Teresa Gambaro (Petrie, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary Foreign Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

I would like to place on record my recognition of the contribution of the previous speaker, the member for Lingiari, and his powerful statements in support of the bill. I also would like to register my strong support today of the private member’s bill moved by Senator Patterson, the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. Before I go into the reasons for my support, I would like to acknowledge the work of Senator Patterson, Senator Webber and Senator Stott Despoja in bringing this bill, firstly, into the Senate and now into the House of Representatives.

I am speaking on this bill because my constituents deserve to know what position I have taken on the bill and I have an obligation, as their elected representative, to tell them. I wish to thank my many constituents from Petrie for the representations they made to me, as well as those made by churches, research doctors, advocacy groups, scientists and community organisations. All of the arguments have been delivered with conviction, particularly from those against the proposed changes, and I do appreciate and respect their points of view. These concerns included issues regarding when life begins and questioning the effectiveness of the science of embryonic stem cell research in providing cures for diseases. I always value input from my constituents, and I thank each and every one of them for the time they have taken to write to me, to email me or to phone my office.

I must say that I was not like many of my colleagues, who were crystal clear about voting either for or against the bill. It has led me on a journey of listening to scientific advice, seasoned arguments for and against, and I have taken into account the views and recommendations of the Lockhart committee, which was a committee made up of scientists and legal ethicists.

Some people have seen this issue as largely a moral one. As a Roman Catholic, I take my faith and the issues of human life very seriously. However, about 11 years ago my father was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease, a debilitating wasting disease for which currently there is no cure. I must say that I knew nothing of how such a disease affected families across Australia until my family experienced this incredible journey. I wish to place on the record my great appreciation of the work being done in Queensland by Professor Alan McKay-Sim and Professor Peter Silburn on adult stem cell research in my home state.

About four months ago my family was proud and honoured to have a fundraising night for adult stem cell research, during which we founded the Dominico Gambaro Research Foundation. To my colleagues in this House—the Hon. Joe Hockey, the Minister for Human Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Workplace Relations, and Kevin Rudd, the opposition leader—I thank them immensely for their support on the night.

Despite the great potential already seen in the adult stem cell field, I believe that scientists must be given the greatest opportunity to find remedies for many diseases that are currently incurable, including Parkinson’s. I know that embryonic stem cells are in the early stages of developmental research, but I feel that we should not close off this avenue. It is the current frontier of medical research, and Australia has the opportunity to be among the world leaders in developing these techniques. The cutting edge nature of the work was recognised by the diabetes unit at the Prince of Wales Hospital in Sydney, which named its recently developed stem cell line Endeavour 1, after Captain Cook’s ship. It is a fitting name. That is where I see us standing at this moment. There is a journey of exploration ahead of us; we are not exactly sure what we will find, but there will be no discovery unless there is an attempt. And there are indications of a great wealth of potential cures to be found.

Embryonic stem cell research has identified the potential for therapies for specific diseases and recent research includes the following. In the US, at Advanced Cell Technology, human retinal cells have grown from embryonic human stem cells. In a few years time, this may lead to treatments for muscular degeneration. In October 2005, cells that fight cancer were produced from human embryonic stem cells, for the first time, at a laboratory level. Down the track, this ability could hold some promise for treating leukaemias and lymphomas. In February 2006, it was reported that Martin Pera and a group of scientists from Monash University had found a way of removing abnormal stem cells. This promises to eliminate one of the concerns about prospective stem cell lines, mainly the risk of cancerous cells developing. In mice, embryonic stem cells have been used to treat sickle cell anaemia, an inherited disorder particularly prevalent in the tropics. And in November 2005, it was reported that British scientists had converted human embryonic stem cells into cartilage cells, giving the hope that one day cartilage could be grown for transplantation purposes.

Although tumour formation is nominated as a downside of embryonic stem cell therapies, none were formed. If Australia chooses not to proceed down this path, it will not stop the creation of embryos by fertilisation and nuclear transfer. This research currently exists in the United Kingdom, Belgium, China, Israel, Japan, Singapore, Spain, Sweden and South Korea. The outcome will invariably be that another generation of scientists will be lost overseas, part of the so-called brain drain.

Australia has some of the world’s best scientists and researchers and well-established and well-resourced laboratories. It would be a waste of potential for Australia not to keep pace with an evolving field of research. It was not long ago that blood transfusions, the development of a smallpox vaccine, penicillin and organ transplants were questioned. These procedures now form part of our everyday lives, yet there were many who put hurdles in front of the research.

The Lockhart review came up with a number of recommendations to the government. Then a Senate committee examined the review and had an inquiry into the bills put forward by Senator Patterson, Senator Stott Despoja and Senator Webber. I am confident of the prohibitions placed on this bill, and I am convinced that this will not lead to the ability of anyone to misuse this power to continue research in an unethical and dangerous way.

At times when I lean down to speak to my father, when he is having one of his not-so-great ‘Parkinson’s days’, he pleads with me to help him. I cannot look him in the eyes and say that I will not be supporting this bill—a bill that one day will find the cure for Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s diseases, multiple sclerosis and diabetes; a bill that one day will find the cure for cystic fibrosis, brain damage, muscular dystrophy and stroke; a bill that may not help my dad at this time but may leave a positive legacy so many others will not suffer as he has suffered. If I could do one thing in my role as a parliamentarian to stop one person from suffering from Parkinson’s, I would. And scientists should be given that chance because that ‘one day’ may be here sooner than we think. For me that one day is today, and I will be supporting the bill.

See this speech in context