Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

I acknowledge the contribution of the member for Gwydir. I do not come to the same conclusions as him in the position I have adopted on the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006, but I think he should be commended for the intelligent way in which he has approached the debate and the significant and weighty arguments—indeed, compelling arguments on many fronts—which he has put.

This debate is compelling all of us to take a decision on our own view about how this piece of legislation should be treated—not a party view but an individual view. From my own perspective it is another encouraging sign of the relevance of this chamber. Importantly, also, it shows the relevance of having these sorts of debates in this forum. We as politicians, as members of this parliament and representatives of the Australian people, can feel comfortable in representing our own personal views on such weighty matters as this within this chamber and having those views tested in a vote.

It is extremely important, in my view, that we understand what that means in a democracy, bearing in mind that there are many places in the world where even the semblance of resistance to the proposition which is being put would confront people with personal threats. In this case, we are talking about a very lively debate, an intellectual debate, a debate which sees people taking strong moral positions and expressing them in this chamber. So I am very pleased that we are having this conscience vote because of the nature of the issues which are being addressed.

Of course, the issues today are as complex now as they were when we first considered them in 2002. These are matters which are at the forefront of scientific understanding. But the decision that we make here is not uninformed. There have been many contributions to this debate outside this chamber, from scientists, theologians, ethicists and others—people from the community sector who have made themselves available and contributed to the discussion in many and varied ways.

I also want to say thank you to those people who took the trouble to write to me from within my electorate. Of course, there was blanket coverage of members of this parliament by people from all over Australia, but I particularly want to thank those people in my electorate who took the trouble to send me a message about what they thought of this piece of legislation. In coming to my own decision to support the legislation, I reviewed the decisions I took to support the bill in 2002. I believe that those decisions are still sound. I take support from the research and findings of the Lockhart report.

In 2002, you will recall, Mr Deputy Speaker McMullan, the parliament decided to prohibit human reproductive cloning to prohibit the creation of human embryos from those assisted reproductive technology programs for research programs but subject to strict regulation. Importantly, it directed that an independent review be conducted. That, of course, was the Lockhart review, which was handed down last December and which made 54 recommendations for the current regulatory system. In June of this year Mr Howard, the Prime Minister, responded and announced that no changes would be made as a result of the hearings and the recommendations of the Lockhart committee. What we are doing is responding to a stimulus from two private member’s bills—one by Senator Stott Despoja and another by Senator Webber—which ultimately led to the piece of amending legislation that we have today.

Of course, when we are discussing this issue of stem cell research, it is hard not to consider the many advances in medical treatment which have taken place in the last half-century. With such advances, the initial response is often one of apprehension—apprehension about interfering with the natural order or disrupting the moral fibre of our society. Such is evident in the response in the 1970s to genetic engineering. I am sure that, as an interested observer to those debates, Mr Deputy Speaker McMullan, you will recall those discussions—although it does give away our age. Concerns over human safety and morality led to a moratorium on all research in the area being proposed. This was ultimately rejected. However, were it accepted, it would have precluded the development of a vaccine for cervical cancer in the 1980s—a development which prevents half a million deaths each year worldwide. It is important to acknowledge that this example of history, whilst not answering the questions of morality at stake here, is, however, something which we need to contemplate.

During the course of the last couple of weeks I had cause to have a conversation with a friend of mine who is a philosopher. She was kind enough to send me a paper, which I circulated to members of the Labor Party caucus today, by Professor Jean Porter. Professor Porter teaches theology at the University of Notre Dame and is a specialist in the areas of foundational moral theology and the history of Christian moral thought. I was compelled to read this essay, which as I say I have circulated, because it compares the Catholic perspectives of today—and I say this as a Catholic—with the implications of what St Thomas Aquinas, that great Catholic theologian, said about ensoulment, which is when an embryo might be thought of as a person in the sense of having a rational soul.

Aquinas did not think that an early embryo possesses a rational soul. Rather, it has a vegetative soul initially, then a sensitive soul. These are subsumed within the rational soul later in the process of development. I am no theologian, but I was attracted by this discussion because, in exploring the state of the embryo from a contemporary Catholic perspective, Professor Porter raises significant questions. In this paper, which was in Commonweal on 8 February 2002 and is copyrighted to the Commonweal Foundation, she really does pose the important question as to when, in a theological or philosophical sense, life begins.

The contemporary Catholic position, as I understand it, is one in which an early-stage embryo is considered a living human organisation. This is a position of immediate hominisation. But St Thomas Aquinas, as I pointed out, had a different perspective. This perspective is termed ‘delayed hominisation’, where life is not seen to begin until the later stage of development that I described earlier. Of course, Aquinas will be disregarded by many for his lack of contemporary relevance—his perspective would have reflected an imperfect knowledge of biology. But Porter argues that such an out-of-hand dismissal is misguided and that it:

... can have the unfortunate effect of leading us to assume that our own arguments for immediate hominization are stronger and more persuasive than they actually are.

Of course, the idea of immediate hominisation, as she points out, has its basis in dubious scientific claims, such as the idea of preformation—that the human person is contained full formed in either the sperm or the ovum. What is needed, as she points out, is ‘a systematic argument’ based on the facts that we know today about the early-stage embryo—for example, about its genetic uniqueness and its capacity for growth and development.

I present this not because I am an expert or have any particular knowledge of the subject but simply to say that there are different views within the Catholic Church and that you can have a rational view about this discussion that can lead you to a conclusion that you are able to support stem cell research using embryos. That is a conclusion which I came to some time ago—previously without the benefit of Aquinas, I might say—through my own thought processes. I am encouraged that there are people who see the benefit of Aquinas’s thought, even in the contemporary age, given that there would be those who would argue that his knowledge of anatomy compared to how we view our knowledge of these matters would be vastly inferior. Yet that is not the point, because what there needs to be is a substantive argument to disprove what Aquinas has said. As Porter has pointed out, it appears that that substantive argument is not there. So I feel comfortable in my position as a Catholic in being able to support this legislation.

In any event, it seems to me that we take positions in this place based on our own understanding of what is right, and we take those positions even though they might be based on sometimes dubious assumptions—at least perceived by others as dubious assumptions. When we take those positions on our own reconciliation of the arguments, then it seems to me that we have a right to express them here and not be pilloried for doing so. Of course, we will be criticised. There will be people who say, ‘You are wrong,’ and I am prepared to accept that criticism.

I do value the opportunity to talk about these very important moral questions and argue, as I do, that we have an obligation as a community both here in Australia and indeed in the world community to seek ways of alleviating the suffering of others. If we are potentially able to provide cures for such diseases as cancer, Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s through the use of stem cell research, then we should encourage that research. I say that all humankind will benefit. It seems to me that we have an obligation to, if we can, alleviate the suffering of those who are so afflicted.

I appreciate that there are those who say, as the member for Gwydir has done, that the arguments that I have made do not cut the mustard with him. Fortunately, he is able to vote a different way. I am not going to compel him to support me, nor would I cajole him to support me. I respect his values and I respect his views just as I respect the views and moral values of others who are participating in this debate and those who will not support the legislation.

There have been many advances in adult and embryonic stem cell research and significant legislative changes overseas since the acts were introduced in 2002. According to Professor Bob Williamson from the Australian Academy of Science’s National Committee for Medicine:

New research shows the value of embryonic and adult stem cells and somatic cell nuclear transfer in informing work to improve the health of Australians.

Further, he says:

Retaining a total ban on somatic cell nuclear transfer in Australia rather than allowing it under strict, transparent regulation will disadvantage Australian researchers, the Australian economy—and ultimately, the people of Australia.

Of course we then confront the issue of the inevitable brain drain, because already, as he points out, the less restrictive regulatory environment overseas has led to a number of prominent stem cell scientists leaving Australia for the United States.

There are strong moral questions to be responded to, but I believe there are strong moral arguments to support this legislation. There are also strong scientific and medical reasons, and strong arguments in terms of our nation’s economy for supporting this legislation. As I say, I support the right of those who do not share my view to express them, but I would urge them to reconsider. I will take great pride in supporting this legislation.

See this speech in context