Page 1080 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 8 April 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
‘So you can see that all this is in the very experimental stages.’
And, says the scientist confidently:
‘If it works in the mouse, I’m sure it will also work in the human.’
Of course, we could be very concerned about the commercial use of technologies like this, and that certainly reinforces Mrs Dunne’s and my concern to make sure that that kind of use cannot happen. It also indicates how quickly the science is moving and how closely we need to watch it. It is probably a good precautionary attitude to review it every three, four, five years.
MS GALLAGHER (Molonglo—Minister for Health, Minister for Children and Young People, Minister for Disability and Community Services, Minister for Women) (11.57): I will not be supporting this amendment for some of the reasons that Dr Foskey has explained. The government did sign up to an intergovernmental agreement on a nationally consistent regime. That is not to say that the Assembly should not have a say or that the Assembly is just here to rubber stamp the intergovernmental agreement. That is not the case. But the intergovernmental agreement certainly influences the way the government is thinking on responding to this amendment.
Specifically, the bill refers to a nationally consistent scheme. We are creating here a scheme that is the envy of the rest of the world in terms of the way that we are dealing with research in this area. There is the possibility that the intergovernmental agreement would not be seen as corresponding legislation by the commonwealth minister. Also, as a signatory to the intergovernmental agreement—this is for the consideration of the government, not the Assembly—if there was any proposal to amend our legislation, we would refer those amendments to the Australian Health Ministers Council or COAG prior to any amendment going through.
There are some other practical issues. One, there is a built-in review of the commonwealth legislation that will enable it to be dealt with more quickly than a sunset clause of five years. The act actually requires that, as soon as possible after the third anniversary of the date of royal assent, which is 12 December 2009, a review is to be given to COAG and each house of parliament and that by the fourth anniversary of the date of assent, which is 12 December 2010, there be an independent review of the current legislation. Importantly, if what the sunset clause is about is keeping pace with research, then this review is going to keep pace with research and analyse that research earlier than the sunset clause. The review is to consider reports on developments in technology and medical and scientific research, including actual or potential therapeutic applications of such research. That is already built in, and that will occur before the sunset clause comes in.
Another reason for not supporting this amendment is that it will actually mean that the ACT will become the least desirable place to do this research, if it is appropriate. If you speak to any researcher, it is often a two-year proposal to work up a research project and then have a research project go for three years. No-one is going to bother
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .