Page 1077 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 8 April 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
table a copy of the report in the Legislative Assembly as soon as practicable after it is tabled in the houses of the commonwealth parliament. I look forward to seeing this review and hearing how well researchers have managed to adhere to the current regulations and guidelines.
I note that Ms Gallagher did mention that section 5.4 of the NHMRC national statement on human research does cover this financial interest, but it would be extremely good to see that spelt out. For that reason, because of the issues it raises and attempts to deal with, I will be supporting this amendment.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (11.43), in reply: I wish to comment on some of the contributions. I thank Dr Foskey for her support for this amendment. She drew attention to where this area could be further expanded. If there was much prospect of government support, we probably would have collaborated on a more extensive regime here.
I must comment on some of the things the minister said because it rather typifies a lot of what the Stanhope government stands for. She said, “We have to let the experts make these decisions.” I do not know how many times I have heard a member of the Stanhope government say, “I did this,” or “This happened because this was the advice that was given to me by experts.” If that is the case, we should just pack up our bags and go home and leave the running of the territory and the regulation of public policy in the hands of so-called experts.
Okay, none of us in this place is even slightly expert in the matter of stomatic cell nuclear transfer or any of the other techniques involved in this. But this does not mean that we should not be informed or that we should not speak authoritatively on the basis of advice that we are given. You listen to the advice and you weigh it up according to your own compass. That is what the exercise of a free vote is about in this place.
Ms Gallagher is saying, “It is too hard. I would have to think about it. I shall just leave it to the experts,” in the same way that ministers left the administration of FireLink to the experts or the running of the bushfire to the experts—we believed what we were told and we shut up and went on with our business. If that is the way people are going to run government in this territory, we may as well pack our bags and move out.
Being elected to this place and signing up for the deal means that you have to make hard decisions. You have to make decisions in the best interests of the community. Sometimes you have to look somebody—an expert—in the eye and say, “I’m not satisfied with that advice. Go away and look at X, Y and Z and come back and tell me why my instinct or the thing that I understand to be the case is wrong.” It should not be: “The experts told me, so it must be right and therefore I can get on with it.”
This is what the minister is doing. There are a whole lot of problems with this legislation. She is just sitting back and saying, “There are a whole lot of experts in a room somewhere in the NHMRC who will form a committee and make decisions on this. Once every two or three years they will report to a minister. In between that time, we just have to leave it to the experts.” It is not good enough. It is not good enough for the people of the ACT and it is not good enough for the people of Australia.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .