Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Would the member for Fisher let me finish. I have appreciated that people have dealt with this debate in a civil manner and I am honestly attempting to explain my position. I sat here and listened to others I disagreed with without interjecting and I think that is an appropriate way to conduct the debate.

I will struggle within my moral framework with each of these decisions, and each of them confronts each of us in different ways. As I said at the beginning of my speech, every single member of this House has diligently applied their judgement and their conscience on this.

Finally, I want to comment on the argument that has been put that the harvesting of such eggs is exploitation of women. I profoundly disagree with that assessment. Why do I disagree with it? Because I think that in this country we do not allow, under any circumstances, women to be exploited in a process, whether it be medical, legal or any other. To insinuate, with the sorts of protections we have in this nation, that women cannot give informed consent to the harvesting of their eggs I think is wrong. I struggle with the belief that, while there are countries where that sort of exploitation may occur, therapies developed from such a process would be refused in Australia. Again, I think the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister also dealt with this issue.

I am sure there are some people who would refuse, but I cannot imagine that the vast majority of people would say no, faced with an ill or injured family member or close friend and told, ‘Here is the bottle of pills that will fix their problem, cure their disease or repair their damage.’ I cannot believe that the vast majority of people would reject that. I would rather see that bottle of pills or that vaccine developed by a country that ensures by its regulation and its laws that it has been arrived at ethically, as opposed to the exploitation of women that may occur in Third World countries.

I will conclude by saying to all of those who took the opportunity to engage with me in this debate—and, indeed, to the member for Fisher, whom I was a bit short with and to whom I apologise for that—that I absolutely believe that each and every one of them believes that when they vote on this bill they will have arrived at an ethical, moral and intellectual assessment through the best and most earnest effort they have been able to put in. I respect that. I know it is not an easy process. It has not been an easy process since the Middle Ages to match science with morality. It will always challenge us. I appreciate the fact that I live in a country where we struggle with these things in earnest and try to find results that are not about the exploitation of potential or existing life.

I recognise that at the end of this debate there will be a vote and people will and will not be pleased with the outcome. I simply say to all of those in my electorate who are interested in this debate that I hope we continue to engage in the civil processes that we currently see and I look forward to continuing to talk with them as we deal with these very difficult issues before us.

See this speech in context