David Fawcett (Wakefield, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise tonight to speak on the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. In the short time allotted for this bill tonight I cannot go into too much detail, so I will quickly cover some of the context to the bill, look at some of the arguments in the cases for and against therapeutic cloning, and then reach my conclusion, which will be that I do not support this bill.

Back in 1998 a number of scientific advances caused parliaments around the world to start considering the ramifications of this. The process has continued through the United Nations into the General Assembly to this day. Dr Michael Wooldridge, who was the Minister for Health and Aged Care, tasked the Australian Health and Ethics Committee to report on the scientific, ethical and regulatory considerations relevant to the cloning of human beings. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs reviewed the report and it ended up with the Council of Australian Governments in April 2002. The Prime Minister with all the premiers and chief ministers agreed that the Commonwealth, states and territories should introduce nationally consistent legislation to ban human cloning. This ended up in a couple of bills, which were split.

In 2005 the former Federal Court judge, the Hon. John Lockhart AO, was commissioned and made a report with some 54 recommendations. He reviewed what had happened in the whole area of cloning, making some recommendations that were not at all controversial, such as that the ban on reproductive cloning should continue. But there were some recommendations that were controversial, such as allowing under some circumstances things like the creation of hybrid embryos. The Lockhart report also specifically recommended the amendment of definitions of what an embryo was. There were a number of things in those 54 recommendations, some of which nobody has any problem with, but a number that people do. You will be aware that the government decided initially that there would be no action. Hence a private member’s bill was put forward for action and that is what we are now addressing.

In the case for cloning, what Senator Patterson’s bill is looking for is to reflect the Lockhart review recommendations in a legislative form. This will allow the things Lockhart has put forward. When people actually think them through, the words ‘somatic cell nuclear transfer’ are relatively scientific and nonconfronting. But essentially they are talking about therapeutic cloning. One of the outcomes of the bill would even allow some disturbing things, to my mind, such as the harvesting of eggs from aborted babies as a source of eggs for the gathering of embryonic stem cells.

Why do they want to do this? For very good and quite commendable reasons: the hope of a cure. We have heard many stories here of people who either have people in their own family or people they know with diseases that are currently considered to be incurable, and they are looking for a cure. It is not a false hope—science is often a process to develop a cure. But I note that Professor Ian Frazer, the Australian of the Year, said that the therapies could not be expected to be available for at least 75 years. So whilst it is a good desire, it is certainly not something that is going to be happening tomorrow.

The claim is there that somatic cell nuclear transfer is not cloning. But the deputy chair of the Lockhart review, Professor Skene, admitted to the Senate committee that the product of SCNT is in fact a cloned embryo, because, as the professor said, it is conceivable that that embryo could in fact develop into a foetus if it were implanted. So one of the reasons they say they can move forward is because SCNT does not produce an embryo as we know it. But I believe the Lockhart review has actually refuted that in its report.

Those arguing the case for are also claiming that science has advanced since 2002, when this House and this parliament solidly refuted and rejected the concept of therapeutic cloning. But I note that the only peer reviewed report quoted in the Lockhart review was by the Korean researcher, Professor Hwang, and that has been subsequently exposed as being fraudulent.

Another argument put forward is that there will be an exodus of minds—that, if we do not allow this in Australia, the best and brightest of our researchers will go overseas. But I note that there are currently some 104,000 human embryos in storage, with around three per cent of these available for research. Since 2002 some 1,750 licences have been issued for research, but only about 178 have been used so far and, of those, only one I believe was aimed at a specific treatment. This, to my mind, begs the question: if all of these embryos and licences are available, then it is hardly pushing the boundary to see a new supply created.

Probably one of the more compelling arguments that I have heard as to why we should be prepared to be involved in this if other countries are is the concept of the dilemma of future use. The argument is that, if another country develops a cure for one of these diseases through therapeutic cloning and we have banned the development of it here in Australia, how could we then ethically or morally allow people to have access to that treatment?

I do not believe this is a barrier that should determine our decision in this matter. The reason for that is it is not a new dilemma. Before coming into this place, I was an experimental test pilot working for the military, and I was surprised, indeed shocked, to find out that the basis for much of the design work and research surrounding the effects of high altitude on the human body have a basis in work conducted by the Nazis. Following World War II, leading Nazi doctors were brought to justice in the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, and some 20 doctors were charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity. These men had decided that the pursuit of science justified the destruction of what they considered to be inferior life forms.

In 1942 Dr Sigmund Rascher began a series of hazardous, high-altitude experiments at Dachau involving some 200 prisoners, of which 80 died. In the pursuit of science, he used a decompression chamber and dissected the brains of live prisoners as well as conducting freezing experiments to check how long downed aircrew could last in the sea. We would never conduct this work now—people are horrified by the concept—but I was surprised to note that, after a number of decades of debate around the ethics of it, this information is being used now and still informs the design and the construction of aircrew ensembles and aircraft equipment that many of us fly in to get to this place. So there have been precedents set where research that we would not conduct now has led to results which we are still happy, as a society, to use.

To the case against the bill: it is important to outline what people are not against. They are not against stem cell research, because they recognise the hope that it provides for people who have incurable diseases and who hope and desire to see a cure. What they are against is the creation of human life for the specific purpose of destruction in the name of research. Why are they against it? The basis of the case for change has not been established. We live and we operate in an evidence based society, but we do not see a clear chain of evidence showing that the scientific research has moved forward and that the outcomes will be there. The process has flaws. There has been much debate about the supply of eggs—the thousands of eggs that Professor Hwang required—and the risks of egg harvesting and the potential for exploitation.

They are against the ethics involved. Lockhart recommends a redefinition of what an embryo is. Where does this 14-day threshold come from? There is some science about cell division, but on what basis do we, as legislators or even scientists, have the right to say that a life form at 13 days has any less value than a life form at 15 days? It is an arbitrary threshold, and one that I do not believe our society has the right to make. Who are we to decide that one particular form of human life is of less value to the pursuit of science and potential benefit that may accrue to others in the future?

The implications of passing this bill are another reason to oppose it. To deliberately create human life in order to destroy it crosses an ethical boundary that, once crossed, makes further infringements more acceptable and more likely. As a professional military officer for over 22 years, I am a keen student of military history. Colin Powell is quoted as saying:

We should always be sceptical when so-called experts suggest that all a particular crisis calls for is a little surgical bombing or a limited attack. When that ‘surgery’ is over and the desired result is not obtained, a new set of experts then comes forward with talk of just a little escalation—more bombs, more men and women … History has not been kind to this approach to war-making.

We see in the General Assembly at the moment evidence of this in this very field. While all of the speakers in this place have said quite categorically that they oppose reproductive cloning, in the General Assembly, other countries—many of whom have quite a lot of respect in the world such as Ireland—voted for reproductive cloning. In fact, of the member nations, one-third voted against it, one-third voted for it and one-third abstained. So potentially the weight of world opinion could take us down the next step, which is looking at reproductive cloning throughout the world.

The events in Fiji today exemplify the fact that once you have crossed an ethical boundary—in this case a coup—it is hard to turn back. Sitiveni Rabuka, in 1987 and May 2000, undermined the democratic system there via his first coup, and it has become easier and a simpler way forward for them to repeat that. Rabuka wrote a book about that, saying that there was ‘No other way’ and that was why he did it.

In this debate the outcome is my main reason for opposing this bill, in that there is another way. Adult stem cells have proven to be pluripotent and to have fewer issues with rejection and are already being used in 72 research programs for specific treatments. In conclusion, I oppose this bill, firstly, because the case for change is not robust—it has not been well established; secondly, because it involves crossing an ethical boundary with uncertain, but likely and negative, consequences; and, lastly, because there is another way.

See this speech in context