Natasha Stott Despoja (SA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

I move on my and Senator Webber’s behalf amendment (16) on sheet 5113:

(16)  Schedule 2, page 14 (after line 6), after item 1, insert:

1A Subsection 7(1) (after the definition of corresponding State law)

Insert:

human egg means a human egg donated to research intended for:

             (a)    fertilisation specifically for research purposes; or

             (b)    the creation of a human embryo specifically for research purposes;

human egg means a human egg donated to research intended for:

I understand that there will be a range of views on this particular amendment as to ‘human egg’. I am moving this amendment in an attempt to address concerns that came to the attention of the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs both in written submissions and in verbal submissions when witnesses presented to the committee in Sydney. I have no reason to believe that their views have changed. I am referring to the concerns presented to us by ACCESS and the Fertility Society of Australia. Both of these organisations are concerned about the reference to ‘human eggs’ in the title of part 2 of schedule 2 of the bill and throughout the following text. They are concerned that this may have the consequence of extending the coverage of this bill to activities involving human eggs for which a licence is not currently required. They are worried about the consequence of specifying ‘human eggs’ in that title and throughout the bill as it might actually have a negative impact on current processes, particularly those processes involving human eggs that do not necessarily require a licence.

So you are dealing with IVF organisations and fertility networks who are concerned about the impact this will have on their activities. For example, a licence is currently not required to conduct research on eggs alone for ART purposes. Yet it is not clear to me—or to Senator Webber, ACCESS or the Fertility Society of Australia, for that matter—that this bill as read would not force that activity to come under this legislation. I understand that Senator Patterson will provide clarification to the Senate in committee as to the impact or consequences of specifying eggs in the title and text, something that is currently not done. What we are seeking to do is restore the current bill to the status quo to ensure that those particular activities are not covered.

We want to know whether the consequence of doing this would require the NHMRC to license any activity involving human eggs—and I am making sure that the advisers in the chamber have caught that particular question. Would the impact of the current bill on processes that are currently underway require the NHMRC to license any activity involving human eggs? Believe me, Senator Webber and I have spent a bit of time deliberating on how to approach this. It was not simply a case of removing the word ‘egg’ from the bill, thus restoring it to the status quo, because that would not necessarily work given the way the bill is drafted. Obviously, there are some differences between the approach of the exposure bill that Senator Webber and I have tabled and the approach in this particular bill taken by Senator Patterson. We have taken the approach of defining ‘human egg’ for the purposes of this bill, to ensure that it only refers to a human egg that is used for the research that this bill covers. It is an attempt to clarify and it is an attempt to address the concerns of organisations such as ACCESS and the Fertility Society of Australia. At one stage Senator Webber and I were considering a slight change in terms of that definition as opposed to talking about eggs used for—I think it was something to do with the intention; I might seek clarification from colleagues.

I am not pretending this is an easy issue, but I think it could be resolved simply if Senator Patterson were to outline how her drafting process reached this particular model and path, as opposed to the one that we adopted, given that obviously this bill is different from the original act. We want to provide some reassurance for those people involved in IVF that anything involving human eggs is not going to require an NHMRC licensing process. If Senator Patterson can give us some reassurance, we will then see whether or not we need to proceed to a vote. But at this stage Senator Webber and I prefer our approach and will be supporting it unless convinced otherwise.