How Dave Tollner voted compared to someone who believes that the federal government should allow certain types of stem cell research, including human embryo research

Division Dave Tollner Supporters vote Division outcome

6th Dec 2006, 7:29 PM – Representatives Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 - Consideration in Detail - Offence of using precursor cells

Show detail

The majority voted against an amendment moved by Liberal MP Michael Ferguson, which means that it was rejected.

The amendment omits and replaces section 23A of Schedule 1, which at first reading was:

"A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person uses precursor cells taken from a human embryo or a human fetus, intending to create a human embryo, or intentionally develops an embryo so created; and

(b) the person engages in activities mentioned in paragraph (a) without being authorised by a licence, and the person knows or is reckless as to that fact.

Maximum penalty: Imprisonment for 10 years."

Mr Ferguson proposed to replace that section to rule out any possibility of using precursor cells from a human embryo or a human fetus to create a human embryo.(Read Mr Ferguson's explanation of his amendment and the related debate here. )

Due to the sensitive subject matter of this bill, the parties have agreed to allow it to be a free vote.(Read more about what a free vote is in our FAQ Section. More information about the decision to have a free vote on this bill is available on ABC News here. )

Background to the bill

The bill was introduced to amend the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 and Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002. The amendments will permit certain human embryo research under licence but retain existing prohibitions on human reproductive cloning and other assisted reproductive technology activities.(Read information about the bill, including its explanatory memorandum and bills digest, here. ) For example, it proposes to allow for therapeutic cloning.(Read more about therapeutic cloning here. )

The amendments are based on recommendations by the Lockhart Review.(Read more about the Lockhart Review and the federal government’s response in the bills digest.)

References

absent No Not passed by a small majority

6th Dec 2006, 6:17 PM – Representatives Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 - Second Reading - Read a second time

Show detail

The majority voted in favour of a motion to read the bill for a second time.(Read more about the stages that a bill must pass through here. ) This means that the majority agreed with the main idea of the bill and that the members can now discuss it in more detail.

Due to the sensitive subject matter of this bill, the parties have agreed to allow it to be a free vote.(Read more about what a free vote is in our FAQ Section. More information about the decision to have a free vote on this bill is available on ABC News here. )

Background to the bill

The bill was introduced to amend the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 and Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002. The amendments will permit certain human embryo research under licence but retain existing prohibitions on human reproductive cloning and other assisted reproductive technology activities.(Read information about the bill, including its explanatory memorandum and bills digest, here. ) For example, it proposes to allow for therapeutic cloning.(Read more about therapeutic cloning here. )

The amendments are based on recommendations by the Lockhart Review.(Read more about the Lockhart Review and the federal government’s response in the bills digest.)

References

absent Yes (strong) Passed by a small majority

How "never voted" is worked out

Normally a person's votes count towards a score which is used to work out a simple phrase to summarise their position on a policy. However in this case Dave Tollner was absent during all divisions for this policy. So, it's impossible to say anything concrete other than that they have "never voted" on this policy.