Bruce Baird (Cook, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise in support of the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. I congratulate those in the other place, particularly Senators Patterson and Stott Despoja, for bringing forward this legislation. This bill is clearly consistent with the recommendations of the Lockhart review, which proposed that most of the current prohibitions on stem cell research should remain. While the previous legislative changes in this area have allowed, for research, the use of excess embryos created for IVF under licence, the Lockhart review recommended allowing research into the fertilisation of human eggs by human sperm up to the first cell division in order to improve IVF technology. It also recommended that fresh ART embryos—that is, embryos that are used for IVF—determined to be unsuitable for implantation should be permitted for use in research and for improvements in clinical practice. Most significantly, the Lockhart review recommended the creation and use of human embryo clones for research under licence, as long as they are not fertilised by human sperm and human egg and they are not implanted into the body of a woman. They must also not be allowed to develop for more than 14 days.

This bill would allow these key recommendations under strict licence. The recommendations of the review were sensible. They considered carefully the need to balance community values, both in terms of moral principles and community support, with continuing advancements in medical research and technology. There is no doubt that this bill deals with a deeply personal and highly emotive aspect of science and morality. There is no question though that the community largely sees the advancement of medical science to help to cure or to treat disease as a major priority.

This bill presents great hope for so many people. This kind of research has great potential to help improve treatment and even to cure diseases like diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, muscular dystrophy and motor neurone disease—and, of course, there are many more diseases. The potential is great, but it is important not to overstate or exaggerate. Stem cell research and therapeutic cloning are not the miraculous answer to all of mankind’s medical problems and advances will occur over many years. This type of research will not cure diseases overnight.

As Australian of the Year Ian Frazer has said, the fruits of this research may be enjoyed by those not yet afflicted by these diseases. Yet the potential is quite remarkable. Therapeutic cloning provides a unique opportunity to help understand the causes of diseases and, therefore, has the potential to improve treatment and the quality of life of sufferers. Then there is the potential even to cure illness entirely.

Embryonic stem cell research has advanced substantially since its first use in 1998. Researchers have coaxed human embryonic stem cells to produce mature cells, including cardiac, pancreatic and neuronal cells. There have been promising results from embryonic stem cells being transplanted into animal models of human ailments such as Parkinson’s, spinal cord injury and diabetes. Therapeutic cloning has also determined the ability to restore function to damaged tissues in animal models of Parkinson’s and immunodeficiency. There is no doubt that we should be encouraged by these developments. I believe that we must embrace these medical advances and do all we can to increase their profile and scope. There are many Australians whose lives could be changed for the better.

I am aware of the argument put forward by opponents of this legislation that therapeutic cloning represents the destruction of human life. I do not accept that. Compassion, not moral fundamentalism, should be our guiding principle. Somatic cell nuclear transfer is not creating human life in the way I understand human life to be defined. The injection of DNA into a female egg is not the same as human sperm and a human egg conceiving life. This much is clear to me. In fact, the High Court in the United Kingdom ruled in 2001 that an embryo created through the process of therapeutic cloning is not defined as human life. Using a human egg, a tissue cell, a skin cell or some other kind of cell is cloned. In my mind, this is different from a human sperm and a human egg. This cloned cell is not a fertilised egg. It will never be implanted in a woman or an animal. It will not develop for more than 14 days. I have no moral difficulty in accepting this practice, particularly as it offers the hope of easing human suffering.

There are many opponents to this bill and they are very noisy opponents. They, of course, invoke the right to life. Yet, when I consider the plight of many Australians at home and abroad, the plight of so many people around the world today and the immense suffering that is out there, I think those who speak of a right to life have a very narrow focus. There are much broader aspects to preserving life.

In the Darfur region of Africa, up to 450,000 people have been killed in acts of genocide and another four million are now relying solely on international aid to survive. Last year in China, conservative estimates are that 1,770 people were executed and another 3,900 were sentenced to death, even for non-violent crimes such as tax fraud, embezzlement and accepting a bribe. Meanwhile, Iran executed 94 people, Saudi Arabia executed 86 and the United States executed 60; 47 children have been executed in Iran and Saudi Arabia in the past 15 years. Around the world, about 30,000 children die each day, mainly of preventible causes. That is 11 million children a year—the greatest number in sub-Saharan Africa and an almost equal number in our region, the Asia-Pacific, where 40 million people do not have access to clean water and two million children under than the age of five are expected to die in the next 10 years. In Cambodia the infant mortality rate is 96 per 1,000 births. This is in our own region, home to 14 of the world’s least developed countries.

When we talk about a right to life, we have a responsibility to remember children in Sierra Leone and Somalia; or Sudanese people, who are subject to acts of genocide; and those who face execution in China, Iran and Saudi Arabia. We have a responsibility to those 4.7 million children who died this year in abject poverty throughout the Asia-Pacific region. These people all have a right to life and, in our relative comfort, they are too easy to forget.

As a society, we are certainly not doing enough to preserve life in these areas. Those of us who are concerned with preserving life need to focus on these types of issues—not just issues of gay marriage, abortion or therapeutic cloning—and to fight for the lives of the many millions of people around the world, and even in our own region, who cannot guarantee their own survival. As a developed, wealthy nation we have access to the very best and most advanced medical and scientific research and technology. With such remarkable progress being made in the area of stem cell research in such a short period of time, it would be remiss of us to close the door on the possibility of great advances in the treatment of disease.

There are a lot of unfounded claims about what this legislation will, in practice, allow. Let it be clear that this bill will retain existing prohibitions on placing a cloned human embryo in the body of a human or an animal. The bill will continue to prohibit the import or export of cloned cells. The bill will continue to prevent the creation of a human embryo by the fertilising of a human egg by human sperm for any purpose other than the pregnancy of a woman. The bill will not allow human embryos to be placed in an animal or vice versa. The bill also will not allow the creation of embryos from a human egg and a human sperm that contain genetic material of more than two people.

The bill contains strong and exhaustive safeguards. This legislation does not put us on a slippery slope to human cloning. There will be no Frankenstein-like creatures in our midst. Many opponents of the bill, both inside and outside the parliament, have made wild claims about the calamitous outcomes for humankind to be found in stem cell research and therapeutic cloning. In doing so, they have confused the real issue at hand and scared many people off a research technique that has great potential for the advancement of human life. This legislation is also about the right to life—the potential for a better quality of life. It represents an opportunity not just to preserve life but to enhance life as well. I commend this bill to the House.

See this speech in context