Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Aged Care, Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Hansard source

I also need to ask some questions of both the mover of the amendment and Senator Patterson. It is my understanding that the intent of what both Senator Webber and Senator Stott Despoja are moving is very similar to the intent of that of Senator Patterson—that is, to deal with the question of consent and consent being able to be applied. The question I need to have answered is: what is the difference in outcome of the two methods that are being proposed by senators Webber and Stott Despoja and by the original bill? A specific question for Senator Stott Despoja is: if we were to adopt your definition, is it a problem that in proposed subsection 24(8)(a) we still use the words ‘unsuitable for implantation’ if that is not defined? I am no legal eagle but, if we have removed the definition of ‘unsuitable for implantation’ and then use that language, is that problematic? The broader question is: what is different in intent in the two methods that are being proposed here?