Save Search
    Prev   Next   Return to results listPrint ListEmail Document Link

Title

RESEARCH INVOLVING EMBRYOS BILL 2002

In Committee

Database

Senate Hansard

Date

02-12-2002

Source

Senate

Parl No.

40

Electorate

Tasmania

Interjector

McLucas, Jan (The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN)

Page

6884

Party

IND

Presenter

 

Status

Final

Question No.

 

Questioner

 

Responder

 

Speaker

Harradine, Sen Brian

Stage

In Committee

Type

 

Context

Bills

System Id

chamber/hansards/2002-12-02/0169


Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Current HansardDownload Current Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Monday, 2 December 2002
Page: 6884


Senator HARRADINE (7:48 PM) —The minister must advise the committee why she is saying that the guidelines of the NHMRC cover the situation. The guidelines do not cover the situation, apart from those institutions which are receiving an NHMRC grant. Secondly, there is nothing in the NHMRC guidelines about protecting university students, and this amendment covers it. Again, I offer the minister the opportunity of telling the committee why there is such a difference between `if' and `because'. I quote from the amendment:

A person commits an offence if the person:

... ... ...

(b) compels another person in the course of his or her employment or study to be involved with research on human embryos or human embryonic stem cells if that other person conscientiously objects to conducting research on human embryos or human embryonic stem cells.

The minister says she objects to the word `if' and wants `because'. I think it is fair for the committee to be advised why `if' is such a problem: `if that other person conscientiously objects'. What really is the difference between that and `because that other person conscientiously objects'? What is the difference?