Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Hansard source

On the previous occasion that this House considered the question of stem cell research, I supported that legislation. That legislation had a requirement for a review—the Lockhardt review—on which the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 is based. That legislation authorised medical and scientific research—stem cell research—on spare and excess embryos created for the purposes of in vitro fertilisation for artificial reproductive purposes. That legislation also prohibited therapeutic cloning, or somatic cell nuclear transfer, and reproductive cloning.

We all agreed that a conscience vote was appropriate for that legislation, just as a conscience vote is appropriate for this legislation. I supported that legislation because I believed there was a clear and easy rationale for supporting it—the legislation was a logical and, to some extent, a necessary consequence of our nation-state years ago, through its state parliaments, authorising in vitro fertilisation. If we allow in vitro fertilisation, we necessarily allow the creation of spare and excess embryos and we necessarily allow their destruction. It seems to me to be compelling, if those spare and excess embryos were to be destroyed, to take the opportunity to utilise them for scientific and medical research before that destruction occurred. So I had no difficulty with that rationale and no difficulty supporting that legislation.

No similar rationale exists for this piece of legislation. On the conscience votes that have come before this House while I have been a member, I found myself not having any great difficulty in very quickly coming to a threshold decision about supporting or opposing a particular piece of legislation—whether it was RU486, euthanasia or the first stem cell legislation—and quickly stating that rationale and my support or opposition, as the case may be.

On this occasion I have found it much more difficult, and I acknowledge that I have been troubled by this piece of legislation and have had to put in some careful thought and some time before coming to a conclusion. On a number of occasions I said to people that I wanted to examine the bill itself, which on one occasion elicited a wry, cynical smile on the basis that, frankly, it is not too often that we in this chamber look carefully and closely at the detail of legislation that we consider. I must say that I was buttressed in my reading of the bill by the fact that the former health minister, Kay Patterson, for whom I have a high regard, had instructed the drafting of the bill, and I think it is well-known that she received the assistance of the Department of Health and Ageing on technical matters to ensure that it met its intended purpose.

The legislation authorises somatic cell nuclear transfer or therapeutic cloning and prohibits reproductive clothing. Having examined the legislation I am satisfied that there is a sufficient regulatory regime proposed for the legislation, and I think the Senate amendments improve the legislation. There is still the threshold question to be met. Some of the factors that go to meeting the threshold question are as follows. We are not dealing here with embryos created by human egg and human sperm; we are dealing here with the removal of the nucleus of the human egg and replacing that with the nucleus of another cell. We are not dealing here with human embryos created for the purposes of reproduction.

Like very many members I have considered carefully the various materials—the bill, the explanatory memorandum, speeches that colleagues have given—and read carefully any number of short or lengthy emails that have been fired at me. I have given careful thought to two particular representations made to me. One was from a senior staff member when I asked: ‘What might be the rationale for supporting this piece of legislation?’ The response was: ‘I am an insulin-dependent diabetic.’ The second representation was on one of those occasions that members would be familiar with. I was at a public place, at Brisbane airport, and I was approached by a member of the public who was a serving serviceman. He said to me: ‘Stephen, I’ve been watching you for the last half an hour, carefully weighing up in my own mind whether I should approach you.’ I often have the experience—and other members might have found this too—that when people preface their approach to you with that comment, that they have been agonising about whether they should approach you or not, you invariably have an uplifting conversation. The thrust of that representation and conversation was that the serviceman’s daughter suffered from a debilitating illness and disease and was very keen for me and my colleagues to support the legislation.

Rather unusually, I found myself on this occasion ultimately being persuaded by the second reading speech on the bill as presented to the House. On 30 November the member for Moore, Dr Washer, presented the explanatory memorandum to the House and made his second reading speech—a speech which of course has some effect in law when it comes to the interpretation of the legislation. As a fellow Western Australian I have a very high regard for Mal Washer and I want to take the liberty of quoting at some length from the second reading speech he made when he presented the bill to the House:

The main issue of contention in the Lockhart review is SCNT—

that is, somatic cell nuclear transfer. He went on:

SCNT is where the nucleus of a patient’s cell—for example, a skin cell—is removed and put into an unfertilised ovum that has had its nucleus removed. This egg now containing the patient’s DNA, the blueprint for life, is chemically and electrically stimulated causing it to divide and form ... a ball of cells. Within this ball of cells there are a number of unique embryonic stem cells that are capable of forming all the tissues of the human body. These cells are harvested and then put into a culture medium and molecularly stimulated into a lineage to create patient specific tissue. This tissue is then used for the purpose of research for the development of novel drugs to be used in therapy against the patient’s disease, or the tissue can be used for implantation, for example pancreatic insulin secreting tissue in people who are insulin dependent diabetics. This tissue, being patient specific, does not require immunosuppressive drugs that may cause a much higher risk of cancer and infection.

Dr Washer also said:

Egg donation will be voluntary. These eggs are not fertilised by sperm. The eggs could be sourced by donation from IVF unfertilised eggs ...

And he went on to say:

Opponents of this legislation seem to base their opposition on the destruction of SCNT embryos which is necessary to harvest the patient specific ES—

embryonic stem—

cells even though there has been no sperm involvement. There is no possibility of forming life without intra uterine implantation, which is totally illegal with severe jail penalties. The hollow ball of insensate cells the size of the grain of sand, containing the DNA of a patient with an intractable disease is designed only for the purpose of cellular culture therapy.

After much deliberation I have come to the conclusion in my own conscience that this legislation is worthy of support and is in the public good on the basis of the medical and scientific research that may well see the alleviation of illness, pain, disease and suffering from our fellow citizens. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context