Patrick Secker (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Unlike on other bills that have dealt with abortion and embryo stem cell research, where I had made up my mind on those issues probably 30 years ago, on this one I tried to have an open mind. The reason I did that was that it was a new sort of idea. Even though every member of this parliament voted against it four years ago, I thought it was important that I looked into the whole philosophical and medical debate about cloning.

I rise to speak on this bill that seeks to allow somatic cell nuclear transfer, commonly called cloning or therapeutic cloning. I would suggest that the term ‘therapeutic cloning’ has been conjured up in an Orwellian attempt at doublespeak and it seems to have succeeded. Further, it was found that people out there in the community still were not happy with the term ‘therapeutic cloning’, so the procedure took on the more scientific name of somatic cell nuclear transfer, which does not conjure up any idea of cloning. In fact, the bill is called the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006, which, again, is a bit Orwellian because it is not about prohibition, although that is part of it; it is actually all about allowing the cloning of human cells.

‘Therapeutic’ of course gives the idea that it is somehow good for you. Many of the speeches have taken that attitude, because much of the promotion for therapeutic cloning suggests that it holds great hope for scientists to use somatic cell transfer for miracle cures in the future. This could be said to be a utilitarian approach: the greatest good for the greatest number. In some ways, the utilitarian approach can be a reasonable proposition, provided it does not cross some ethical line. You could argue that in the time of slavery those who were not slaves, those who owned slaves—who were greater in number—could come in under that philosophy. But I do not think anyone in this parliament could support the ethical boundary in relation to slavery.

I remember that, four years ago, when every member of this House and the other place voted against any form of cloning, this same reason—the therapeutic aspect and the possible miracle cures—was used to argue for embryo stem cell research. I rejected that. It is interesting to note that the same argument is being used again for this cloning. In that period, I am reliably informed, there have been about 76 breakthroughs using adult stem cells. I do not believe there is any ethical problem with that. But, in the same period, there have been zero breakthroughs from embryo stem cell research. I am not a scientist, but as a layman I would suggest that that is a fairly good indication that there are some very good things being achieved through adult stem cell research, which, as I said, has no problems when it comes to ethics.

Four years ago we all voted against cloning. Every member of the Labor Party, every member of the Democrats, every member of the Greens, every Independent, every Liberal and every National Party member voted against cloning. What, may I ask, has changed in four years? Very little, except the minds of some people, I might unkindly suggest. What we have here is a classic example of people using the hopeful end to justify the means of getting to that end. The end being promoted is medical breakthroughs, and for that we could use cloning as the means, even though that end is, at this stage, not much more than hope. Indeed, that hope was how one member expressed his reason for supporting this bill to allow cloning. Unfortunately, I think that might be false hope.

Even if the hope were more real, the end still would not justify the use of cloning. Four years ago, the bill to allow embryo stem cell research was deliberately split to have a vote on embryo stem cell research and a vote on cloning. I remember that very clearly. I also remember the vote. It was 99 for embryo stem cell research and 33 against—very easy numbers to remember because it is three to one. I was one of those 33 and quite proudly so. But the vote against cloning was unanimous.

If this bill passes it will allow cloned cells to be destroyed up to the age of 14 days. What happens if in the future the scientists come back to us and say that 14 days really is not enough and they want to try 28 days? I suspect that those who support cloning to age 14 days will say yes to 28 days—after all, it is only a matter of time, isn’t it? What if the scientists come back later and say that 28 days is not enough and that we need three months? Again, it is only a matter of time, isn’t it? If you think this is unlikely then be aware that US teams announced in February 2005 that they had cloned monkey embryos up to one month in age and that they believed that that age could be lengthened by reprogramming. The only safe ethical time is zero days—that is, no cloning.

Do members also realise that there is nothing in this legislation to stop harvesting from aborted female foetuses? Do those members who support this bill realise that they are not stopping this from happening? The least they could do would be to support an amendment which makes the practice of harvesting from aborted female foetuses totally illegal. Or do they think that the argument used by supporters of the destruction of embryonic stem cells through research is okay because they were going in the rubbish bin anyway? The argument that the end justifies the means cannot be supported by me in this conscience vote, just as we could not support fascism because it made the trains run on time, just as we could not support eugenics in Hitler’s Germany to justify the Aryan ideal of purity of race. We cannot support cloning for the same reasons: the end does not justify the means. Indeed this could be a very good reason why Germany is taking a very conservative view on cloning. I suspect that most of this research will be for cosmetics rather than medical breakthroughs, in any case.

What I utterly reject is the view that I am holding back future cures by rejecting this legislation, because even the most positive view of cloning by objective scientists tells us that we are more likely to find cures for diabetes, quadriplegia or many of the other problems mentioned by other speakers through other research that is far less controversial and far more ethical. What is far more important is the ethical boundary, long recognised in medical research codes, that would be crossed in legislating to allow the creation of cloned human life exclusively for the purpose of it being destroyed or killed in the pursuit of knowledge. Are we to allow the exploitation of women to gain access to more human eggs? Will we ever get to the situation where women are paid to supply eggs? What about the health risks to women? Four years ago I voted against cloning, like every other member of this parliament, and nothing has changed my mind to make me vote otherwise.

See this speech in context