RESEARCH INVOLVING EMBRYOS BILL 2002: Consideration in Detail
Mr CADMAN (Mitchell) (1.35 p.m.) —I want to briefly refer to the remarks made by the previous speaker, the member for Bonython, and indicate that I do not accept the argument of the peer review process being the only criteria as compared with a sunset clause. I believe that we as parliamentarians need to see the involvement of the parliament in this process; hence the amendments.
I am responding to the remarks by the member for Lowe, who indicates that he would prefer to see some words imposing more immediacy on the review, if conducted by the parliament. I am attracted to his proposals and to the words that he has presented. It would not be my purpose to delay the House by withdrawing my amendment and circulating a fresh amendment, interposing the words suggested by the member for Lowe, because I think that he and I have an understanding and that there is a clear understanding of our intention in Hansard. I suggest to him that he and I seek out a friendly senatorial colleague who may be willing to consider both his and my amendment in a consolidated form. If that were to happen, his objective would be achieved. If he is /files/includes/content.css with that, I would be /files/includes/content.css.
I thank you, Mr Speaker, for being in the chair for much of this committee stage of the debate today, and for the way in which you have been able to assist us to come to the conclusions—some of them smooth and some of them not so smooth, but always the democratic process has been working.
Author: Alan Cadman MP
Source: House Hansard - 24/9/02
Release Date: 29 Sep 2002