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

Inevitably, there is a bit of overlap in these amendments, so I understand why we are dealing with them separately. Obviously, some people who may, for example, support the establishment of a stem cell bank may at the same time have different views on the prescriptive nature of the second amendment in terms of whether or not you are required to deposit a stem cell line in that particular bank.

Senator Nettle is right in that some of us have dealt with aspects of this issue before. I think it was the Greens who, as a consequence of the 2002 acts, sought to establish, pretty much effective immediately, a national stem cell bank. Senator McLucas—who is in the chamber—and I moved an amendment adding the examination of the applicability of a stem cell bank to the terms of reference for the independent inquiry that was to come about after three years of the operation of both acts. Obviously, that is the Lockhart review. One of the recommendations contained in the Lockhart review did indeed relate to a stem cell bank, affirming the notion that there should be one in Australia.

In the exposure draft—the private members’ bill—that Senator Webber and I put forward, we did not actually legislate for a stem cell bank. There are a couple of reasons for that. First of all, we thought it might be appropriate for the Attorney-General’s Department and the other relevant department—the Department of Health and Ageing—to examine, in much more detail than the Lockhart review did, the details for a national stem cell bank. When I initially looked at this issue I thought, ‘If we implement the Lockhart recommendation in relation to this, how do we go about it?’ First of all, you do not need a legislative framework if you do not want one. People would be aware that the stem cell bank in the United Kingdom is not based on legislation; it is not enshrined in law in that way. So, first of all, it is not necessary. Part of me thinks it is always good to have something enshrined in law, as opposed to operating in a different framework—and I suspect that I am again echoing Senator Colbeck’s thoughts in this area. If you do decide to go down that path, you have a lot of factors to take into account. It is not just the scientific, ethical, health and other issues you have to deal with; there is also the intellectual property debate in relation to such a bank, which, of course, is huge—hence, the decision in the exposure draft to essentially allow a feasibility study by the relevant departments that we named.

I am not opposed to a national stem cell bank; in fact, the more I hear about it, the more excited I get. I think there are other issues that need to be examined: is it appropriate to have just one? It does not necessarily have to be in one place, though. There are other ways of it being a repository for those lines. Through you, Chair, to Senator Nettle, I support the intent of both the amendments that we are dealing with. Excuse me for speaking to the second amendment, but I guess it is inevitable. The time frame that Senator Nettle has allowed—which, as I understand it, is two years for the minister to provide legislation—is a pretty reasonable time frame. In terms of the bill before us, however, Senator Patterson is looking at a six-month time frame for the minister to report to parliament regarding the establishment of a national stem cell bank. Among the three of us—four of us, with Senator Webber—there is some compromise that can be reached here.

I am going to support the two amendments before us, perhaps as a way of sending a message to the government of the day, whether it is this one or another one in two years time, to provide legislation and to tackle some of those issues. Having said that, it is probably understandable that I am a little biased and I still think the option that Senator Webber and I pursued was probably the more detailed one in terms of the Attorney-General’s Department and the Department of Health and Ageing examining the feasibility, coming up with whether you want legislation and, if you do, explaining to us how you deal with the intellectual property requirements. That would be one requirement that I think you would have to satisfy before you implement amendment (2) that Senator Nettle is putting forward.

It is one thing to demand that stem cell lines are deposited in a bank, but you need to have some understanding of the intellectual property arrangements—even if they are, as I am sure Senator Nettle would like, to ensure public good and public access and that researchers can work on them regardless of whether they are undertaking private or public research. So we will support the amendments, but I just want to draw the Senate’s attention to the fact that there are a number of options that have been considered in relation to this issue. The notion of a stem cell bank is one that was recommended in the Lockhart review so, if we are being faithful to that review, there should not be a problem with supporting some of the mechanisms put forward.