Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Hansard source

Following the member for Indi, I can say that it is a pretty rare occurrence in this place that I would ever agree with her, but in this case I do and I commend her words—although I may not have put them in the same sentiment or manner. Nonetheless, I do agree with her final view. In fact, I want to take this opportunity to thank all members of the House who have contributed a view in this debate. Nearly all the members of this House have contributed a view and placed on the record how they will be voting in this debate. It is a very important debate, and I think we should be thankful that all members have taken the time to actually do that rather than just come in and vote.

I too rise to speak on the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. This bill has created a lot of interest from many people in the community and parliament alike. It deals with a subject matter that in one way or another affects us all very profoundly. From reading the bill and other research material, I and many other people in this place are more acutely aware of the subject matter and have a better understanding of the different scientific theories and the predictions of hope that in the future we can alleviate the pain and suffering of many who have afflictions such as CF, diabetes and Alzheimer’s disease. We have heard much in the debate about the pain and suffering of many people—and I sympathise very much with them and with their families for the pain and suffering they go through—and the hope that is being held out that new discoveries will be made soon that can alleviate this pain. I think we all agree that a lot of work ought to be done in that direction. We all need new cures to be found that give people hope that in the future no-one needs to suffer in these ways. Although it has been acknowledged by many that that may be many years away, I believe that we are doing all we can today and that we do have adequate legislation to allow that to occur.

At the same time, I am also conscious that research must have its limitations and boundaries and that we cannot allow research for research’s sake in areas of questionable ethics or morality. We must move cautiously and we must move for the right reasons. We must give hope and we must do all we can, but we must not give false hope. We must not give people the impression that by allowing this bill to pass the House miracle cures for diseases will be found overnight or afflictions that affect many people in the community will be resolved quickly. That is often not the case. In fact, when you talk to scientists and the medical fraternity you find that the research that is being done and the potential research that could be done offers hope, but in the very distant future.

While I have done quite a bit of reading on this matter, I do not profess to fully understand all the medical and technical complexities that are before us. But I do understand what this bill contains, what it does and what it is about. It is not necessary for me or any other member of this parliament to be an expert in this area to be able to make an informed and correct decision based on our own ethics, morals and beliefs on those things that we believe are in the best interests of our communities. So I do support extensive research and continued work on stem cells and I also believe that this will deliver cures in the future. I do not set a time frame on that. I believe that all that can be done medically should be done and that every step should be taken to save life and to prevent death. But I also understand that we are a long way away from any of those cures, and these debates will change as the science changes and the discovery of certain paths takes research into new fields and new areas.

The reality is that today we have barely scratched the surface of stem cell knowledge, and that is why we should continue the work that is being done today. But we should advance with caution. The world is not a perfect place, and decisions that we make must be made in accordance with our beliefs and our consciences, and with the view that we should not destroy a life to save another.

This bill has many implications, and I know that members of this House have taken this bill very seriously, I know they have researched the subject matter extensively; they have listened to the views of their constituents and sought opinions from professionals in the field, as I have done. I have done this because I believe it is important that I gain as wide a knowledge as possible to make an informed decision based not only on my conscience but also on the facts. I must say also that having a conscience vote is a special opportunity in this place, and one that all members of parliament should embrace when we are given that chance. We should all exercise that privilege according to our views and our own responsibilities, representing our constituents.

There is no question that there are many ethical, moral and scientific issues in relation to therapeutic cloning, cloning human embryos, the use of them and the manner in which they are used. There are many points and many questions. Some of them may be resolved in the future as new discoveries are made, which would mean that we do not have to cross those ethical boundaries and we do not have to go down particular paths.

I honestly believe that since the first debate in 2002—in which I voted, like every other member of this parliament, against the human cloning aspect of embryonic stem cell research—there has been no compelling evidence or further information that would change my view in favour of the amended bill before us today. The information, though, that has most been a source of interest has come from the tabling of the Lockhart report in late 2005 and, of course, from other research which outlines various alternative pathways for ethical stem cell research. I believe this may remove the need for therapeutic cloning research, as similar results will be delivered through alternative pathways. New discoveries are being made today. Research is currently being undertaken that is driving us down a particular path which may very soon provide us with a way out and a way to get the sorts of outcomes and results that scientists say we need to explore, but without having to cross the ethical boundaries which are a difficulty for so many people in the community and in the parliament.

So, for me, the most promising course of action is continued research, continued funding from government and a continued involvement by the Australian scientific community in these areas, but within the boundaries currently set by legislation in this country. For me, this bill is a question about not crossing that ethical boundary, that fragile ethical line between research and destruction of life which must not be crossed, no matter the so-called promises that are made. That continued pushing outwards of the line from researchers who will never be satisfied, and for whom anything less than unlimited and unchecked research is the new boundary, is an issue. I do not agree with those views. I do not agree that we should continually review and push out the lines of research. I think it is satisfactory that we set good, solid, tight legislative frameworks and boundaries which give guidance to researchers and set laws by which people can then carry out their research. But, as new discoveries are made, that is not a green light or an acceptance that we should then, in future years, continue to push that ethical boundary out further and further.

The most promising way forward is sometimes not the clearest. It is sometimes not even the easiest path. It is sometimes the path that is forced upon others through the setting of strict boundaries. It is sometimes those stricter guidelines and paths that deliver the innovation, that create the new discoveries that otherwise would not have been found if scientists had been given the most open, broadest and widest possible opportunities. Sometimes it is through legislative frameworks, the setting of strict boundaries, that science will actually dig deeper and dig further and perhaps find the answers to those questions that we are asking.

There are a number of alternatives which provide a more ethical plan of action than the potential of cloning human embryonic stem cells. I would like to note some of the alternatives for the House, such as: adult stem cells, which are unspecialised cells that can self-renew, repair tissue in their locality and divide to generate more-specialised mature cells; mesenchymal stem cells, which are a type of adult stem cells that can produce cartilage, bone, tendon, fat, teeth, muscle and nerve cells and which may be derived from bone marrow; and human neural stem cells, which can be isolated from brain tissue. While not readily accessible, they have the advantage of proliferating readily in vitro as well as differentiating into ecto-, endo- and mesenchymal germ layers. There is a whole world of potential in adult stem cell research which scientists and research tell me is delivering many great results.

These are just some of the alternatives that I believe we should be looking at more closely and in more detail before we go down other paths, before we spread too thinly the research and before we spread too thinly the available funding for research being undertaken. In fact, these are alternatives that fall within current legislative boundaries and are not ethically questionable.

It also needs to be noted that, while there is an understanding in the community of the issues we are discussing, there is much confusion around the terms and definitions and there is no real agreement in the community on what they mean, regardless of what some polls say. I want to use as support for my argument the view from the Eureka Strategic Research study, Public awareness research 2005: stem cells. The study said:

There is a very low level of understanding of the term ‘therapeutic cloning’ or ‘nuclear transfer’, which makes it difficult to explore attitudes without first taking an audience through an explanation of the science. Also, in the absence of understanding, people tend to make an ‘emotive’ judgement and for therapeutic cloning, the term ‘cloning’ is far more negatively weighted than the term ‘therapeutic’ is positively weighted.

I think what that statement in the report very simply outlines is that there is not a clear understanding in the community of what it is that we are doing and where that line is. But I think the community do understand the line itself; they do understand the ethical boundaries; they do have a deeper understanding of these issues, even if they do not perhaps understand the terms. Therefore it is our responsibility in this place to make sure that we tread very carefully in these areas.

Having legislation that allows for massive changes in areas of questionable ethics is not something that we should do lightly, and it is not something we should do without real understanding and broad acceptance by the community. I do not believe we have the broad acceptance by the community in this respect as yet, but we may do in years to come, as we gain further knowledge and make clearer the ethical lines that are currently set.

Of course, ethics is not the only point that should be raised in this debate. As with most things, there is a substantial element of cost. In a perfect world with unlimited funding there are many things we could do better and do properly. Unfortunately, we have a very limited pool of funds devoted to this type of research, which comes not only from government and the taxpayer but from a lot of different agencies within the community—the states, the private sector and others. We need to ensure that those limited funds follow the most efficient path and deliver the best results and outcomes. I do not believe that this legislation would do that.

If in this place we do not all have the same view or vote a certain way on this bill—and for different reasons—then we are no different from those who are actually the experts. I have had opportunity to speak with experts and scientists and they, like us, hold different views, for a variety of reasons. They do not all agree about the different directions and paths we should take. They do not agree about the amount of funding that should be given to different research areas. The do agree, of course, in the areas where they research. That is fine, but it is not their role to decide the legislative frameworks. That is our role. It is our job. I believe we should strive to achieve all we possibly can under the current—and I think very successful—legislation that we have and we should follow the current successful research paths, continue to develop further in those areas and continue to look for all the cures and all the answers that we seek. To me, that does not mean allowing unfettered, unchecked research.

A lot has been said on this debate. I will conclude with a few more thoughts. I do not believe that enough has changed in terms of the ethical boundaries, the arguments, the potential outcomes, the science or much else over the four years since 2002. Ultimately, I found myself not convinced by the prospects of what this bill will allow and the ethics contained within its contents. I believe, though, that over the next decade and further the need for this legislation will become obsolete as the moral and ethical issues that cloud this debate will have been resolved through continued research and discovery—those lines that we cross with this bill will not be crossed in the future. I believe that time is not very far away. There will be other methods to extract the information that we need.

In the end, I suppose I am a bit of a sceptic, a healthy sceptic, about the great promises made by experts that tell us all that all the mysteries of human frailty could be solved if only legislators—that is, us—would get out of their road, if only we would give them the open ethical chequebook to do whatever they feel is necessary. I do not agree with that view. I believe science should work within the moral and ethical boundaries of the day, and as those boundaries change with time so can science change with time. Perhaps this is what allows accepting today practices that were unacceptable in the past and rejecting some practices of the past that are clearly unacceptable today so that, as we discover more and open new doors of opportunities, we also make clearer the boundaries to the access which we allow ourselves. Perhaps that is the way that the human race keeps a check and balance on itself.

This bill does not guarantee any cure or particular new discovery. In fact, this bill merely allows an open-ended research journey that may lead to a path that leads to a discovery which helps us to learn more. For me, that is just not enough to support this bill. I believe this bill will pass the House. I respect the decision of the House and the decision of each and every member, according to their own values and experiences. I do not take away from, criticise or in any other way judge any other member of this House for the decision they make. I respect that decision as I hope they will respect mine. Like other members, I will exercise my vote based on my conscience and on what I believe is in the best interests of my community.

See this speech in context