Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is appropriate that this important legislation, the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006, is to be decided by a conscience vote in this House. It was always inappropriate that this matter be decided by the cabinet and it was arrogant of the cabinet to attempt to impose its will. This is a matter where it is appropriate for the parliament to assert its authority over the executive, and I congratulate those involved in bringing it to the parliament, in particular the honourable member for Moore.

Having a matter such as this come under the consideration of a conscience vote behoves all members to take the vote seriously, as I know all have. For my part—and I thank those who have made themselves available to assist honourable members and senators to come to a conclusion—I have read the Lockhart report in its entirety and I have read most of the submissions to it. I took the opportunity to meet with Professor Skene, the acting chair of the Lockhart committee, and I thank her for her time in answering my questions and dealing with my concerns.

I attended most of the lectures by various experts organised in recent weeks in Parliament House, and I thank those speakers for their time. I have listened to most of the contributions made in this House and in the other place, and it is certainly fair to say that there are good people with good intentions on both sides of this argument. I thank those from my electorate who either support or oppose the bill and who have contacted me and spent time with me talking through the issues. I know that other honourable members have also been grappling with this issue, and I thank those who have taken the opportunity to talk through the issues involved. In some cases we have come to different conclusions, but it has been good to have somebody else who has also had to come to a conclusion on this issue to talk it through with.

It is unsurprising that people have come to differing views on this issue, because there are compelling and emotional arguments to be put on both sides of this debate. On the one hand are cures to debilitating illnesses which cause great human suffering, which are responsible for deaths and which are held out as being possibly curable as a result of this research. On the other hand we are reminded that any changes to the ways in which we deal with human life or what has the potential to become human life should not be taken lightly. They are a huge step.

After reviewing all the evidence, and considering this matter closely, I have decided to oppose this bill. In 2002 this parliament considered the matter. I was not a member at that time, but I have gone back and looked at the debates and I have come to the conclusion that I would have supported research on surplus IVF embryos but would not have supported cloning, as every other member did not support cloning at that time. I have come to the conclusion that there has not been enough evidence over the last four years to lead me to change my view. I regard myself to be a supporter of stem cell research. The potential benefits are undoubted. They are not immediate—even proponents say they are many years away—but they are undoubted. I remain, however, unconvinced that the potential benefits of embryonic stem cells are sufficiently greater than those of adult or umbilical cord stem cells to justify a step as significant as cloning.

It is appropriate for scientists to push the envelope. It is appropriate for scientists to come to us and say, ‘These are the potential benefits and outcomes if you allow us to go down this road,’ and I congratulate them for doing so. However, we as members of parliament have a different obligation. We are charged with determining the limits. We are charged with determining what is appropriate and what boundaries we as a society are prepared to place on research. We are charged with balancing the differing arguments between the potential benefits of and the protection of what is or has the potential to be human life.

Much has been made of the influence of religion in this debate, and there is no doubt that some honourable members and senators have been influenced by their religion when coming to a decision on this matter. As I have said, in similar debates before in the House there of course has been a separation between church and state. There can be no separation between religion and conscience. But it is not only a matter of religion. You do not need to be an adherent to any particular religion or any particular faith or church to believe that cloning human life is a huge step—a step not to be taken lightly and a step not to be taken without undoubted justification. As I have said, in everything I have read and in every debate I have listened to I have found insufficient evidence of the benefits of embryonic stem cell research—over and above those of adult or cord stem cell research—to justify this very significant step.

The Lockhart committee argued that society would not accept embryos created simply for research purposes with no prospect of survival. I find this a false distinction. If it is unacceptable to do that to an embryo created through the normal mechanism, I find it equally troubling to treat an embryo created in a scientific manner in the same way.

I want to spend a short time talking about the recommendations of the Lockhart review in relation to IVF—a completely separate matter, in my view. People who choose IVF are choosing to create a life. Not all the embryos created will be used but there is potential for each and every embryo to be implanted and to become a full person. The wonderful IVF doctors and practitioners are giving people around the world the opportunity to enjoy the benefits of parenthood, which tragically is denied to some people but can in many cases be fixed through IVF. As a parliament and as a nation we should do everything we can to support those endeavours. I note that the Lockhart report made certain recommendations to assist IVF doctors and practitioners. I found myself conflicted, wanting to support those recommendations but not feeling comfortable enough to support the other recommendations in relation to cloning.

I wholeheartedly support the Lockhart committee’s recommendations only in relation to IVF. Should this bill be defeated, which I do not expect to be the case, I flag that I would be looking at options to see those aspects of the Lockhart report coming into law in relation to IVF. I note that some of the recommendations in relation to IVF have not required legislation but are simply recommendations to various government bodies, which I hope have been implemented by those government bodies, particularly in relation to lifting the burden on prospective IVF parents in their continual need to sign clearances and to be reminded of their choices for their surplus embryos. I think they are very sensible recommendations.

I do not intend to speak for long. I know that many members wish to make a contribution. I simply wanted to indicate to the House the reasons for coming to my conclusion. I again commend all honourable members for the quality of the debate. I recognise that they are people of good intention who have come to different conclusions. I am sure as a House and as a society we will reach a median which society is happy with even though I may personally be opposed to it.

See this speech in context