Arch Bevis (Brisbane, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Aviation and Transport Security) Share this | Hansard source

In considering this very important private member’s bill, the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006, I looked again at some of the debate and my own comments on the 2002 bill that established the current regime for embryonic stem cell research. A number of the issues that were central to that 2002 debate remain very relevant to the 2006 bill before us. For example, the question of when a life is created is central to both debates. The potential benefits of both embryonic and adult stem cell research are central to both debates. I said in 2002 that, for some people, the use of embryonic stem cells represents the death or murder of a living being, an unborn child. I do not share that view, but I appreciate that it is genuinely and deeply held by some in our community.

I also said that if embryonic stem cell research is morally wrong then surely the use of remedies from that research is equally wrong. Otherwise, we would be saying that it is morally wrong to use embryonic stem cell research here in Australia, but it is fine to avail ourselves of the new cures of that morally offensive activity that is conducted somewhere else in the world. If we are to make this research illegal, surely we would also have to outlaw the medical procedures and cures it produces. Even if new cures were not outlawed, consistency would surely require those who oppose this bill to refuse treatments for themselves and their children and loved ones which might come from this research. I still hold those views.

To oppose this research on genuine, deeply held moral grounds—and I concede many do—but to then use the remedies produced by it seems to me to apply a clear double standard. Whilst I have met a number of people who oppose this bill, I know only a few who apply that standard consistently, including refusing to avail themselves and their loved ones of any new treatments or cures that the research might produce. I respect very sincerely the deeply held beliefs of those who object to this bill. I particularly respect those whom I have met, including a couple of my constituents recently, who shun any remedies or cures created by a process they regard as deeply immoral and offensive. However, I do not believe I should legislate to apply their beliefs on all Australians.

The essence of much, if not all, opposition to this bill is the question: at what point is a human life that our laws should protect created? For some in this debate, it is at the point of fertilisation, even if that fertilisation is outside the human body. For those who hold this view, even the existence of the IVF program must be wrong, for it involves the disposal of many embryos that are not needed in that IVF program. For these people, that disposal of an embryo must represent the death of a life. That is not a view I share. Moreover, I do not believe it is a view shared by the vast majority of Australians.

Of course, there has been one important development since 2002, and that is the investigation and report of the Lockhart review. The Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs report on the Lockhart review and the private member’s bill has provided a very valuable resource, not only for this parliament but for all who have an interest in this issue. Like the wider Australian community, the scientists on the review and the senators on the committee did not all agree. That is not surprising on an issue of this kind in a pluralist democracy such as ours.

Some commentary on the Lockhart review has misrepresented what it said, though. For example, contrary to the views I have heard from some, the review in fact recommended that implantation into the reproductive tract of a woman of a human embryo created by any means other than fertilisation of an egg by a sperm should continue to be prohibited. It also recommended that development of a human embryo created by any means beyond 14 days of gestation in any external culture or device should continue to be prohibited, as it is now. The bill does not change those things. Under this bill, creating a cloned human being remains illegal. In fact, in 2002, I think the unanimous vote to ban human cloning was seen to be a ban on exactly that. No-one wanted to see a living, breathing, walking human created through cloning, and I think that is still the case. The bill, in my mind, does not allow that to occur.

I am indebted to the excellent work of the Senate committee for the very useful analysis that they have provided of this bill. I think it is useful to have a brief explanation of the terms that are so often bandied around in some discussions, particularly amongst some who make representations on these things, but which appear to me not to be so well understood. Stem cells are unspecialised cells that have the unique potential to develop into specialised cell types in the body—for example, blood cells, muscle cells and nerve cells. They occur at all stages of human development, from embryo to adult, but their versatility and numbers tend to decrease with age. Given the right conditions in the body or the laboratory, stem cells—unlike muscle cells, nerve cells or blood cells—can replicate themselves many times over. When a stem cell replicates, the resulting cells can either remain as stem cells or they can become specialised cells.

Stem cells are further defined by their potential: as totipotent, pluripotent or multipotent. Totipotent cells are those stem cells which have the capacity to become any cell of the body as well as the capacity to form a whole being. These are only found in the first days of embryo development, before the differentiation process begins. Pluripotent cells have the potential to become any cell in the body, but have no capacity to form a whole being. Under the current legislation, human embryonic stem cells may only be obtained from donated surplus IVF embryos, and then only under special licence. They are what is commonly referred to as embryonic stem cells.

Multipotent stem cells are those that have entered a more specialised stage, and can only develop into a certain range of cell types. Human adult stem cells generally fall into that category. There is another source of human embryonic stem cells, called somatic cell nuclear transfer, SCNT. This is a process commonly known as cloning. It is important to remember that the word ‘cloning’ is used to describe replication of single cells as well as whole beings. We often think of cloning in the context of Dolly the cloned sheep, but cloning also involves the cloning of one single individual cell.

The SCNT process is where the nucleus of an egg is removed and is replaced by one taken from a donor adult cell—for example, a skin cell. This is then stimulated, and it behaves like an embryo produced by a sperm and an egg. As the majority of the Senate committee noted, while the basic SCNT technique is the same as that used to clone whole animals, this cannot happen in humans for a number of reasons. Firstly, there has been and shall remain, if this bill is passed, a strict prohibition on SCNT embryos being implanted in the body of an animal or a human—that is, it will remain illegal to put any cloned embryo into any human or into any animal. Secondly, the bill prohibits the development of an embryo beyond 14 days anyway. Attempting to do either of these things, whether you are doing it with intent or simply accidentally, will attract a penalty of 15 years imprisonment for the person who tried to do it. There is a serious deterrent to anyone seeking to breach those provisions.

The current regulatory framework is inconsistent. It allows embryos that are created for assisted reproductive technology, ART, to be used for stem cell research but it prohibits cloned embryos from being created for the same purpose. The Senate report notes that because cloning techniques, SCNT techniques, involve the cloning of donated adult cells we would also have the opportunity to seek donations of cells from people with specific identified diseases. This would allow the additional benefit of research into particular diseases. Currently, there is no alternative to the generation of disease-specific embryonic stem cell lines other than through this method.

The Australian of the Year in 2000, Sir Gustav Nossal, a former President of the Australian Academy of Science and undoubtedly one of Australia’s most acclaimed scientists, expressed his support for the lifting of the prohibition on SCNT. He wrote this to the Senate committee:

Embryonic stem cell research is rich in promise. It has already demonstrated its potential in the study of disease causation, in development of new diagnostic methods and in basic research. In the longer term, the possibility of new therapies for serious diseases is real, though this will be the work of decades rather than of years.

…         …         …

Stem cell science has advanced to the point where it is pushing against the boundaries of current legislation. It is time for the next step.

That is the point the parliament is now at.

Adult stem cell research is important. I made that point in 2002 and I repeat it today. We should support the work of scientists involved in this field. It holds much promise and avoids the concerns held by those who oppose embryonic stem cell research. However, adult stem cell research has its limitations. Professor Bob Williamson, from the Australian Academy of Science, said in a submission to the Senate committee inquiry:

... why do I as an adult stem cell scientist believe that somatic cell nuclear transfer—

that is, cloning—

and embryonic stem cell research is important? Embryonic stem cells have two very important properties ... One is that they can differentiate; they can give any cell type in the body. Adult stem cells cannot transdifferentiate in general and, as you get older, they become less and less likely to transdifferentiate. So, although it is possible to get liver cells from an adult to form more liver cells, and bone marrow cells to form bone marrow cells, we cannot get those cells to form heart muscle, neurones and so on. Only embryonic stem cells can do that.

That is from Professor Bob Williamson, who works in the field of adult stem cell, not embryonic stem cell, research. He too supports these changes.

There are clearly significantly greater opportunities for medical breakthroughs with embryonic stem cell research. That is perhaps why somatic cell nuclear transfer is currently legal in Belgium, China, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, South Korea, Singapore, South Africa, Sweden, Thailand, the United Kingdom and a number of states in the United States of America. They offer great hope. The 19 October edition of the publication Nature Biotechnology includes a report from researchers at a California based company, Novocell, that says:

We have developed a differentiation process that converts human embryonic stem ... cells to endocrine cells capable of synthesizing the pancreatic hormones insulin, glucagon, somatostatin, pancreatic polypeptide and ghrelin.

They are essential developments in providing a long-term, permanent cure for sugar diabetes.

Not long ago, many members of parliament were involved in receiving and talking to children from around the country who suffer from type 1 diabetes and who had come to this parliament to participate in the Kids in the House program. I have had the great privilege over recent years of meeting on a regular basis with a couple of my constituents who have participated in that program. I have watched them grow up. I have listened to their trials and tribulations. I have read the letters they have written to me. I have spoken to their parents. I have some small understanding of the life they confront. They come to me and talk about the hope they have for their long-term cure, the hope they have for embryonic stem cell research to provide them with a normal life as they grow up. I read the reports such as the one I have just mentioned, where research firms in California are now reporting progress in these fields. I see that as a point of great hope for those children and an opportunity that they would not otherwise have to live a normal life that many of us take for granted.

That said, the core question remains, as it was in 2002: when does human life exist? At what point is that human spirit we hold unique to humans created? The Lockhart review noted that even the point at which fertilisation occurs is open to debate. Fertilisation is a process which occurs over time. It is not a discrete event. I have thought about this fundamental question for much of my life. I have listened to the views expressed in the last month by colleagues, scientists, constituents and the rather long list of interest groups who are always prepared to share their views with all of us in this place. Those who answer this question by saying that life begins with fertilisation have the great benefit of certainty and simplicity. They do, however, have to reconcile that view with the existence of an IVF program which, as I have already mentioned, involves the destruction of those very embryos—which must, by that definition, be the destruction of life.

I think IVF programs are widely supported in the Australian community. They bring great joy to the lives of many Australians. That is not something that we seek in this parliament to overturn. I agree with the Lockhart review comment, and the findings of a majority of the Senate committee, that the production and destruction of cloned embryos is not dissimilar to the production and destruction of excess ART embryos—that is, the embryos created in the IVF program. That creation and destruction of IVF embryos is permitted by the law, and it is widely accepted in our society. To permit one, that is, the production and destruction of ART embryos, but not the other—that is, the production and destruction of cloned embryos—is inconsistent. It attaches more importance to the treatment of infertility than to the treatment of other serious diseases and conditions.

I do not believe that inconsistency can be easily dismissed. If a human life exists with an embryo, the destruction of that embryo is wrong, irrespective of whether it is a surplus IVF embryo or whether it is an embryo created through cloning for research. So, those who have a fundamental moral problem with this bill must surely also seek to end the IVF program, for I can see no other way in which that dilemma can be reconciled.

In the last few weeks, I have again searched my thoughts and beliefs on this very important issue. I was moved by the very sincere objections that some of my constituents presented to me—I know they hold them deeply and genuinely and with as much sincerity as any human being can muster. I have also listened to the concerns of people like those involved with the diabetes program, Kids in the House. I have to say again that, after searching my beliefs and my conscience, I cannot agree that a new human life exists with fertilisation.

I cannot say that I know exactly when a human life begins, with its own spirit and identity, as an independent life. But I am clear in my own mind that it is certainly well after the maximum 14 days following fertilisation provided for in this bill. An embryo at 14 days is not, in my mind, a separate human entity. I will be voting in favour of this bill. More than that, I encourage the government to provide financial support to this research so that the hope that it provides for significant improvements in human health and medical breakthroughs is able to be realised. All of us in this parliament have taken the responsibility of a conscience vote on this matter, as we should and as the public would expect us to, and we do so knowing that, no matter how we vote, there is going to be a fair slice of the population unhappy with what we have done.

In constituencies where we represent 80,000 to 90,000 voters, and perhaps 130,000 to 150,000 people, I do not think it is possible to pretend that any of us can know what those 90,000 people really believe about these matters. I said in 2002—and I feel it again today—that I cannot pretend to represent the conscience of 90,000 people in my electorate; I can only truly represent my own conscience. In exploring the issues and listening to the evidence, I know I have done that to the best of my ability. I am supporting the bill, I encourage other members to do the same and I encourage the government to fund the research.

See this speech in context