Graham Edwards (Cowan, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary (Defence and Veterans' Affairs)) Share this | Hansard source

I compliment the previous speaker, the member for Gilmore, on her contribution in this debate on the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. I think she made some very good points and she made them very well. Like me, she has sought the views of many people—not just from within her electorate but also from within the community generally. I tend to respect all the views that are put to me on issues like this, but I have only one vote, and I will exercise that vote according to my conscience. Having said that, I respect all the views that have been put to me, and I thank all the people from my electorate who have contacted me with a view.

In listening to people on issues like this we tend to go beyond the electorate, and I certainly have done that. I received one letter which really moved me greatly, and I want to refer to part of it. It is from a bloke who lives in Victoria. As part of a long letter he said:

I participated in the recent Lockhart review down here in Melbourne, culminating in a forum at the Sofitel Hotel. I must say I was not prepared for the aggressive stand from certain opposing sectors. Whilst I agree that everyone is entitled to an opinion, I found some of the comments particularly towards disabled people from the church lobby and the Right to Life groups very insensitive, insulting and extremely Un-Christian like. One such Reverend’s comments were ‘I know quite a few disabled people and they cope quite adequately.’ It’s all very well to say I have spoken to disabled people and they cope quite adequately, that is because we have no choice. If you ask anyone who is disabled how are you going today, nine times out of 10 they will say I am fine, because no one wants to hear if you’re having a bad day. I found this a very offensive and narrow-minded attitude to have towards human suffering, so I asked him the question, had he ever suffered from a disability, there was no answer.

The point I tried to make to the Forum was that no one really understands suffering until they have lived it like I and others have to every day. They have no idea what it is like to feel paralysed, lose control of your bladder or bowels, and lose sexual function, independence, self-esteem, career, marriage breakdown and feel totally alone. I also put to the opposers that if they or any of their family had a severe disability maybe they would have a different point of view, again no response.

…     …         …

Speaking for people with all sorts of disabilities, the many scientists that I am in touch with around Australia and as an Honorary Director of Spinal Cure Australia, this is the only way forward for the future and for the good of human kind, anything less would be an absolute injustice to the many people suffering here in Australia and around the world.

To anyone who opposes this research, then maybe you could think about spending a day in my shoes. I am a quadriplegic!

The letter is signed by Gary Allsop, Honorary Director of SpinalCure Australia.

I am also aware of a press release that SpinalCure Australia put out on 11 August. It is headed, ‘Please get it right Health Minister Abbott in explaining the stem cell debate.’ The press release says:

Health Minister Tony Abbott is potentially misleading his colleagues and the public on stem cell research by claiming it’s a debate we have already had and by using terms like ‘cloning’ inappropriately.

Mr Abbott reportedly said “cloning” has been rejected in a parliamentary conscience debate in 2002 and that nothing had changed since the debate.

In fact in 2002, the conscience vote was about whether to allow research on spare IVF embryos under strict conditions.

What was banned in 2002, and would continue to be banned if the Lockhart Report is supported, is human reproductive cloning: the ethically insupportable idea of attempting to clone a human being. Everybody supporting embryonic stem cell research in Australia opposes reproductive cloning. Mr Abbott failed to make this crucial distinction.

What is being discussed this time around is “therapeutic cloning” or somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) which was not put to the vote in 2002. It has been put on the agenda now in 2006 because of recommendations by the government-commissioned Lockhart Review which ruled unanimously in favour of it being made legal in Australia.

This type of so called “cloning” is not about copying people, but copying their cells and replacing damaged cells thereby reducing the risk of infection or rejection. It involves taking the nucleus of a patient’s cell and injecting it into an unfertilised human egg to create stem cells.

…            …            …

SCNT is permitted in countries including the UK, USA, Sweden, New Zealand, Japan and Israel and offers hope to sufferers of spinal injury, motor neurone disease, Parkinson’s and a range of other debilitating and life threatening conditions.

SpinalCure Australia praises the Lockhart Report for its non-inflammatory unemotive language produced despite an emotional and often irrational public climate within which discussion of stem cell issues has taken place.

I read excerpts of the letter from Gary Allsop and most of the press release into the record because I believe they are very pertinent to the debate that we are having and to the conscience vote that we will take as individuals when the debate has concluded.

I have listened to a number of other contributions to this debate because, like other members here, I take this debate very seriously. I must say that I have been particularly influenced by Mal Washer, the Liberal member for Moore. Mal Washer used to be my mother’s doctor, and she always spoke very highly of him. He looked after her in a very caring and conscientious way, and he impressed me then. I certainly do not agree with him on issues of politics, but I have listened to Mal speak in this debate, and I think that he speaks from the heart and from experience, and he puts a very common-sense argument.

I have also listened to Jim Benson, who is a friend of mine in Perth. He is a member of my electorate and executive officer of the Motor Neurone Disease Association of Western Australia. Jim also speaks with a very balanced view and in a very passionate way. I have also listened closely to the arguments put by Dee O’Brien, a former staff officer in my electorate office. She has recently retired and gone off to have a baby, and I certainly wish her well. I have listened to the very reasoned arguments that she put to me. She certainly, above many others, has had an influence on the decision that I have taken to support this legislation. I will continue to listen to the debate with interest, and I certainly hope that this debate will continue in the very balanced, considered way in which it has been conducted. It think it reflects well on individual members of this parliament that they are able to deal with an issue such as this in a very mature and proper way. I support the legislation.

See this speech in context