Page 937 - Week 03 - Thursday, 3 April 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Embryo Research Act 2004 established an appropriate balance needed. I have to question that. Where is the balance in terms of protection of life? The balance established in the 2004 act has since been shown to be absolutely unnecessary with some of the research that has come to light in recent years.
Indeed, recent research has, in effect, overtaken all of the need for this bill and the national framework, because it is now quite clear that one does not need embryo stem cells in which to replicate or conduct scientific research for the purpose of finding cures to diseases such as cancer and other life-threatening conditions. You have to ask why we are doing this. Some jurisdictions have jumped to it and done it, and I note the required time line of 12 June 2008 that all parties have agreed to be the time line.
We are dealing with the contentious issue of when life begins, and we have the use of throwaway words such as “unnecessary embryos”. The minister in her speech refers to the use of “excess assisted reproductive technology embryos”. I find the word “excess” absolutely disgusting in the context of this bill. These embryos are being used because they are human life, and the last paragraph of the minister’s speech refers to the implantation of “human embryos” and “prohibits the development of embryos beyond 14 days”. The use in her speech of such pejorative words as “excess”—that is, just something to be discarded, something not necessary, extra, a bonus—I think really goes to the heart of the argument about life.
As I have said in this place before when debating issues such as abortion, euthanasia, cloning and embryo research, we still have not answered the fundamental question of when does life begin. Until we answer that question, none of this should go ahead. It is interesting that no-one wants to terminate a life through capital punishment because it is the taking of life. But it is okay to use “excess assisted reproductive technology embryos”. What if somebody determined that we had excess old people or excess men or excess women or excess brown-haired people or excess blue-eyed people? Once you get into this sense of just apportioning the word “excess” to something as a justification for its use for a purpose than other than for which it was intended—and life was intended to be lived, not to be excess—then we have a dreadful moral dilemma.
I think it is quite amusing, Mr Speaker, that on the day that we are having this debate I see you have now put on the notice paper a motion that the Assembly request the Speaker to appoint an ethics and integrity adviser. It would be interesting to see what an ethics adviser would make of the dilemma that we face today.
Much is made of the Lockhart report of the former federal government. Indeed, the minister quotes the Lockhart report in her very, very short speech. The committee known as the Lockhart committee reported to the minister in December 2005 following comprehensive and extended community consultation, making 54 recommendations. The minister says that the amending legislation is also consistent with the ACT government’s response to the Lockhart review report recommendations.
The Lockhart review is now out of date. Progress has continued; scientific endeavour has continued. Indeed, we only have to go to what Professor Loane Skene, a leading member of the previous government’s Lockhart committee which recommended
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .