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

I would like to make a couple of quick points. Firstly, the way that Senator Joyce and other members of this place can ensure that we are not dealing with so-called ‘nebulous circumstances’ or uncertainty or even the ‘slippery slope’ is to make sure that we have clear, specific and strictly regulated legislation. The legislation, the acts that we currently have, provide a nationally consistent framework not just for ART research but also for research involving human embryos. This legislation adds to the kind of research and technological advances that can be undertaken. It does so within a similar if not arguably strengthened regulatory regime.

One of the amendments I have put forward, along with Senator Webber, is for an increase in some of the penalties for prohibited practices and acts. This is very specific. There is nothing nebulous or uncertain about this proposed legislation. Whilst I take on board the personal concerns of Senator Joyce and the ethical debate surrounding this bill, I think we all have to acknowledge that we have differing views ethically or otherwise. But there is no doubt that we as legislators make laws, and we can be as specific as we want when it comes to drafting those rules. This is very specific law.

I am not going to take any great heart from Senator Joyce being homeless in a few years time. If he wants to bet the house, that is his decision. However, as an active member of this parliament, as he is now—and I would assume into the future, but I am not going to either prejudice or predict his re-election or otherwise—I say to him that parliamentarians, their morals and personal ethical codes as well as their interest in science and other things will determine what the framework is. If you want to make sure that people work within that framework, you need to make sure that there are appropriate penalties and monitoring provisions. That is something that Lockhart has done. I do not know how familiar with the specifics of the Lockhart review people are, or with the bills that have been drafted—indeed, the one before us. Looking at the monitoring provisions, you can see that people can operate outside the licensing of the bill’s requirement at the moment—that is, people can break the law, and they can do so because there is not enough monitoring. There are penalties that currently apply to people who are operating without a licence. But what about people who are operating without a licence in terms of access through a warrant? You will see that penalties can be made stronger, and that is what some of the amendments we have put forward seek to achieve.

In relation to the process, I want to make it very clear, as Senator Bartlett has also done, that apart from the fact that it is our job to sift through amendments, whether they are big or small, anyone who has looked at the amendments before us, given them even a cursory look, will see that in most cases they are not substantial. If you look at the list of amendments that Senator Webber and I have circulated, you will see that the first half-a-dozen say: ‘15 years, 15 years, 15 years, 15 years.’ Do you know why? Because we are increasing the penalties from 10 years to 15 years. Allowing for the fact that, yes, this legislation may get through, that people do not want to take an active role in the committee process and that people do not feel comfortable voting for amendments, if people are going to vote against increasing the penalties for people who actually break the law when doing research involving human embryos, that is just crazy, especially if the legislation goes through. I do not know whether it will. Surely if people say, ‘We cannot ameliorate bad law because we don’t believe in it,’ that is one thing, but what about ensuring that the provisions are tough if this law is going to be in place?

As for the notion that the amendments are substantial and people cannot deal with them, we were not supposed to be dealing with the committee stage of this legislation until tomorrow. Having said that, most of us have done our amendments and they have been circulated. If people are saying, ‘They’ve only just been circulated,’ in the case of Senator Webber and me, read the committee report. Senator Humphries was chair of that committee. We flagged the amendments specifically in that report. There are five areas of amendment, most of them minor. This is not a patch-up of the legislation. This is good legislation. This is people having an opportunity to feed into the process and to value-add to the legislation if they decide that is the way to proceed. I have withdrawn one of my amendments in order to facilitate debate. So there are four areas of amendment, involving roughly 19 amendments in all, but they will be dealt with in a cognate fashion, so it is nothing too scary. I am happy to take any questions on those amendments. This is what we do: it is the nitty-gritty of the lawmaking that we do. It is not a case of, ‘This is too hard; we have got to Tuesday and we haven’t had enough time.’ We have got until Thursday if people want time.

In relation to the stem cell bank, given that that is the amendment we are currently dealing with, there are a range of reasons for a stem cell bank. It is not about the commodification of stem cell lines; in fact, it is quite the opposite. The rationale behind stem cell banks, either the one established in the UK or the one that has been introduced in the US, is that they provide some degree of public access. If that is not something that concerns people, then there are other issues that relate to it too. It ensures that researchers can be better informed about, have more knowledge about, the source of that stem cell line—its background, where it has come from and its quality, which are all integral to this research.

Even if we do not agree on some of the amendments before us in relation to somatic cell nuclear transfer, the issue of a stem cell bank is still applicable to the acts we are currently operating under, because we do have stem cell lines derived from adult stem cells and we do have stem cell lines derived from embryos. That is a debate that is even separate from so-called therapeutic cloning. They also have the potential, as the Lockhart review has pointed out, to be a clinical resource in years to come. I do not know if the analogy of a blood bank is the best one, but, if people are worried about it being commodified, it is not necessarily that kind of a repository. It is quite the opposite; it is actually ensuring that it can be used one day, hopefully, down the line, in a clinical capacity.

A stem cell bank is actually about the provision of public good. It can be used in other ways as well. That is why we should be allowing—or encouraging, at least—some of the relevant departments to conduct studies to make sure it works in a way that benefits people who do believe in so-called therapeutic cloning as well as those who do not. A stem cell bank is not the kind of thing to get bogged down on if you are radically opposed to this legislation; it is something that can actually provide benefit in a research and clinical capacity both now and into the future. Therefore, it should not be dismissed.

I hope that when people are addressing the amendments they realise that they have been put forward in good faith and put forward arguably very early. This is a conscience vote and that is why a lot of people are here who do not necessarily deal with the nitty-gritty of legislating every day. But those on the crossbenches do, and we know sometimes you do not get amendments until the last moment. Sometimes we do not draft them until the last moment. Sometimes the solution to a problem does not become clear until you have had the discussions and you have argued it out. So, please, colleagues, do not dismiss the amendments on the grounds that they are too late or what have you. Most of them were clearly foreshadowed in the committee report. I am happy for people to vote against my amendments, but please do not do so on the basis of process, because this is actually quite an organised process—in fact, so organised that we are running ahead of time. Most of the amendments before us have been well thought out and put forward in good faith. Whether or not they pass, lateness should not be an argument for voting down the bill.