David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I think, primarily for the reasons I indicated in the second reading debate, we support this amendment. We also think it's probably already covered in the character test. To give you some idea of why we think it's covered in the character test, I recall having a discussion with a urologist on this issue—about people travelling to and from Australia for the purpose of organ transplants. And it has stuck in my mind since. He said a colleague of his phoned him up for some ethical advice, and the request for the ethical advice was she wanted to know what her obligations were because she said the patient had called and cancelled the dialysis treatment for the following week. In cancelling the dialysis treatment she'd said, 'I'm about to go overseas. They're going to shoot my donor.' There was no pathway to report that. There was no clear way in which that information was being captured anywhere in the system. That's a compelling reason to support the substantive elements of the bill, but it also gives you an understanding of the nature of the decision-making being taken in this space. If that doesn't meet the character test concerns, then what does?