The Australian Medical Association’s comment on the bill was equally succinct. It states:

Those few words will have a substantial effect. If the bill succeeds, which I expect it will, it will enable people who have attained the age of 16 or 17 years to donate blood without parental consent.

A regular, dependable supply of blood is an essential component of modern medicine. In his second‑reading speech the minister referred to the importance of blood supplies for cancer patients, burns victims, trauma cases and people undergoing many other medical procedures. I think it is an entirely reasonable proposition to suggest that young people who have reached the age of 16, an age when many of them are making considerable contributions to their communities in any case, should be able to donate blood to assist in the boosting of stocks and contribute in that way to the community good.

In both the self‑governing territories of the commonwealth, the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory, the age limit is already 16 years, as it is in South Australia, Tasmania and New South Wales. I also note that a review of Australia’s plasma fractionation arrangements in 2006 suggested that a consistent age across the nation was desirable. I think the bill provides a sensible method to boost supplies, or at least make it easier for young people to participate in that process. It also ensures that we have consistent arrangements across Australian jurisdictions, or that the arrangements we put in place will be consistent with the arrangements in many other Australian jurisdictions.

It is worth saying that the bill applies purely to blood donations and not to other areas covered in the principal act, including organ and tissue donations. Had it applied to those extra areas, then it may have been a different proposition.

Any change that affects young people, no matter how worthy it is in terms of outcome for the wider community, needs serious consideration. We know that there are safeguards in place to ensure that blood donated is, for want of a better phrase, fit for purpose. Those standards apply regardless of age, and that is entirely appropriate. There is an obligation on us in considering the changes that we are making with this bill to take into account whether other issues, perhaps issues that might be age specific, are properly dealt with.

One of the obvious ones is pressure to donate blood being applied in a group situation. Whether you call it coercion or whether you call it peer group pressure, this needs careful consideration because there is no doubt that on occasion young people can be more easily subject to pressure. In recent days we have had a number of examples in this Parliament where coercion, pressure or whatever you want to call it has been applied to adults as well, but of course that had absolutely nothing to do with blood donation. I note that the Red Cross trains nurses to handle coercion by recognising and establishing whether a donor is under any pressure at all and then dealing with that pressure appropriately, as they deal with other delicate issues, particularly health‑related areas that require considerable discretion. Given that blood has been sought from this age cohort for some time, albeit with parental consent, the processes that are in place seem effective and I do not believe there are grounds to oppose it on that basis.

I want to comment briefly on the report of the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee tabled on Tuesday, which drew attention to the impact of clause 3 of the bill. It commented that:

It went on to say:

The aspect the committee is referring to is the barring of children under 16 from donating blood without parental consent. I just want to make the point that I think we as a Parliament need to set some standards. Sixteen is the right age. Were the legislation to come in and say it should be open slather, I think honourable members from both sides might have a little bit of trouble supporting that.

In summary, the bill is an opportunity for the Parliament to say to young people, ‘We welcome your active engagement in the community. We welcome the opportunity for you to actually put something back’. In this case it is a physical action, an opportunity to actively contribute in saving people’s lives, and I think the bill is worthy of support.