that we signed up to a national agreement in relation to

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