Steve Gibbons (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to participate in this important debate on the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 to amend the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 and the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002. I will be speaking in support of the bill. I realise that will probably disappoint a lot of people in my electorate who have communicated their views to me. I certainly understand that. I thank them for passing on their views to my office but I am elected in this House to represent the region of central Victoria and it is my judgement to make on those particular bills, especially those involving a conscience vote. I make no apologies; I thank the people for passing those views on to me.

I spoke in support of both pieces of legislation when they were debated in this place in 2002. Both acts required that they be reviewed by an independent committee within three years, and it is as a result of that review process and the recommendations of the review committee that the amendments proposed by this bill have been developed.

Given that the matters before us for consideration are complex as well as controversial, I think it is worth noting the composition of the legislative committee known as the Lockhart committee. The committee comprised the chair, the late Justice John Lockhart AO QC, a former justice of the Federal Court of Australia; Associate Professor Ian Kerridge, a clinical ethicist; Professor Barry Marshall, a specialist gastroenterologist and community advocate; Associate Professor Pamela McCombe, a clinical neurologist; Professor Peter Schofield, a neuroscientist; and Professor Loane Skene, a lawyer and ethicist. The committee was appointed by this government with agreement from each of the states and territories. It was clearly composed of a group of eminent and highly qualified individuals whose recommendations should not be casually dismissed.

It is also evident from the Lockhart committee’s report that it engaged in an extensive public consultation process as well as reviewing the latest literature regarding the scientific and technological advances in human embryo research and related matters. One of the key objectives of the 2002 legislation was to ensure national regulation and oversight of assisted reproductive technology, ART, research and training. The Lockhart review found that an unintended consequence of the 2002 legislation has been that a number of areas of ART research have been impeded or stopped altogether. The legislation prevents any experimental fertilisation, egg activation or developmental embryo research. Unclear definitions within the legislation also create impediments that were not envisaged or intended.

The Lockhart review also found that while there was a range of strongly held views about embryonic research, including total opposition, there was agreement that the current system of legislation is valuable. The committee therefore recommended that national legislation prohibiting human reproductive cloning continue, along with strict control, monitoring and licensing of human embryo research.

In line with the recommendations of the Lockhart review, the bill before us proposes to: enable certain types of research involving embryos that are approved by the National Health and Medical Research Council’s licensing committee, and only in accordance with strict legislative criteria; clarify the definition of ‘human embryo’ in line with the definition developed by the NHMRC; repeal and replace sections of the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 to provide clarity and greater understanding; clearly define and describe the practices that are completely prohibited by the legislation, such as human cloning; and provide descriptions of the practices that are prohibited unless authorised by the NHMRC.

As we have heard in this place and the other place during debate on the bill before us, the subject of human embryo research evokes a range of strongly held, emotive and diametrically opposed views. These views reflect the different ideological, philosophical, ethical and religious beliefs held by our colleagues and are reflective of the communities and constituencies we represent. I appreciate and understand the wide range of views that have been expressed in relation to this bill and, more importantly, I respect the right to express them. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the House to appreciate and respect the right that I believe all Australians should enjoy: the right to be able to hold and express a view that is different to our own without being subject to personal attack or ridicule.

It is worth noting that Professor Ian Frazer, Australian of the Year, who has urged us to support this bill, has made an interesting observation about the current debate. Professor Frazer has suggested that during the 1970s the debate about genetic engineering, which was a precursor to his work in developing the cervical cancer vaccine, was complex, not easily understood and open to misrepresentation. He has made the point that we are in a similar position today, with a number of individuals and various interest groups attempting to discredit the science behind embryonic stem cell research.

There is currently a huge research effort occurring around the world involving some of the world’s best and brightest doctors and scientists working tirelessly because they, their governments, world renowned research institutes and universities believe that stem cell and embryonic stem cell research offers the potential for some extraordinary medical advances, with the possibility of making available genetically matched new body tissue and cells that could potentially cure a range of debilitating conditions.

I note that a number of opponents of this bill have, during debate both here and in the other place, accused proponents of the bill and its supporters of peddling false hope and of manipulation. Scientists are, I believe, realistic in their assessment of the potential lead times required for the development of the potential therapies and treatments and know that there are no guarantees in relation to the outcome of the research. The Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research Australia has said:

While no-one can claim with certainty what benefits may eventually result from allowing therapeutic cloning in Australia, it is the overwhelming opinion of the scientific and medical community that this research has tremendous potential to better human life.

I would like to read from a letter from a young girl from my electorate who was in Canberra recently with the Kids with Diabetes group. I held a meeting in my office with several of them. They came from all over Australia, as you will remember, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think this letter sums up my position on this bill:

Dear Mr Gibbons

I know there is a lot of exciting scientific breakthroughs in laboratories but our future is still very worrying, and I am scared of the potential complications of Type 1 diabetes. Not enough is being done to make the best of these breakthroughs useful to me soon.

Please promise to remember me when you are asked to support a JDRF initiated proposal to form a large pharmaceutical vaccine development fund. The success of this fund is my greatest hope for a cure for Type 1 diabetes and for children with other diseases like asthma, rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis as well as some cancers.

I really need your help please.

Love from

Kahlia Osborne

I think that sums up pretty well why I do not believe, even though I am an elected member of this parliament, that I have the right to use my vote to stop or block potential betterment by way of treatment—if not a cure—for children or, indeed, for other people from all over the country with ailments, illnesses and disabilities when there is a chance that this legislation will enable it. I have given significant consideration to this bill, and I believe there are stronger and more compelling arguments for supporting it than for opposing it. Therefore, I will exercise my vote accordingly. In conclusion, I ask my colleagues who would rather focus on fear than on hope to consider the wisdom of Morris Cohen, who said:

Science is a flickering light in our darkness, it is but the only one we have, and woe to him who would put it out.

See this speech in context