Annette Ellis (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Just prior to question time, I was talking about the Lockhart committee’s media release dated 19 December. It states:

On the contentious issue of somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), sometimes known as therapeutic cloning, the Committee has given its support for SCNT and the creation and the use in research of certain other types of experimental embryos in the very early stage of their development and under strict ethical and scientific regulation.

The Committee agreed that the existing prohibitions in place to prevent reproductive cloning and the placement of prohibited embryos in the body of a woman should be maintained.

In October 2006, the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs was asked to examine the recommendations of the Lockhart review. The committee received almost 500 submissions from the scientific community and from the community at large. In the majority report, the committee concluded:

It is the opinion of the majority of this committee that the overwhelming weight of evidence presented before us must lead to the acceptance of the recommendations of the Lockhart Committee.

I know that it was a difficult process for the Senate committee, just as it has been a difficult process for me and for most others in this place. I would like to highlight the main issues that convinced me to vote for this bill.

Embryonic stem cell lines produced through the method I discussed earlier have the potential to provide a cure for or to improve the health status of people suffering from a whole range of diseases, including diabetes, osteoporosis, heart disease, cystic fibrosis, Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, multiple sclerosis, motor neurone disease, spinal cord and brain damage, muscular dystrophy and stroke. Of course, that list is not exclusive. This may seem like just a lot of words, but for people suffering from these diseases and for their families and carers these words mean a great deal of pain and suffering. I would like to share with the House a couple of examples of people from within my own community.

One young man in his late 30s has a damaged retina and has been told that, at any time, he may lose sight in his eye. Another constituent of mine—a man in his early 40s with two very young children—has cardiomyopathy. I do not have a medical background but, as I understand it, this means that part of his heart tissue has died. He has been told that currently it cannot be cured. He is now unable to work, and his wife is trying to look after the family both financially and in the home. I understand that the family has cut into their retirement savings to ensure that the family can spend some quality time together while it is still possible. My constituent tells me that research undertaken overseas using stem cells shows potential use of stem cells for regenerating heart tissue. I can only begin to imagine the impact this would have on my constituent, his wife and their two very young children.

I am sure that we all have a very long list of examples and stories to tell, be they personal or be they on behalf of people we have met. How could I possibly tell these people that I would vote against legislation which would allow research into possible cures for the diseases that they suffer from—and that people in the future may continue to suffer from? How could I possibly look into the eyes of young children with type 2 diabetes and tell them there can be no hope of ever finding a cure or that we will prolong the search for one by voting against this bill?

Other benefits of stem cell therapy include the hope that it will reduce the need for whole organ transplantation, with all the complications resulting from immune system rejection that comes with that. These are just some of the potential benefits. It is also important to note that many countries regulate stem cell research, including the United States, Sweden, Belgium, China, Israel, the United Kingdom, Singapore, South Korea, Japan and Spain.

The scientific community has argued strongly that, if Australia does not participate in stem cell research, we will continue to lose some of our best scientists. Australia is at the forefront of stem cell research; therefore, we are in a position to expand medical research in this vital area. It is impossible not to note that all of us in this country should be and are extremely proud of how clever we have been in the past, and are currently, in medical and scientific research. I think the phrase is ‘punching above our weight’. We are very good at this sort of thing, and I would like to think that we can continue to have that ability shine.

I would now like to briefly address some of the arguments against stem cells research, many of which have featured in correspondence to me. Many argue that embryonic stem cell research is unnecessary because we can use adult stem cells for the same purposes. However, embryonic stem cell lines are more easily managed than adult stem cells because they can be reproduced on a larger scale. The mass production of adult stem cells for research is problematic. Also, bone marrow has few adult stem cells, so retrieving them is difficult. Another reason for the need for embryonic stem cells is that they are pluripotent, which means that they can differentiate into many different types of tissues. On the other hand, adult stem cells are multipotent, which means that they can only be differentiated into a narrow range of tissues. So, although adult stem cell research holds promise for therapies, it clearly has its limitations.

Another argument against embryonic stem cell research is that it may not result in any therapies down the track or, at best, that the therapies will not be available for many years ahead. I do not believe that this is a good enough reason to prevent us from trying, from opening that door. In the 1950s and 1960s, we did not know whether or not we could send people to the moon and bring them back safely. If we had not tried it, we would never have succeeded. If we had not tried to find a vaccine for cervical cancer, we would never have discovered it. Now it will be made available to young Australian women, potentially saving thousands of lives. We cannot prevent research just because we do not know what the outcome will be medically. It is a part of human nature to learn, to achieve and to beat the odds.

It is obvious that I am not a scientist. I alone cannot make the decision as to whether or not this research is valid or worth undertaking. All I can do as a member of this House is to listen to the experts and follow my conscience, and I have done that with the experts—as they call themselves—on both sides of this particular argument. If there is any possibility that we can prevent pain and suffering in fellow humans then I can only support any moves to achieve this goal. I wholeheartedly agree with the view of Alzheimer’s Australia, as stated in their policy position of October 2006:

Alzheimer’s Australia recognises the potential for stem cell research to assist in further understanding Alzheimer’s disease and other forms of dementia, and its potential to assist in developing new therapeutic strategies. While in the short term, stem cell based therapies may be more likely to benefit other neurodegenerative disorders, such as Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s Australia believes that stem cell research is a valuable research area that holds great promise to yield insight into many neurological disorders.

Motor Neurone Disease Research Association of Australia, or MND Australia, made a similar realistic statement in its letter to me:

MND Australia is wary of providing false hope for people living with MND and understands that therapeutic cloning will not provide a cure for people living with MND today. We are unprepared, however, to shut the door on the potential long term benefits of this research and hope for a future without MND.

Another strong argument against embryonic stem cell research is ethical and moral objection. While I respect the views of people who hold those views, I cannot vote against legislation which may alleviate the pain and suffering that I have been referring to. Furthermore, I cannot vote against this legislation knowing that we currently allow research to be undertaken on human embryos which are created with a human sperm and a human egg. I have difficulty understanding how some people who have participated in this debate in here and elsewhere can support the creation of human embryos for research and IVF treatment, yet they oppose research on embryos created through somatic cell nuclear transfer.

Another concern raised is that of the potential misuse or unethical use of research methods in relation to embryonic stem cells. I would argue that this legislation provides for very strict regulations, and I believe those safeguards are sufficient. For example, this bill allows the issuance of a warrant to enter premises where it is suspected that unlicensed embryonic stem cell and cloning research is being conducted. I also note that Senators Webber and Stott Despoja moved several amendments, which were passed in the Senate, which provide further safeguards. For example, the penalty for failure to observe the research regulations will increase from 10 years imprisonment to 15 years.

I raise one further issue which concerns me—that is, the possible exploitation of women, a subject that has been brought into this debate. Embryonic stem cell research will require the donation of human eggs, and there is legitimate concern that women will be exploited to ensure the supply of eggs. However, this legislation states that the commercial trade in human eggs is banned. I believe that women are able to make these decisions rationally, and that in fact they already do in relation to artificial reproductive technology. I support this legislation which will allow embryonic stem cell research under a very strict regulatory regime. I believe it is important for Australia to undertake research with both adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells. Whilst such research causes ethical dilemmas for many, I strongly believe that we cannot reject the possibility of scientific research which may lead to discoveries and treatments once never imagined and probably never even dreamed of.

In this debate many people have made the point in objecting to this legislation that it is almost immoral for proponents or supporters of the legislation to build artificial hope in the hearts and minds of those out in the community who find themselves in a medical situation in which they are looking for cures and for change of treatment. I want to say very clearly that I do not believe for one moment that supporting this legislation is creating artificial hope. I remember very clearly, as many members in this place will, the day very recently when we had juvenile diabetes sufferers visit the House. That is an annual event and one that I treasure. It is the most wonderful opportunity to meet these young people.

I recall very clearly young Jack, from my constituency, who met me in my electorate office and came to the day here. He is a 7½-to eight-year-old, and a strong Swans supporter. From memory he contracted juvenile diabetes at the age of just over two. At the lunch here in the House on that day, as I was leaving the hall where the lunch was being held, his father and the parents of two or three other children sitting at the table where I was called me back. Each one of them individually said: ‘Please, please, on our behalf, think not only of our children but of the children in the future. It may not affect our children, but it possibly will those in the future. Please think of us when you vote on this particular bill.’ When I asked them to elaborate, they made it very clear that they believe so strongly that, if there is any possibility of further scientific research which could help those sorts of kids into the future, they would be so pleased to see it pass in this place.

I am also aware of many people, whom I have already referred to, who have personal stories to tell. I could talk about my personal stories in relation to this bill. I will not, except to say that we all come into this place with our own personal stories and our own personal influences that we build throughout our lives. We also, more importantly, bring to this place the stories from our communities. Whilst I have received a number of communications saying that on moral and ethical grounds people object to this bill, overwhelmingly my view is that my community believes very strongly that, without actually understanding the reality of the potential of this type of scientific research right now, they are very anxious that we go down this path and that their real concern, if any, is that the regulatory regimes around it are safe enough and strong enough to allow this science to occur. It is on all of those grounds, plus my own personal experiences, that I simply must and am very happy to endorse this bill.

See this speech in context