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

I thank Senator Patterson for that answer. I was not disputing the motives; I just wanted the rationale for why it was done that way, given that, in drafting the exposure draft, I did not automatically find that to be the most obvious way to proceed. As Senator Patterson and I both know, you can achieve the recommendations of the Lockhart review in various ways in drafting the legislation. Given those comments and the definitional issues regarding a human egg, I am wondering what harm there is, if any, in including the definition that Senator Webber and I have put forward. I acknowledge, for the chamber’s benefit, that this is the amended version. The final terminology is that a human egg means a human egg donated to research ‘resulting in’ as opposed to ‘intended for’, which was the initial terminology. Is there any harm in including that definition? Does it detract in any way from the bill?