Simon Crean (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Development) Share this | Hansard source

I rise also to support the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. This debate on the use of human embryos for research is in many ways an extension of the debate that we held in this parliament back in 2002. As then, this legislation now is subject to a conscience vote. That is rather unique in the parliament but it does attest to the sensitivity of this crucial issue. As elected legislators to this parliament, we approach this subject on this occasion as individuals, bound not by party policy nor by party discipline. It is up to us as individuals to examine our consciences and to make our own decisions in the light of the research, of our questioning of the issues and of our own values.

The issue and the debate this time is no less difficult nor less complex than it was in 2002, but then as now we are well informed. We have not rushed into these issues. There has been much to inform us in relation to this very complex subject, seeking as it does to balance the challenge of research to improve the quality and longevity of life and the ethical considerations associated with allowing that very research.

In essence, we are having this debate for two reasons: first, because medical science and knowledge have advanced in the past four years and, second, because one of the safeguards built into the previous legislation passed by this parliament in 2002 was the requirement for a review after two years. The proponents of this bill, which I support, want amendments to allow advances in medical research and sciences which aim to cure diseases for which presently there is no cure. Those opposed argue on ethical grounds for the sanctity of human life.

In 2002, the parliament decided to prohibit human cloning, to prohibit the creation of human embryos other than for assisted reproduction programs and to allow the use of excess human embryos from those assisted reproduction technology programs for research purposes but subject to strict regulation. The legislation also required a review. That review was conducted by the Hon. John Lockhart and subsequently became known as the Lockhart report. That committee reported in December last year.

In June 2006, the Prime Minister responded to the report, saying that the government would not be putting forward changes to the legislative framework for research involving human embryos. It was against that background that two private members’ bills emerged, one proposed by Senator Stott Despoja and Senator Webber in a joint approach and tabled as a draft bill in the Senate, and Senator Patterson’s proposal, which we are subsequently debating.

In essence, this bill incorporates most of the recommendations of Lockhart—that exhaustive review required by the 2002 legislation. While I recognise the sensitivity of this issue and the strongly held views of many people in relation to it, and while I have considered the number of letters and emails from my constituents about this bill, both for and against, clearly it is an issue that concerns many people in our community. I have had to consider their views. I have had to consider the information the parliament requested and on which we were reported to. I thank all those people who have taken the trouble to write to me. I always appreciate their input as their representative in this parliament.

Against all of that, I have also reviewed my reasons for supporting the bill back in 2002. I think the reasons for support then remain valid today. I am reinforced in that view by the research and the analysis in the Lockhart report. The 2002 bill allowed, as I said, research on embryos created for IVF purposes that would otherwise be destroyed. At the time, I thought that that was important to support because it gave hope to people with presently incurable diseases and for the health of future generations. It allowed our world-leading biotech scientists to continue their research and to further develop our knowledge and, importantly, it allowed this issue then, as it is now, to be the subject of a conscience vote.

I supported the bill in 2002 because it was the right thing to do, the right thing for people with chronic diseases who presently have no cure, the right thing for future generations and the right thing for the scientific research community—and it is the right thing for our future knowledge as, hopefully, a growing knowledge economy. I believe the significant advances in science and research, and the limitations posed by the existing legislation, which have been exhaustively considered by Lockhart, warrant the further changes that we are debating today.

The Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 implements most of Lockhart’s recommendations. Stem cell research holds out hope to people suffering chronic, debilitating and often ultimately fatal diseases like diabetes, Parkinson’s and motor neurone disease. I came to the view that embryonic stem cell research should be permitted because of my belief in the value of IVF treatment in giving couples the chance to be parents, to have their own children, a joy which previously had been denied them. The surplus embryos produced for IVF, I believe, could be used for research as they would be destroyed in any case. I was persuaded that those stem cells should be used in research to find cures for the diseases I have mentioned. I came to that view particularly not just from reading the research but from meeting many sufferers of these diseases, people making the plea to us, as their representatives in this place, to give them hope. They were firmly convinced that their hope lay in future research into this important area.

Recently, I attended a forum on diabetes that further reinforced my belief. It is true that the cures for many of these diseases are not immediately imminent, that they may be years away. Unfortunately, many people may die before cures are found. Nevertheless, the pleas again from the patients and from the researchers who attended that forum are compelling: ‘Let the research continue. Give us the hope, give us the opportunity, give us the belief that we can be cured.’

So we must find a way. Australia has a great history of medical research and medical discoveries. I not only want us to participate in that research; I want us to be in a world-leading position in that research. Some of our best and brightest medical researchers have left Australia, or would consider leaving if this legislation were to fail, because they would not be able to legally carry out their research here and, because of their ethical position, they will not carry it out illegally. We should ensure that our law allows them to do it, but with appropriate and strict safeguards.

Medical science has moved dramatically in this area in the last four years. I think it is important to point out that, at the time we passed the legislation, we included significant safeguards in it—for example, a prohibition on human cloning and human-animal hybrids. This bill goes further. It prohibits the creation of a human embryo, by fertilisation of a human egg with human sperm, for a purpose other than achieving pregnancy in a woman. It also prohibits the creation or development of a human embryo by fertilisation of a human egg with a human sperm that contains genetic material provided by more than two persons. This bill also proposes that human embryos can be created for the purposes of research, but only under strict regulation by the National Health and Medical Research Council. The point I make is that, in many significant respects, this bill introduces stronger safeguards against abuse than were passed by the parliament in 2002.

The Australian Academy of Science, Australia’s pre-eminent and highly respected scientific body, advocates Australian participation in international stem cell research. Like many other scientific bodies, the academy has commented on this issue. It advocates that we participate in international stem cell research—obviously subject to strict ethical standards. The academy reinforces the fact that there have been important developments since 2002, but, significantly, says new research shows the value of the use of adult and embryonic stem cells in efforts to find cures for presently intractable diseases. Importantly, the academy says:

Adult stem cells from a patient have the great advantage of proven safety and the absence of immune rejection. Embryonic stem cells and their relatives made by somatic cell nuclear transfer have the great advantage of being able to make every kind of cell in the body and to multiply indefinitely. The recommendations of the Lockhart committee will allow both adult and embryonic stem cell research to proceed in parallel to maximise the opportunity of developing medical applications from this research.

Like many others, the academy supports the recommendations of the Lockhart committee and, of course, this bill.

The basic ethical issue raised by many people is that the bill will permit the creation of embryos which will then be destroyed during the research process. Some people take the view that these embryos are human life—which should not be killed. However, we presently permit the creation of embryos for IVF. Once one embryo is allowed to develop into a foetus and a human baby, the other embryos are discarded—effectively, destroyed.

What we are proposing in this bill is the creation and destruction of embryos for the purpose of research into ways to preserve life and find cures for diseases. I believe that this process and its aims and IVF are equally worthy. It should be permitted, albeit with the safeguards against abuse that are included in the bill. I do not accept the ‘slippery slope’ argument that, once we accept therapeutic cloning, the acceptance of reproductive cloning becomes inevitable. In this parliament we often have to make difficult legal and moral judgements. One action does not necessarily lead to another in any area of legislation. It is up to us to be constantly vigilant to ensure that there are safeguards in place. That is why we have strict safeguards here. That is why it is also proposed that the legislation we pass, if it is the will of this House, be subjected to further review after six years.

This is a conscience vote. I respect the different views that are being expressed here and in the Senate, but I strongly believe that we should pass this legislation. It is the right thing to do. It will bring hope to those suffering from cruel and painful diseases for which there is presently no cure. We can ensure that there are strong safeguards against abuse and malpractice, but we should pass this legislation, with safeguards, to allow this research to take place here in Australia, using our medical facilities and our research expertise for the benefit of our nation. I support the bill.

See this speech in context