Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

Perhaps I should be quiet when I have had so many voices in support but I want to acknowledge those responses from people and reiterate a couple of points. I am conscious that passing an amendment like this does create a situation where the only eggs that could be used for this research are the eggs of women. Therefore the concern that people have expressed about the potential for there to be greater pressure on them to donate their eggs is increased by this amendment going through. I want to indicate again that that is not something I am dismissing lightly. I think it is an important issue.

I cannot remember who it was, but somebody speaking in favour of the legislation in the second reading debate did point to the fact that donation is still a voluntary choice—certainly in Australia. There clearly have been problems overseas in regard to potential inducements for donating not just eggs but all sorts of body parts. That is a concern. That is why I am very pleased that Australia does not go down that path and has not gone down that path. I believe that our safeguards have shown that we are very effective at ensuring that people are not unduly pressured with regard to being donors in all sorts of areas in medicine. That is not to say that it can never happen, but I think we have safeguards that are as good as you can expect. They will apply as effectively in this area.

I note also the comments of Professor Schofield, one of the members of the Lockhart committee, in the Senate committee hearings in response to some of these questions about whether there will be enough eggs available. The evidence was pretty clear that, at this stage, that is certainly not an issue. However, he said:

... if there are not enough eggs for researchers, tough.

I think I would concur with that view. The other point I want to emphasise is that, whilst I do not at all agree with the distorted view that somehow this legislation would allow half-horse or half-animal creatures or rabbit men bouncing around the neighbourhood or whatever, this legislation does at least remove the potential for that distortion and even for that misunderstanding.

That is one of the difficulties that I have found in this area. When you try to do some research in the mainstream media, it is very easy to see that it is not always reported accurately. By total coincidence, whilst I was listening to the debate before dinner, a report came up on the ABC website saying that there is a British bid to create part-cow, part-human embryos. When you actually go to the source of that, which is a BBC website report, you find that it is precisely what we are talking about here—that is, using in this case cow eggs to be the host for the creation of a human embryo using SCNT. It is very easy for that sort of probably unintended misreporting to happen. It creates the impression that we are talking about half-half creatures and trying to fuse genes together and all of those sorts of things. I think that, by removing this from the legislation, it also clearly removes that potential apprehension about what is involved.

Question agreed to.