Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I want to indicate that I will not be supporting the amendments of Senator Nettle, or indeed any other amendments to this legislation, and I just want to put on the record why. Obviously I am disappointed that the Senate has seen fit to read this bill a second time. Clearly the Senate is now contemplating how it might enact legislation of this kind. That, as is clear from my remarks earlier in this debate, is profoundly disappointing. I also have to say that I think there are real problems with both the nature of a number of the amendments which are being put forward in this debate and the fact that we are amending legislation of this magnitude in this time frame. It seems that the importance associated with these amendments is being contradicted by the relatively short time frame that is available to consider these matters.

I think that we have here significant issues being proposed about which there has not been enough time to properly consider the implications. I see that there is just now being circulated in the chamber a further list of amendments—a running sheet of amendments that are proposed. Some of those amendments have not yet, as far as I am aware, been circulated in the chamber or are only just now being circulated in the chamber. If this were a piece of legislation dealing with maritime safety, the Egg Marketing Board—excuse the pun there—or something of that kind, I could well understand why we would need to consider these matters of a mechanical nature; but these issues are far more important than that. These issues are fundamentally important and amount to last-minute changes to a piece of legislation that will have implications for the nature of scientific research and policy for decades to come.

We have today, in making the decision to read this bill a second time, crossed a very significant and fundamental line, as many senators have already said. It alarms me greatly that we are attempting to patch up aspects of this legislation with amendments in this way at this late stage in the process. I will be opposing all of these amendments because I do not believe it is possible to remedy the defect that we have already put in place by proceeding to this stage in the consideration of this bill. I think this needs to be reconsidered. It would be unfortunate if we had to return at some point in the future after this policy was in place—after human embryos were being experimented upon and destroyed under this process—to fix up problems which were the result of the rush job that we undertake today in respect of this extremely important matter.