Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party, Minister for Workforce Participation) Share this | Hansard source

I also rise to support the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006, following the very important contribution from the member for Newcastle. Parliament of course addressed these issues back in 2002, when we voted to allow excess embryos from in-vitro fertilisation to be used for research but to ban the creation of embryos for the sole purpose of scientific research. We also banned the cloning of humans or the creation of human hybrids. The Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 and the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002 each contain the provision that two years after royal assent an independent review of the acts’ operation would be undertaken. The acts were reviewed by six eminent Australians whose participation was with the agreement of each state. I spoke in support of the 2002 legislation and I speak with even more conviction in support of this new bill four years later.

In those four years my family has grown. I have watched over the birth of my seven grandchildren. Three of these beautiful babies needed intensive medical intervention to survive. I have met hundreds more of my constituents, sadly many of whom suffer daily from injury or disease. They have often cruel and unrelenting conditions that leave them in a state where life is a living hell. I hope what we do this week will help our scientists find cures. I will do anything in my power to ensure that our research scientists have a well-resourced environment in which to work and that our legislation surrounds that research with the proper conditions to ensure that there are no unexpected or untoward outcomes from trying to find ways to treat some of the most difficult and debilitating conditions known to mankind.

The debate that ensued following the release of the recommendations of the eminent persons committee—the Lockhart inquiry—ran along now familiar lines. Submissions against any form of embryonic stem cell research argued that such research was unethical, as it involves the destruction of the embryo, and they felt that that raised right to life issues. For those holding such beliefs, fully human life includes an embryo and as such it should never be manipulated or in other way used. Others were concerned that allowing embryos to be used for research purposes could lead to their commoditisation, with women pressured to sell embryos in a way similar to the sale of human organs in some developing countries. There was also concern that somatic cell nuclear transfer, or SCNT, could lead us irrevocably towards human reproductive cloning. Many argued that embryonic stem cell research was unnecessary as research on adult stem cells could achieve the same results. Finally, some argued that any anticipation of cures for diseases or injury recovery through embryonic stem cell research was misplaced, and so we should ban that research. Some probably said the same thing about a cure for smallpox or TB many years ago.

My strong support for this bill in the House comes from my satisfaction that we will continue to have in place proper and adequate protection to ensure that human clones do not occur. Human cloning is abhorrent to most Australians, and indeed our own Australian scientists making submissions to the inquiry made it patently clear that they have no interest in pursuing human reproductive cloning. Rather, their interest was in the medical benefits that could potentially be derived from the nuclear transfer process. Given that this bill continues to make human reproductive cloning illegal, I am satisfied that we have adequately and comprehensively dealt with this concern. In this great liberal democracy of ours, I believe that we should allow couples involved in assisted reproductive treatment procedures to choose what is done with their own excess or no longer needed genetic material. I believe that women are able to make informed decisions about the use of their own genetic material and their bodies.

The Lockhart review report concluded that the overwhelming human good that could flow from new therapies to treat some of the cruellest and now untreatable conditions of adults and children more than prevailed over the practical or ethical concerns of some others who do not wish to see such research occur. The committee concluded:

The social and moral value that some communities attach to the human embryo needs to be balanced against the social and moral value that other communities attach to the treatment of disease, and to helping people to have a family.

In conclusion, I support this bill because of the good it might do in relieving suffering and distress in human populations. All medical research has begun decades from its final outcomes. We cannot expect cures tomorrow, but we must persist in giving our scientists every assistance in pursuing what is for the human good. The egg donation will be voluntary. These eggs are not fertilised by sperm. The eggs may be excess ones, no longer needed eggs from a woman undergoing IVF treatment or derived from ovaries removed for medical reasons. The bill ensures that the current requirement of informed consent prevails and there will be a strict prohibition of the sale of eggs and embryos.

Obviously, those who oppose such research will always have the right to refuse treatments developed through such Australian or international research. That is their right. I also respect their values and their position on what are commonly called the right to life issues. But I believe that there is a stronger and more important imperative, and that is to relieve human suffering wherever we can. I believe in an individual’s right to a pain-free, dignified, good life.

We have an excellence in medical research in this country. May the passing of this bill lead to a diminution in human suffering and, in the meantime, an elevation of hope for those to whom fate has dealt a cruel blow. Whether it is their babies, their children, their elderly parents, their friends or their family who are suffering, may they understand with the passing of this bill that we in the Australian parliament care profoundly about the future of the human condition of Australians. At the same time, we will have strong guidelines and legislation ensuring that this research continues appropriately. I thank the House.

See this speech in context