Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Hansard source

I speak today in support of the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. This is not a bill about embryos being created from a human egg and fertilised with human sperm in order to carry out scientific experiments. This is not a bill about embryos being created artificially from human genetic material and implanted inside either a human or animal womb. This is not a bill that would allow human versions of Dolly the sheep or cloned individuals, whatever you understand the term cloning to mean. I would not support it if it were any of these things. This is a bill about careful and considered changes to existing legislated research involving human embryos. It bans human cloning and imposes heavy penalties for going outside the strict guidelines for research.

Research regarding human embryos is an emerging and promising area of study. Scientists have been able to develop continuously multiplying cell lines from such embryos, known as embryonic stem cell lines. The enormous potential of embryonic stem cells is that they possess the capacity to develop into virtually any tissue of the body, given the right conditions. They can give rise to pancreatic insulin-secreting cells, heart muscle cells, cells making neurotransmitters or—perhaps most remarkably—cells that can regenerate the immune system. This technology offers hope that one day we may be able to use embryonic stem cells to treat diabetes, heart attacks, acute spinal cord injuries, Parkinson’s disease and immunodeficiencies.

Previous legislation passed in 2002 concerning research involving human embryos required that it be reviewed by an independent committee by December 2005. That review was carried out by the six-member Lockhart committee, which in its report in 2005 noted that it had consulted the community extensively through written submissions, face-to-face interviews, focus groups, telephone surveys and site visits. The committee made 54 recommendations and in so doing reflected on the diverse communities with varying perspectives that make up the Australian community as a whole. The committee did note that certain moral values are held by all communities, such as commitment to justice and equity and the care of the vulnerable, evidence of which can be found in our support for medical research aimed at preventing disease.

The committee noted that where there is widespread and deeply held community objection to something, prevention through the legal system is warranted. Recognising that there are strongly held opposing points of view on this matter, the Lockhart committee recommended a continuation of national legislation prohibiting human reproductive cloning and also the continuation, with strict control and monitoring, under licence, of human embryo research.

It is important to consider the current bill in the context of the Lockhart committee’s recommendations; I do not automatically endorse them as a matter of course, but nor would I easily overlook the close and careful deliberations of these six experts. The drawback of embryonic stem cells, versatile though they are, is that they are limited in use because they are genetically different from the recipient. This is why I consider the central recommendation from the Lockhart review is the one that proposes that we allow a previously banned procedure known as somatic cell nuclear transfer, or SCNT, which would permit individual-specific embryonic stem cells to be generated. This would overcome the issue of tissue rejection and create a unique treatment for a person’s disease, tailored specifically for the individual affected by the disease.

We are talking about an unfertilised egg, its nucleus removed and replaced with tissue from an intended patient. This tiny cluster of cells is so small it can barely be seen under a microscope, and it has not come into contact with any sperm. The question at the heart of this debate is quite simply: is this a human being? Supporters of SNCT say it is human cellular material but it will never be implanted into a uterus and can never develop into a human being. Notwithstanding, this legislation does not allow this group of cells to be developed past 14 days.

I do not believe that the possibility of this group of cells having a contingent potential for human life in any way outweighs the probability that it has the potential to save human life. If you take a stand against SCNT, you must by definition take a stand against IVF and its associated surplus embryos; you must take a stand against contraception, even for women who risk their health by having children.

I do not accept that on the one hand you have science and on the other hand you have religion. You do not. The talents given to our scientists to preserve human life and better the human condition through medical research are surely gifts from God, whatever god you may happen to believe in.

May I say something about conscience votes generally and the difficulties we have as members of this House when facing a conflict between what we believe in and what our constituents want and expect from us. It is not easy when, as their representative in federal parliament, you take a stand which is contrary to the one they want you to take. I have received a petition with 445 signatures from Albury; I have received numerous letters, emails and phone calls from constituents who have asked, even pleaded, with me to vote against this legislation. To those electors of Farrer opposed to this bill who have identified themselves, and to those who have not, I say I regret that I do not agree with your position, although I would not dream of trying to persuade you to my way of thinking. I respect your strong conviction on these matters and ask that you respect mine.

As a plea to all who would reject the dictates of another’s conscience, I can think of no better words than those written by Siegfried Sassoon, poet and author from the Great War. The last words in his three-volume autobiography were:

It is only from the inmost silences of the heart that we know the world for what it is and ourselves for what the world has made us.

Of course, real hurdles will need to be overcome before we can realise gains from human embryo research or any part of any gain. So far there have been no magic breakthroughs; unfortunately, that rarely happens in fields of scientific discovery. There remains much work to be done. I believe that this legislation will give the scientific community the opportunity and the resources to work constructively and advantageously in these fields, with real prospects for an outcome.

At the periphery of this debate there has been criticism of organisations involved in the commercialisation of stem cell technology. For example, there has been criticism of pharmaceutical companies seeking commercial opportunities, as if this makes the whole business rather grubby and tainted by the profit motive. I totally reject such assertions. Money from investors and governments is necessary; the need to earn a return on such an investment drives the most efficient outcome from the use of the funds in terms of medical research outputs. Yes, profits will be made and multinational as well as Australian companies will benefit but, with the right licensing provisions in place, with the right ethical oversight, we will have the best possible chance of finding cures for disease and better understanding and prevention of medical disorders.

This is the outcome that society demands and deserves. I would like to quote Arthur Schopenhauer to those who have penned hate mail, sent abusive correspondence and insisted to me that they are right and I am wrong: ‘Everyone takes the limits of his own vision for the limits of the world.’ This is worth bearing in mind when faced with a moral dilemma, where we may be uncertain about whether the process of therapeutic cloning destroys human life or potential human life. The limits of our understanding are not the limits of the world and we should not expect to be able to work out the answer—not logically in our minds, nor emotionally in our hearts. We do not know what we do not know except that there is much that we cannot understand.

This is why I believe that the long and complex road of scientific endeavour that we have travelled to get to this point has a reason, a purpose, energy, momentum and, yes, a spiritual dimension. Now is not the time to hold up the research effort due to excessive and unnecessary caution; now is the time to make a sensible—and, for some, brave—judgement call that we are obliged to use the skills, talents and intelligence we possess to make a commitment to ease the pain and suffering of others.

With the expertise of members of the Lockhart committee leading us to this point, at least three of whom declared themselves either Anglican or Catholic, with the wisdom of the various other ethical committees that will remain in place and with oversight from the people of Australia, as represented in this parliament, I trust that the right decision will be made in the best interests of us all, including those not yet born. This is not about religious business, scientific business or ethical business, this is about the business of being human, and the business of being human is essentially about compassion. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

See this speech in context