Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak and to address the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. I want to start by expressing my respect for the views expressed not only within this House on both sides of the debate but, in particular, from within my electorate, where I have had approaches from constituents who have supported the legislation or opposed the legislation with good faith. I recognise that I cannot do justice to all of the views within my electorate because there is a polarity of views. It is simply impossible to satisfy all. So I approach my task with the responsibility based on the notion of my conscience and my responsibility to future generations.

I do, however, want to pay particular tribute to those of each side in this argument who have presented their views thoughtfully, cogently and with energy. I thank them for their input. I note that I have listened to and tried to take the best of the advice from each of those people within my electorate and beyond who have approached me. I also want to note briefly, in relation to this parliament and this debate, that a debate such as this, carried on the basis of conscience, is an example of the parliament at its best. The arguments on both sides of the debate and both sides of the chamber have been well made. There have been outstanding speeches from both sides of the debate and from both sides of the chamber.

Against that background, I want to proceed to make my case on the basis of three principles. They are: firstly, to outline the process as best as I can for somatic cell nuclear transfer; secondly, to explain its potential for the assistance of human life; and, thirdly, to address the philosophical question of whether or not this is an appropriate process for the potential benefits which it may ultimately bring. And my conclusion, using those three principles, will be to support this bill on the basis that I believe it ultimately offers the potential—but not the guarantee—for benefits to human life and research in areas such as juvenile diabetes, motor neurone disease and spinal cell damage. None of these are guarantees. None of them should be presented as absolutes, for that would be a false hope. But all of them are potential. There is profound potential.

I will now address the philosophical issue. Let me turn first to the question of process. This bill has two key components. Firstly, it reinforces the ban on human cloning for reproductive purposes. I think that that is important at this point in history, as it clearly separates what is acceptable from what is not. Secondly, on the counter side, it creates opportunities within strictly regulated parameters to undertake embryonic stem cell research through somatic cell nuclear transfer—or the cloning of individual cells.

I will explain briefly how somatic cell nuclear transfer works. It is essentially a three-stage process. Firstly, the nucleus of an empty egg obtained from excess embryos donated for assisted reproductive therapy or otherwise donated is removed. So the nucleus is hollowed out. Secondly, in its place, DNA from another source is injected into the nucleus, with the intention of creating cells with the same genetic make-up as the injected DNA. Thirdly, the stem cells are then isolated from the embryonic unit, with the potential for use in research on a wide range of debilitating diseases. That is the process.

Significantly, an empty egg injected in this way with DNA from another source is not the same as a human embryo created by fertilisation of a human egg by human sperm. This, to me, is an important distinction. Indeed, it is not a viable human life in any way without implantation into a womb. At this stage of the cloning of cells it falls short—not of life, for it is by definition life—of human life. I think that that is the real distinction to be made, not whether it is life or otherwise. Clearly, by scientific analysis, it is a form of life. It is a group of cells that can reproduce. That is life, but it is not human life and it is not capable of leading to human life as we know it, unless it is implanted into a womb. On the best available advice that I have, under any normal circumstances, even if that were done, it would not be capable of producing a normal human life. Importantly, on that basis, implantation is absolutely and comprehensively prohibited under this bill.

Somatic cell nuclear transfer offers research potential not currently available using other techniques. There will be debate about this, so I will present my best understanding on the balance of evidence. Adult stem cells and cord blood cells are an incredibly important part of stem cell research. I supported that activity before, and four years ago I supported the transfer of embryonic stem cells that were the additional by-product of the IVF process. I recognise the role of both adult stem cells and cord blood cells, but I believe that research using adult stem cells and cord blood cells and embryonic stem cells from surplus IVF cells should be pursued together with embryonic stem cell research, as is proposed in this bill. I believe that, as a society progresses, with the compassion for those who suffer the pain and agony of so many debilitating diseases, we do have a duty to explore all reasonable avenues which may lessen human suffering, as long as those avenues are morally justifiable and ethically valid. I will deal with those elements shortly.

The bill contains strong safeguards. It retains the existing prohibitions on reproductive cloning. It prohibits all implantation of embryos created under somatic cell nuclear transfer technology and it prohibits the development of a human embryo created by any means in any external device or culture beyond 14 days gestation.

The second key argument for me is about the potential of this research that I have talked about. What is it that is offered here? Stem cell research in this form offers enormous potential, in time, to reduce human suffering. That is ultimately the equation at which we are looking. Research using embryonic stem cells can contribute to research that will help our scientists better understand cell damage and cell loss, and there is a range of different illnesses or conditions that can potentially be treated on that basis. Parkinson’s disease, motor neurone disease, diabetes, Alzheimer’s, spinal cord injuries and stroke all have the potential to be the subject of research which may offer benefits, hope and opportunity for those who suffer from them.

Throughout human history—and here is a core, philosophical point about scientific research—an openness to new avenues of such research has been essential to most of our major medical advances, and millions of lives have been saved. Without such research we would not have had Ian Frazer’s cervical cancer vaccine and we would not have the anti-retroviral drugs that have kept millions of AIDS sufferers alive—and not just alive but with a much higher quality of life. In that respect, I wish to turn to a letter from one of my constituents. Mrs Lynette Howell of Rosebud West wrote about her husband, Mr Robert Howell, who suffers from a rapidly progressive motor neurone disease. She writes:

Dear Mr Hunt,

On behalf of my husband Robert, who has rapidly progressive motor neurone disease, and our family, I ask you to please consider the recommendations from the Lockhart Review and support them in Parliament.

We need for stem cell research to be pursued as one of the avenues available to find cause, treatment and cure for MND.

Somatic cell nuclear transfer creates opportunities for research that adult and embryonic stem cells do not offer.

The letter continues:

We need to find a cure for this insidious, rotten disease so that in future families will not have to live with MND. We would not wish this past year on anyone.

I cannot present the case for research more strongly than the letter from Mrs Howell about her husband and the father of her children, Robert Howell. So to the Howells and to the numerous other people and families throughout Australia who suffer conditions of pain and angst and illness I say that I will be supporting this bill. But I also say that we must be realistic about the potential of this research. It will not cure ailments overnight. It will not cure everything. It may not cure anything. But it does offer the greatest hope we have for sufferers of motor neurone disease, Parkinson’s, diabetes and a whole range of other serious ailments. It is not within my heart to deny the potential for cure and improvement for those people.

Against this background—and this is the last point I want to make—is philosophy. The questions involved in this bill are ultimately ethical ones and, with such questions, there are two principles that must be weighed: the good that can be done on the one hand against any potential costs on the other. There are two key arguments that we need to look at in this: what system of ethics should we apply and what is the status of the embryos or the clone cells created through this process?

What is the system of ethics we should use? Utilitarianism is often used to justify good outcomes derived through dubious means. I do not accept as a fundamental principle that the ends justifies the means—the utilitarian argument. Instead, I adopt a position of moral realism. It is one I have worked on with my good friend the Rev. Dr Rufus Black. It is that essentially both the ends and the means must be entirely justifiable in their own right. On that front I say that by expanding the opportunities for embryonic stem cell research through these processes the intention is to care for those suffering from debilitating diseases and the outcome is to advance research.

But we also have to ask: what of the process? What is the nature of a 14-day-old somatic cell nuclear transfer set of cells or even embryo? I believe fundamentally that it is a form of life. It is more than tissue, but it is less than a body and less than a mind or soul. It is not human. It is the distinction between life and humanity which I draw here. This is not an absolute; it is a judgment for each individual and it changes over time.

Indeed, the Catholic tradition itself has changed over time. As I noted four years ago, St Thomas Aquinas argued that a fertilised egg was not a person in the human sense until the quickening of the foetus, which demonstrated mental activity. This was Catholic doctrine until changed by Pope Leo XIII in 1887. So these things change over time. There is no right; there is no wrong—there is only individual judgment. In the words which grace the entrance to the Victorian parliament: ‘In the multitude of counsellors there is wisdom.’ We have to rely on the multitude of counsellors in this place to apply their collective wisdom in making that judgment.

My judgment and mine alone is that a 14-day-old somatic cell nuclear transfer set of cells is more than just tissue but, as with Aquinas, that it is body alone and not a person comprising an indissoluble balance of body and mind. I give my judgment and my reasons. In that situation, ultimately, given the nature of the egg, given the intention for its use and the human pain that it can relieve, I conclude that, for me, embryonic stem cell research using the techniques available and described in this bill is a morally justifiable and ethically valid means to achieve an end of enormous potential benefit to many thousands of people. I am delighted to support the bill for those reasons.

See this speech in context