Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer and Revenue) Share this | Hansard source

Unlike the member for Macquarie and, I suspect, the member for Paterson, I will be supporting the bill sponsored by Senator Patterson. I intend to be quite brief—and that is not to be interpreted as me not placing a great deal of importance on this bill, the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. It is a very important issue indeed, but I do not see the point in giving an overview of the bill and its effects again, given that so many speakers before me have done that in both the House and the Senate and have put most of the fine technical arguments before both places. Having said that I will be disagreeing with the member for Paterson and the member for Macquarie, I would like to acknowledge, as many others have done, the contributions of those who have spoken against the bill and to extend to them my respect for their opinions and views on these issues. I am sure they are all heartfelt and, just as importantly, well informed. I know these are matters on which conclusions can be very difficult.

This is the fourth time in my almost 11 years in this parliament that I have had an opportunity to participate in a debate on which the major parties have determined that a conscience vote will be permitted. Can I say what a welcome thing I always find that to be. I suspect we all feel constrained from time to time by the party system and the disciplines that are attached to it. What I really welcome when we have these debates are the newfound allegiances or alliances we see across the major and minor political parties and even the new friendships and bonds that are formed as people who have a common view and are of a common mind come together to prosecute their various cases and to discuss with one another the various arguments.

The first time I was given that opportunity was on the issue of euthanasia. I recall very vividly that at the time many people believed I opposed the bill to overrule the Northern Territory law to allow euthanasia because of my Catholic faith. That is not actually true. I supported that bill on that occasion because while the proponents of the legislation in the Northern Territory were saying euthanasia was about giving people a choice, I actually took the opposite view and was concerned that once you prescribe euthanasia—which in effect happens on a daily basis anyway—in legislation then people will be denied a choice. In other words, pressure will be borne upon them to access that capacity. We all know how family members can be in matters financial; that gives one good example of how someone might be pressured to use that opportunity. The second occasion when I took part in a debate where a conscience vote was permitted was on the legislation on stem cell research. Again, for me that bill was about choice—that is, the choice to live or to access modern medical technology for one’s own benefit. On that occasion I took that choice—that is, the opportunity to do so.

The third occasion was in the debate on RU486, the abortion drug. Again, for me that was a question of choice. It was not a question about termination per se; it was a question about the choices a woman and her doctor would have once she had taken the decision, often for very sad but, in many cases, justifiable reasons. It is a difficult choice for a woman to make but, once made, given that that procedure is sanctioned by state law and is not a matter for this parliament, I took the view that that woman and her practitioner should have a choice. I also believe that this bill is about extending choice.

I have to decide what is more important: to back the cause of medical research into the cures for some of the most debilitating forms of disease and their personal, social and economic costs; or, on the other hand, to err on the side of caution by concluding that the process that this bill seeks to sanction constitutes the destruction of human life, as so many have argued. Unsurprisingly given my record on these issues, my choice is the former. I am backing hope and opportunity over what is effectively a faith based view, and what is a scientifically unconvincing view, about the status of the marriage of an egg—importantly, an egg which has had its DNA removed—and a body cell. If the time comes when the literature is able to convince me that that combination constitutes human life then my position may be somewhat different. But having studied the literature and sought advice from various experts and the sponsors of this bill, I am unconvinced of that fact. On that basis, I will be supporting the bill and extending that hope and opportunity to so many people already living and to so many people who will live in the future with those debilitating diseases who may not need to if medical research can deliver the hope that we are looking for.

See this speech in context