Ms HOARE (1:21 PM) —I rise to oppose the amendment proposed by the member for Mitchell that the review of the operation of the Research Involving Embryos Bill 2002 not be carried out by an independent review by the NHMRC but be carried out by this parliament. As other speakers have said in this discussion relating to clause 61, the clause and the subclauses, as they stand, allow for the Commonwealth and the states to have input into the review process. So, as the provision stands in the legislation, the review process would be carried out by the NHMRC, a nationally acclaimed and respected research and medical organisation, with the support of and input from various stakeholders.

With this amendment, it seems to me that the member for Mitchell is proposing that the review be undertaken wholly within the parliamentary process. What he is trying to amend is a review process that involves all of the stakeholders. It has the health and medical research experts, it has the people who have been working in ART, it has the Commonwealth and it has the states—the whole range of stakeholders. I cannot see the need to change clause 61. The member for Mitchell talked about the parliamentarians being accountable. The parliamentarians are accountable. But it is not going to be a broad review process if only parliamentarians are involved.

Last week, for two hours I think on Monday evening, we heard members speaking on various amendments. We have heard the same this week. In his speech, the member for Mitchell said—probably yet again—that this is the most critical amendment for him. I ask those members opposing the bill and proposing amendments: if this is the most critical amendment for them and if this parliament were to pass this amendment, would they then support this bill? I do not think so. I think even if all their amendments were passed, they would still not support this bill.

I know the member for Mitchell and the member for Sturt have had various other proposals on the table for amending this legislation. As everyone here is aware, the debate has been going on for far too long in the minds of many of us. This is the first time I have spoken in this place on the consideration of the amendments. I had the opportunity—as did we all—to speak in the original debate on the legislation but, because I think this is the final amendment proposed by members in this place, I would like to make a final comment on the processes gone through in proposing amendments to this legislation. A couple of weeks ago in this place we debated the legislation, which had been agreed to by the Prime Minister and the states. Following that we had a proposal to split the legislation, which had been voted on in this place. The Prime Minister's legislation—I make the point that it was the Prime Minister's legislation and that he had carriage of it—was split, and that was done by a government backbencher. Now the Prime Minister is not here to vote on the legislation. (Time expired)

The SPEAKER —I point out to the member for Charlton that, if the standing orders were to be applied literally, even the remarks she made at the end would have been outside the standing orders, because we should be talking specifically about the amendment to clause 61.