Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

When this parliament debated the difficult issues of embryonic stem cell research and cloning four years ago, I made the point in this House that the propositions upon which the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002 had been constructed challenged every one of us in this House to balance two critical issues: firstly, the innate and worthy desire of mankind to improve, to conquer diseases and to progress to new frontiers of medical science; and, secondly, the need to maintain medical research within ethical boundaries.

Like many speakers, I reflected on the fact that pushing the frontiers of medical and scientific research has been a hallmark of our civilisation. It is the reason mankind has continuously progressed. All of the inventions, the discoveries and the breakthroughs that have moved society forward have been the result of constant human endeavour and the desire to overcome obstacles, to stretch the boundaries and to push the limits. The engine of human progress has been driven by a desire to continually improve, to never reach a point where we say we have done all we want to do.

However, as a society we have always had to, and in the future will always have to, pause and consider the important ethical arguments as we move to new areas of human endeavour. Four years ago the great question was whether the propositions advanced in the bill crossed that ethical divide and breached a fundamental ethical boundary of mankind. Back then, the proposition was of course to allow embryos excess to the IVF program to be used for research. Cloning of all types was prohibited.

The choice was this: should excess IVF embryos which were destined for destruction in any case be made available for research within important and strict boundaries? Some argued at that time that the 2002 bill crossed that ethical boundary because the embryos would be destroyed as a consequence of the research. I did not agree with that view. Four years ago I supported stem cell research on excess IVF embryos within boundaries; otherwise the embryos would either remain in a freezer in perpetuity or be removed and cease to exist. Whilst I fully respected the views of those who opposed stem cell research in the 2002 bill, I wholeheartedly agreed with the Prime Minister, who said during the debate:

In the end, I could not find a sufficiently compelling moral difference between allowing a surplus embryo to succumb by exposure to room temperature, on the one hand, and the use of those embryos for potentially therapeutic research, on the other. That is why, in the end, I come down in favour of therapeutic research.

Today in the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 we are faced with a new decision. We are asked to move beyond the 2002 framework by allowing the creation of cloned embryos for research. Fours years ago I strongly believed that the proposition advanced at that time and eventually legislated did not cross or breach the ethical boundary. In reaching that decision I disagreed with the minority who opposed any embryonic stem cell research whatsoever.

Four years ago we were asked to allow research on existing embryos which had been created but which would otherwise be of no use or destroyed. To that, I said yes. Today we are asked to give permission to create cloned embryos for research. To that, I must say no. Four years ago, after careful consideration, I strongly believed that the proposition that was advanced did not cross the ethical boundary. Today, I strongly believe that the proposition advanced in this bill would cross that boundary, and for that reason I will not vote in favour of the bill.

There are some who say that there is no difference at a scientific level between an embryo created through the IVF process and a cloned human embryo, each of a few days duration. At a scientific level, I am sure they are probably right. But that is not the issue that matters for me. The issue that matters is the intention. The excess IVF embryos which are available for research but not cloning were created with one intention: to create a human life, a person who would be born and live a life. What is proposed in this bill is the ability to create cloned embryos with a different intention: to conduct research.

I accept that the intention of the proposed research is still to provide for life by seeking to find cures to the most afflicting diseases confronting our fellow citizens today and into the future. I accept the good and noble motives of those advancing that proposition in this debate, but I cannot agree that the two are ethically equivalent. I also do not criticise the scientists and medical experts for advancing these propositions, although I must note in this debate that by no means are the medical or scientific communities united on this bill. I do not criticise them because it is their purpose to strive for new frontiers. However, it is society’s role, and particularly this parliament’s role, to determine the boundaries and legal framework. That is what we are here for.

I respect the views of those who support the bill, even though I differ with them, and I do not agree with every argument advanced by opponents of this bill. However, I have weighed the issues carefully, as I did on the last occasion. Whilst all of us will have differences in one way or another on matters such as this, we should all be united by the wonderful advances scientists are making with adult stem cells, which are showing real promise, and the prospects that embryonic stem cell research may show within the unanimously agreed guidelines of 2002.

The debate has involved some passion. Some have criticised that, but I do not. If there were not passionate argument, advocacy and disagreement on issues such as this, we would have some cause to worry about the capacity and health of our parliament. As is always the case with conscience votes, all of us, irrespective of how we vote, will disappoint some people and please others. I have received a considerable number of phone calls, faxes, emails and letters. For those Casey residents who took the time to let me know their views, I thank them. I have read and listened to everything put to me, but my decision and my vote on this matter has not been determined by the calculation of the weight of opinion within the community or within my electorate, but rather, as it should be in any conscience vote, by my own consideration of the detail of what is proposed and my own conscience.

See this speech in context