Michael Johnson (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak on the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 in the Australian parliament today. I want to thank my friend and colleague in the Senate Senator Kay Patterson for drafting this bill to the high quality and probity that is clearly reflected in it. I consider this bill to be one of the most important pieces of legislation that has come before the parliament in the five years that I have had the great honour of sitting in the House of Representatives.

There has been a lot of advocacy and passion in this debate both in the parliament and in our communities—certainly in the electorate of Ryan. I welcome and respect that debate as being healthy for our democracy. We have a conscience vote on this bill—and I will be voting according to my conscience—so I hope that the residents of Ryan will accept my position whether or not it coincides with theirs. In exercising my vote of conscience I will, therefore, be consistent with the views I have expressed in previous public statements on this issue. I indicate formally in the parliament today and to the people of Ryan, whom I proudly represent, that I strongly support this bill and that I will be voting for it.

This is a profoundly important bill because it is about giving people hope that some of the most terrible diseases on the face of our planet, which inflict immense suffering on people, can be cured at some time in the future. It gives hope that cures will be found for Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease, diabetes, spinal cord injury and various forms of arthritis, not to mention strokes and many of the cancers that destroy the lives of our loved ones and friends.

The background to this bill lies in the recommendations of the Lockhart report. In June 2005 the then Minister for Ageing, the Hon. Julie Bishop, appointed a six-member legislation review committee to independently review the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 and the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002. The legislation review committee was chaired by the late John S. Lockhart AO, QC, a former justice of the Federal Court of Australia and a distinguished Australian. The review committee received 1,035 written submissions and heard personal presentations from 109 people across every state and territory in our country. The committee reported to the minister in December 2005, recommending:

... continuation of national legislation imposing prohibitions on human reproductive cloning and some other ART practices, as well as strict control and monitoring, under licence, of human embryo research.

The Committee believes that it is important for Australia to maintain its role as a leader in the advancement of high quality and ethically sound scientific research and medical practices. To this end, we support the continued use of both adult and embryonic stem cells under existing guidelines for research and do not recommend that any additional legislative restrictions be applied.

On the contentious issue of Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT), sometimes known as therapeutic cloning, the Committee has given its support for SCNT and the creation and the use in research of certain other types of experimental embryos in the very early stage of their development and under strict ethical and scientific regulation.

The Committee agreed that the existing prohibitions in place to prevent reproductive cloning and the placement of prohibited embryos in the body of a woman should be maintained.

The amendments in this bill, therefore, are based on the recommendations of the Lockhart review.

About 300 trillion cells make up the human body, and most of these cells are fully specialised for functions in organs such as the heart and the brain and in tissues such as muscle, fat and bone. Stem cells are the foundation cells for every organ, tissue and cell in the body. They are undifferentiated blank cells that do not yet have a specific function. Under proper conditions stem cells begin to develop into specialised tissues and organs and serve as a biological repair system for the body. Stem cells can also be induced to become other types of cells—for example, blood cells, muscle cells or neurons.

The unique characteristics of stem cells are such that they show great promise for the treatment of debilitating illnesses such as Alzheimer’s disease, cancer, Parkinson’s disease, type 1 diabetes, spinal cord injury, stroke, burns, heart disease, osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. Currently, patients must rely on the use of donated organs to replace organs which are diseased or unable to function fully. I think, I certainly hope, that all Australians are aware that, sadly, the demand for donated organs far outstrips supply. I would encourage Australians to consider being volunteers in organ donation.

Stem cells derived from embryos have the greatest potential to become a wide range of other cells found in various tissues and organs within the body. I understand, from research conducted to date, that stem cells derived from adult tissues appear to have a more limited potential, as they are not able to differentiate as widely and are often confined to reproducing cells identical to those found in the tissue from which they were harvested.

The focus of this bill is on human embryonic stem cells which are derived from human embryos that are four to seven days old. At this stage of development, the embryo is a hollow ball of about 200 to 250 cells and is no bigger than a pinhead. Embryonic stem cells are currently taken from spare embryos that come from eggs fertilised in an IVF clinic. They are donated for research purposes only, with informed consent from the donors. Legislation currently prevents the use of an embryo which is conceived naturally and harvested from a woman. This amendment bill retains this important restriction. Currently, embryos cannot specifically be created for research purposes.

The amendments put forward in this bill are a combination of retaining existing prohibitions and lifting certain restrictions in order to enable further research to occur. The fundamental intention and effect of this bill is to lift the restriction of certain types of research involving embryos, provided that the research is approved by the NHMRC Licensing Committee and that the activity is undertaken in accordance with that licence. Under the proposed legislation, before the NHMRC Licensing Committee can grant a licence they must be satisfied that the proposed project has been considered and approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee, which is constituted in accordance with, and acting in compliance with, the NHMRC’s National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Research Involving Humans. Under the terms of this bill, a researcher may apply for a licence to:

... use excess ART embryos;

create human embryos other than by fertilisation of a human egg by a human sperm, and use such embryos;

create human embryos (by a process other than fertilisation of human egg by human sperm) containing genetic material provided by more than 2 persons, and use such embryos;

create human embryos using precursor cells from a human embryo or a human fetus, and use such embryos;

undertake research and training involving the fertilisation of a human egg, up to but not including the first mitotic division, outside the body of a woman for the purposes of research or training …

The bill retains existing prohibitions on the activities of human cloning, importing or exporting a human embryo clone and creating a human embryo for a purpose other than achieving pregnancy in a woman.

Medical and scientific research are lifetime endeavours. They are a lifetime’s work for those brilliant people in this noble field of work, and such work crosses generations. Today’s research will benefit generations of Australians to come, just as today’s Australians are benefiting from the medical and scientific research of the brilliant minds who came before us. Who among us would not admire Edward Jenner, the man responsible for the discovery of the cowpox vaccine, used against smallpox? More than 200 years ago many tried to cast aspersions on his character and on the terrible consequences that would flow from using his vaccine. The potential for stem cells as a treatment of a number of serious diseases and injuries offers hope to millions of patients worldwide. That is the key point: the potential does exist. This bill is all about hope; it is not some pie-in-the-sky hope, not some unrealistic hope, not some misleading hope, not some deceptive hope but a realistic and meaningful hope, an authentic and genuine hope that is rooted in genuine medical knowledge and research.

In conclusion, let me quote the remarks of a man for whom I have immense regard and admiration, an Australian about whom many of my fellow Australians would share my view. He is a resident of my electorate of Ryan. He is the 2006 Australian of the Year. His name is Ian Frazer. His great work has earned him his reputation. On 30 November he wrote to senators of the Australian Senate and to members of the House of Representatives. I want to quote Ian Frazer because I think all Australians should be aware of what he had to say. He said:

As a medical researcher, I hope you support the bill in its entirety. In the 1970s there was considerable public debate about the morality and safety of genetic engineering, and a worldwide moratorium on research in the area was considered. If the moratorium had been implemented, then the cervical cancer vaccine would not have been developed in the 1980s, and a means to prevent half a million deaths worldwide each year would not have been developed.

…       …            …

The decision you make on Senator Patterson’s bill will determine the ability of Australia’s medical researchers to participate in this exciting new field, and in the longer term has the potential to impact on the quality of medical treatment our children receive. Will our children look back in 25 years and say ‘Our parliamentarians made the right decision, that gave us access to cures for diabetes, heart disease, and neurological disorders’ ...

I commend the remarks of Ian Frazer, 2006 Australian of the Year, to the parliament, to the residents of Ryan and to my fellow Australians who may be listening. He is, of course, the man who can take much responsibility and credit for the cervical cancer drug Gardasil. Many young women, not only in this country but throughout the world, will benefit from the brilliance of Ian Frazer. I commend this bill to the parliament.

See this speech in context