Gavan O'Connor (Corio, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries) Share this | Hansard source

I commend the honourable member for Wakefield for his contribution to the debate on the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. The quality of his speech is testament to the great heights that this House can rise to on occasions where members from all political persuasions are called upon to consider issues of great moment to their constituents and to the society in which they live.

I rise to oppose the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill. As I have stated on the floor of this House previously, there are moments in the life of any elected member when we are called on to reflect and consider issues of great moment to the constituents we represent and to the society in which we live. This legislation and this debate is another such occasion. I am grateful on this occasion that my party, the Australian Labor Party, has allowed a conscience vote on the bill, and I do commend members from all sides of the parliament and from right across the political spectrum for the sensitive and genuine way they have considered this momentous issue and debate.

In a previous debate some years ago, I lamented the fact that some members of parliament had attempted to politicise these sorts of issues, for what political gain I am still at a loss to discern. I objected to that position at the time, and I do so now because the issue transcends that cheap political point-scoring that too often occurs in considering legislation in this place.

I am surprised we are debating this matter again so soon after the previous debate some years ago on stem cells which saw the collective wisdom of the parliament at the time reject human cloning for embryonic stem cell research. At the time of the debate, I recall many members who opposed the second bill, which related to cloning, warning that commercial imperatives and scientific pressures would soon see this matter revisited and back on the political agenda even though the parliament had made a determination in the full expression of the concept of democracy. I am cognisant of the fact that circumstances in life, the sciences and the community change rapidly from time to time, but change without question is sometimes a recipe for grave error.

I do not intend to regurgitate for the purposes of this debate the arguments I advanced in the previous one for my opposition to taking the scientific and ethical step inherent in this bill. I think the essence of what I said then applies now. I simply do not see any great imperative to move down this path when the end point can be reached another way and without exciting the moral dilemmas inherent in cloning for stem cell research. I refer here to the successful work already occurring in adult stem cell research. Members might be interested in the excellent stem cell research being undertaken by the Douglas Hocking Research Institute at Barwon Health in the Corio electorate. According to the website of Barwon Health, the institute is:

... investigating the growth and use of cord blood derived stem cells, and particularly the capacity of cord blood derived cells to differentiate into other cell types such as muscle cells and nerve cells.

The current focus is examination of culture conditions required to grow primitive stem cells, and exploration of methods for reprogramming cord blood stem cells to display characteristics and growth potential of embryonic stem cells.

Researchers are also searching for genes expressed in stem cells and have discovered several novel genes with exciting potential.

I am informed that this particular research is very encouraging. It is the sort of research where I think current resources ought to be employed, as it does not raise the intense moral dilemmas that are inherent in the procedures that are at the core of this bill. I suppose the key ethical question for all members to contemplate is a very simple one: exactly where did we begin? It is a question one is able to ask because we all made it through, so to speak, to be able to grow to our adult potential and participate in the affairs of this parliament. I do not think if we were in our embryonic state that many of us here today would be too pleased with a decision made by whomever to curtail the growth of that potential either in the 13th day or the fifth day.

I am not insensitive to the suffering of those with chronic disabilities. I am somewhat at a loss to understand, when the evidence strongly favours the use of adult stem cells in such situations, why the stronger scientific push favours experimentation on human embryos. While it might be somewhat easier for proponents of this bill to attempt to paint those who might oppose it as out of step with community standards on the question, it is important for me to put on the public record that the weight of scientific evidence does not overwhelmingly favour the directions inherent in this legislation. There is a large body of doctors, scientists, medical researchers, ethicists and others who oppose the directions that are inherent in this bill. I note that Justice Kirby, the first chairman of the Australian Law Reform Commission, believes that a thorough review should be undertaken of the legal and ethical consequences of research being undertaken in this field.

I think it is valid to raise the question as to whether only the secular view of this issue has credence in the debate. Certainly the issue of the power of vested commercial and scientific interests has been raised by the manner in which the Lockhart review has been conducted and how this debate has proceeded since then. I refer members to a very interesting two-page article by John Martin on 25 July 2006 entitled ‘Putting the cart before the stem cell’. It is a very succinct challenge to a view in the scientific community that favours cloning for this type of research. John Martin states:

Since the licensing system came into place in 2002—

and he is talking there about the use of excess embryos from IVF programs—

there have been no discoveries through this work, either in Australia or elsewhere, that could support arguments that there is an urgent need for somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), also often called “therapeutic cloning”. Since this process involves the deliberate production of a human embryo to experiment on it, SCNT moves the ethical barrier to a much higher level.

I think John Martin sums it up pretty well in his concluding paragraph to this two-page article when he asks:

... “is there a compelling reason to undertake this work?”

His conclusion is:

On present evidence there is none.

He goes on to say:

If proof of concept can be provided through animal experimentation, perhaps a case for SCNT could be made more convincingly than it can be now, but only, of course, if we accept the questionable utilitarian principle that the end always justifies the means.

I think therein lies the crux of the philosophical dilemma that many in this place face in considering this issue.

It is not just a question of whether one has a religious disposition or a religious view of the world whereby one comes to question the extension of the barriers to the conduct of this sort of research, because, as I said before, there are many prominent scientists, ethicists and medical researchers who are not of a religious disposition yet can appreciate where this particular piece of legislation might eventually lead our society.

So, in summary, what has happened since we last debated this issue that merits a change in position? Is the case for change based on a new premise? No, I do not think so. The debate still revolves around the taking of a potential life for existing life. Our generation thinks it is the only one and is willing to rob future life to sustain present life. It is this kind of thinking that has led to all sorts of problems in all sorts of areas.

I think it is time for our society to accept the boundaries of life and work within them. In the meantime, we should be encouraging the sort of research that is taking place in Geelong and other places to find the ways and means to overcome some of those diseases that are debilitating for other members of our community.

This is a complex and difficult area for all members, but I am pleased with the way in which this debate has been conducted thus far because I think there is a mutual respect for the views that are taken on both sides of the debate relating to this bill. I make note of the fact that there are many people in this chamber who are not of a particular religious disposition yet who have grave reservations about the process by which the parliament has come yet again to consider these matters.

When one has been around this parliament for any length of time—in my case, I was elected in 1993—one does come to understand the power of vested commercial interests and the somewhat spurious reasons that are often advanced to achieve a legislative change that would give them a potential for some commercial advantage at some future date. I suspect that in this instance that unfortunately has been the case. This parliament is now debating a piece of legislation that many of us, in good faith at the time of the last debate some time ago, thought would not be considered yet again after such a short time.

This is a very important issue for many of my constituents who, on both sides of the debate, have expressed their views to me, strongly held and carefully thought through. If the views that I have expressed do not agree with those of some constituents, I hope that through the collective reading of the previous debate and the things that I have said in this one they come to understand that, at the end of the day, there is an end point that I want to get to in this stem cell research that might deliver the great benefits to those who suffer from the major diseases that have been mentioned. I think we can get there by resourcing an alternative way—a way that is already proving its worth in this field. I refer to adult stem cell research. I will be opposing the bill.

See this speech in context