Duncan Kerr (Denison, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing, the member for Sturt, has used language that is extremely emotional, which reflects the fact that this debate on the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 is coloured by strong feelings. However, this parliament is the repository of the judgement of the Australian public. In a debate where people of goodwill and genuine conscience differ, it is I think unfortunate that we hear language such as ‘moral abyss’. Such language suggests that those who take views such as the ones I advocate and which are reflected perhaps by a majority of this House—or perhaps not; the vote will tell—are in some way morally less worthy or, indeed, unworthy or despicable because of the choices they make in what they believe to be the best interests of the Australian public and their constituencies.

I do not come into this debate with a religious background, and I do not denigrate those who do. Many of my closest friends have strong religious beliefs, as do probably a majority of constituents. However, as I do not, I cannot be moved by or affected by an argument that commences with a premise that a particular religious tenet prohibits this particular conduct. In saying that, I accept that I ought to give proper respect and to not cheaply denigrate any views held by a large number of my fellow Australians, but I do not believe I can close my judgement in respect of particular belief systems that are not shared universally by the community.

In this instance, irrespective of the fact that a number of groups which assert that they speak on behalf of church organisations have opposed the proposal put forward in this House by my friend and parliamentary colleague Dr Mal Washer—who comes from a different party but has come forward with a bill which he in his good conscience has seen fit to place before the House even though those church organisations have asserted that it defies religious tenets to support it—I recognise that a vast majority of Australians actually support the proposal. It is not possible to be confident about the scientific measurement of that opinion, but it would be in the order of 80 per cent of the Australian public supporting the Lockhart recommendations.

Another community which has had a very strong and polarised debate has responded recently to similar discussions regarding stem cell research. On behalf of the Australian parliament, the Hon. Bruce Baird and I have recently been to the United States. We were there for a large part of the run-up to the mid-term elections. In that election, it was overwhelmingly the case that public opinion supported those candidates who identified themselves in favour of permitting stem cell research rather than prohibiting it. That might seem a bit of a turn-up for the books; nonetheless, that was the case in that community. But, in the end, neither religion nor popularity ought to determine the outcome of the vote in this House.

As I said at the outset, I do not come to this debate holding religious views so I cannot allow that to determine my view, but I have a moral conscience irrespective of that fact. Secondly, I should not allow the fact that a majority of Australians support stem cell research to influence me if I believe it to be repugnant to the moral nature of our community. So neither the fact that it is popular nor what is asserted to be its position with respect to religious belief can condition ultimately the vote that I and many in this House will make. In the end, the question must be: what is the community benefit and what is the cost? In this instance, I believe the community benefit is potentially immense and the costs slight.

The technology we are talking about is not reproductive cloning. Australia already allows research on embryonic stem cells for infertility purposes, and this is not in conflict with the basic approach that this parliament has already approved. This does open the opportunity to address some of the problems that the member for Cowan so eloquently spoke of—for example, giving people who have suffered paralysing diseases the opportunity to contemplate a better life if the medical technologies prove efficacious. Maintaining a ban will only see our researchers fall further behind, with a loss of economic benefit to this community and a loss of scientific knowledge—where we ought to be in the forefront, we will become in the rear.

There are about half a million Australians who suffer debilitating diseases and conditions which may be the subject of advancements of medicine in this area. Every day one person dies from motor neurone disease and one person suffers a spinal cord injury. There are 140,000 children who have type 1 diabetes, and more than 100,000 Australians have Parkinson’s disease. In respect of each and every one of those conditions, stem cell research, whilst offering no guarantees, seems the most promising way forward to give hope for remedying those conditions.

We have in the past debated the use of stem cell technologies. I sat on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs which presented its report to this parliament before the previous legislation was passed. I believe that passage of the legislation proposed by my friend Dr Mal Washer in this House will reflect only credit on a mature debate. I say that without denigrating those who have alternative views. I respect those views. I have heard from many constituents on both sides of this debate, and I certainly do not wish to suggest in any way that I have not been moved by their contributions. Some of the most powerful advocacy that I have received in the parliament has come from my constituents in the course of preparation for this and previous debates on these technologies. Nonetheless, in the end we are alone in this House, making a judgement as we best see fit. In this instance, I propose to vote for the bill and to not support any amendments.

See this speech in context