Ann Corcoran (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration) Share this | Hansard source

In 2002, parliament passed two bills which together banned all forms of human cloning, including cloning for therapeutic purposes, and allowed researchers, under certain conditions and restrictions, access to surplus human embryos. Those embryos were created for parents on an IVF program but were no longer wanted by those parents. Those embryos would normally have been discarded, but now, under the 2002 legislation, can be donated by the parents for research. One of the strengths of this legislation is that it applies to all embryonic stem cell research conducted in Australia, regardless of how that research is funded. I understand that in the United States, for instance, national laws only apply to publicly funded research, not to research funded through private means, leading to a bit of a hotchpotch of regulation. But that is not so here. This whole-of-Australia approach was achieved through a spirit of cooperation between the Commonwealth, state and territory governments.

At the time of passing the 2002 legislation, it was also decided that the situation would be reviewed in three years time. That decision was made because of the fast pace of development in this sort of science. The review committee, now known as the Lockhart committee, was established in 2005. It was chaired by Justice Lockhart, and it reported to the government in December 2005. Justice Lockhart, as we all know, died not long after that. The Lockhart report made a number of recommendations, many of them non-controversial and technical in nature. It did make a couple of controversial recommendations, and the one that we are discussing here is that cloning be allowed for therapeutic purposes—that is, for research, training and clinical application.

The Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 puts in place strict rules to regulate and control how this cloning takes place. The rules will govern who is allowed to undertake this research and for what purpose. If this bill passes, it will not be open slather for any scientist to undertake this sort of work. This bill will keep in place the prohibition of cloning for the purpose of reproduction. That is, it will remain illegal to clone an embryo for the purpose of making a person. The committee’s report has been available to the government since December last year, and it is disappointing to me that the government has chosen not to act on these recommendations or to even bring them forward for debate. The bill we are debating today is here because of the actions of individuals, not because of the actions of the government, and I congratulate those individuals.

This bill, if passed, will enable the implementation of this controversial recommendation—that is, it will allow therapeutic cloning for research purposes. And I will be supporting this bill. Before I explain why I am supporting this bill, I want to thank all of those constituents in Isaacs who contacted me about this issue, some urging me to support the bill, others pleading with me to vote against it. Obviously, my decision will not please everyone. I have written to all my constituents who contacted me, to explain my position on this bill. Whilst there have been some sensational arguments put around by some people, I am convinced that the majority of those who contacted me are motivated by real concern for how our society behaves and operates and have strong and genuinely held views on this matter. I want all of my constituents to know that I have arrived at my decision after careful thought and after making sure that I have listened to the arguments from a range of people with a range of views. My decision was not made lightly. I want to thank the many people who gave me and other parliamentarians their time and patience in explaining the complexities and the science behind this issue, as well as those who discussed the moral arguments with us.

In coming to my decision I have deliberately not considered some of the arguments put forward in support of this bill. For instance, an argument I have ignored is that scientists in other countries are already doing this research and we are being left behind; therefore, we must pass this bill and get on with it. I am ignoring the argument that Australian scientists are leaving Australia in order to do this work overseas. I am also ignoring the argument that says that if we do not pass this bill and some Australian state governments do then we will lose the present conformity that exists across the country. Whilst all of these arguments have merit and are important, they are second-order arguments. They are irrelevant, in my mind, until the moral issue is dealt with.

I think it is useful at this point to set out just what we are talking about when we talk about therapeutic cloning. Therapeutic cloning is different from reproductive cloning. Reproductive cloning is cloning for the purpose of developing or making a human being. Reproductive cloning is prohibited by law and will remain prohibited under this bill. Therapeutic cloning, as defined by this bill, is the creation of an embryo through a mechanism called somatic cell nuclear transfer, or SCNT. SCNT is the transfer of a nucleus from one cell to another cell which has had its nucleus removed, thus giving that cell a new genetic imprint. An embryo created by SCNT consists of an egg, unfertilised, with its nucleus removed and replaced by a somatic cell—for example, a skin cell. This embryo is allowed to develop for up to 14 days before it is destroyed. This embryo consists of an unfertilised egg and a somatic cell; it does not involve sperm.

Because these embryos are created in an abnormal manner, it is considered by most scientists that they would not be able to grow into a viable foetus even if they were implanted into a woman’s uterus. I must quickly stress that implantation is forbidden under this legislation. This difference is critical to my decision to support this legislation. When we think of an embryo we normally think of one created by an egg and a sperm for the purpose of making a baby. An embryo created for research using not sperm but a somatic cell is an entirely different type of embryo.

In my mind, the moral argument is whether or not we allow the creation of an embryo using SCNT—the purpose of that creation being to use the embryo for research which will destroy it. Given the difference between a normal embryo and one created in a different way for research, my decision to support this bill comes down to a balance between the benefits that that research might bring and a reluctance to embark on therapeutic cloning and the destruction of that embryo, although we are not sure of the potential of that embryo for life. To my way of thinking, the balance is that we should allow therapeutic cloning because of the benefits it might bring us. The results of the research are unknown but could be of enormous benefit to many people.

One of the arguments for not supporting this bill is that research involving embryonic stem cells has not produced anything useful at this stage. Research involving embryos has been legal in this country since 2002—just four years. We have only known about embryonic stem cells for eight years; we have known about adult stem cells for 50 years. Research can take many years before a breakthrough happens. It is far too early to make the judgement that embryonic stem cell research is not going anywhere. Let us not forget that penicillin took about 50 years to be developed.

Another argument put forward is that scientists are unable to guarantee results through this research. This is an interesting argument, because research, by its very nature, is an uncertain business. We do not know what research might throw up. In fact, that is the reason we should be undertaking this research. The sensible thing to do, given the potential of this research, as well as the research using adult stem cells, is to enable both avenues of research to be undertaken. This is what this bill will allow.

The embryo created for this purpose is not the same as an embryo created with an egg and sperm. The legislation strictly controls who may do the cloning and for what purpose. At the moment, research is allowed on excess embryos donated by parents on the IVF program. One question often asked, and one that I asked earlier on, is: why can scientists not simply continue using embryos donated from the IVF program, rather than clone them? Embryos from the IVF program, almost by definition, are healthy ones and carry the genes of both parents. They are not genetically matched to the donor, the patient. A therapeutically cloned embryo will carry the genes of the egg donor and the genes of the person who donates the somatic cell, including the disease or impairment under study. Tissue or matter from the cloned embryo is, by definition, matched to the donor.

A cloned embryo carries the genes of the disease or impairment under study. An embryo from the IVF program is a healthy one—it does not have the disease or impairment. The cloned embryo is genetically matched to the patient so that problems of rejection are avoided. An embryo from the IVF program is not genetically matched to the donor, and so the probability of rejection of that material by the patient’s body becomes an issue.

Finally, I want to make a point about how this debate, both here and in the community, has been and is being conducted. This issue is very difficult. We all have to weigh up carefully the issues involved. Some of my colleagues will make a different decision from the one I have made. My decision will please some of my constituents and displease others. In all of this, though, it is important to acknowledge and respect the right we all have, indeed the responsibility we all have, to make the best decision each of us can.

Some of the material, letters et cetera, that has been circulating uses words that suggest that those who are arguing against this bill have some sort of superior claim on respect for life. For instance, one letter I have received is from a group calling itself the World Federation of Doctors Who Respect Human Life. I am not deliberately picking on that particular group, but it is a good example of what I am talking about.

It is offensive for anyone to suggest that others have a lesser regard for life. We will all have a variety of views about the best way of respecting and protecting lives and we will not, and do not, always agree. I am quite convinced that everyone involved in this debate today cares very much about life and works hard to protect it. To suggest that one group of people has more respect for human life than another group of people is offensive. This assertion does not add to the dignity of this debate. The issue is a difficult one. I have weighed up the moral issue and the scientific issues and have decided to support this bill for all the reasons I have just set out.

See this speech in context