Bob McMullan (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to participate in this conscience vote on the private member’s bill presented by the member for Moore, the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. It is not possible for every matter that comes before the parliament to be considered as a conscience vote.

Some people in the community think it would be a good idea; I think there are all sorts of reasons of good governance why it could not possibly work. Just the time and the arrangements that would need to be made for such a thing to occur make it absolutely impossible, but it is very appropriate here. I welcome the fact that, as on other occasions when we have had such debates, overall the quality of the debate has been very high. It is important that we all recognise that there are people of goodwill on both sides giving serious consideration to important ethical and scientific issues and seeking to get the balance in the national interest right.

I have had the opportunity to be in the chair, as you have Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, on several occasions during this debate. I have heard a number of people make speeches with which I have profoundly disagreed, but they have spoken very well. I recall, for example, the member for Prospect and the member for Rankin, both of whom made high-quality speeches diametrically opposed to my point of view. Last night the member for Gwydir, drawing very heavily on the speech of the member for Rankin, also spoke against this bill. I disagreed even more fundamentally with his view, but it was clearly a considered view, a passionately held view, a principled stand based on his beliefs, and I was impressed with the speech that he made.

I have received in the course of this debate, as everybody has of course, representations from dozens of constituents. It is a very small minority of my electorate of 175,000 people—100,000 voters—but nevertheless, there were dozens of considered, thoughtful representations. I have responded to all of them—almost entirely by e-mail; one or two letters—who have been identifiably from my electorate indicating my intention to vote for this legislation. Of course that has not pleased most of the people making representations who have had an alternative view, but I have been very pleased to note the extent to which, overwhelmingly, they have appreciated getting a thoughtful reply. It does not mean they now agree with me—they do not—but it has been a useful exchange and it is a healthy part of the democratic process.

There have been several references to the fact that we had this legislation before us in 2002, and now it is back again. In one sense that is not surprising, because in 2002 we set a research and review task and that certainly always created the possibility that the research and review process generated by that legislation would lead to recommendations for further action. I strongly supported that previous legislation and made it clear that, if the legislation introduced then had been a stronger bill, I would have voted for that too. Therefore I am comfortable supporting this bill. Its essential character is to allow scientists options within a rigorous, ethical framework. In my view, looking at the potential of the research, you need a case not to do it; you need a profound argument against doing.

I know some people have religious beliefs that lead them to that strong case for not doing it. I do not share those beliefs, but I respect them. But if you do not come from that perspective then I have difficulty seeing what the case against the legislation is—the case of closing off the option. A number of people speaking against the legislation have said in the course of this debate, and I think they are right, that it is very cruel to overstate the potential benefits of this legislation. And some people have overstated it. I am not sure they have done so in this debate in this chamber, but in the public debate some people have overstated it, and I do not agree with that. But I also think it is wrong to deny that there is potential and to overstate it in the negative—that is, to pretend that, because some people who make claims for this potential embryonic stem cell research are perhaps exaggerating, the conclusion should be that there is no potential.

I was influenced by an article by Ian Kerridge, Peter Schofield and Loane Skene where they talked about five myths of therapeutic cloning and sought to challenge some of those myths. I will not read the whole article; in my view a number of bits of it are not relevant to the legislation, although they are intellectually interesting arguments. They say:

There have been great advances since 2002 and good evidence exists in animal models to warrant the pursuit of both embryonic and adult stem-cell research … The House of Lords, a majority of the US Senate, the American and Canadian medical associations, 80 Nobel laureates, the Australian Academy of Science and past and present Australians of the year have all supported the potential of embryonic stem-cell research and therapeutic cloning.

In particular, they refer to its potential for ‘development of patient-specific therapies that may repair or regenerate diseased tissue’. The key sentence there is:

These require therapeutic cloning.

Adult stem cell research can do important things, embryonic stem cell research can do important work and we should not close the door to either.

The professors talk about the slippery slope argument that gets run every now and then. It is a sort of metaphorical equivalent of the thin end of the wedge argument. I find neither argument very persuasive. They say:

This is not evidence of a “slippery slope”, however, but of considered reflection on the consequences of existing law and on the scientific, moral and social issues raised …

I was particularly influenced by the argument they made about the areas of research that are only capable of being pursued through therapeutic cloning. The article is worth reading for anybody interested in the discussion, but I do not want to take the time to refer to those parts of it that I think are not as directly relevant to the decision-making process with regard to this bill. Like many, if not all, of my colleagues, I have read a large number of articles and have been influenced by them; I have had my views questioned by some and reinforced by others.

The only other document to which I wish to refer is the letter from the Australian Academy of Science. It is signed by Profes-sor Sue Serjeantson, the Chief Executive of the academy and a very distinguished person in her own right, on behalf of Professor Lambeck, the President, and other professors who are significant executive holders in the Australian Academy of Science, which is the peak scientific body in Australia. I will not read the whole letter—it would take too long—but they argue, in part:

We have consistently supported the view that it is possible to find a way forward with regard to stem cell research that will allow Australia to participate effectively in the international effort for medical advance, while adhering to strict ethical principles.

There have been many major advances in stem cell research (using both adult and embryonic stem cells) during the period since 2002. New data have been generated that show the value of both embryonic and adult stem cells, and somatic cell nuclear transfer, in informing endeavours to improve the health of Australians.

…         …         …

The Academy agrees, on the basis of the expert advice of its Fellows, that both adult and embryonic stem cell research offer great potential in medical research. Adult stem cells from a patient have the great advantages of proven safety and the absence of immune rejection. Embryonic stem cells, and their relatives made by somatic cell nuclear transfer ... have the great advantages of being able to make every kind of cell in the body and to multiply indefinitely. The recommendations of the Lockhart Committee will allow both adult and embryonic stem cell research to proceed in parallel to maximise the opportunity of developing medical applications from this research.

There are a number of things that the academy refers to particularly in a lengthy articulation, but I want to refer to one other only. It says the academy:

Supports the conduct of laboratory research using somatic cell nuclear transfer and other procedures for deriving stem cells to assist in the development of better treatment for serious disorders such as type one diabetes, motor neuron disease and Parkinson disease. The Academy sees such research as offering promise in the generation of knowledge and remedy for multifactorial disorders that are not due to a single gene mutation, where the disease causes cell death, and where accurate animal models are not available. Somatic cell nuclear transfer may also provide data on how to prevent the problems of immune rejection of donated cells or tissues, and a model for understanding how humans may avoid possible risks, like cancer, that may be associated with embryonic stem cell therapy.

There are books written on this subject and we could all speak at greater length and delve into the relative merits, but like most colleagues I have chosen the two representations that I found most assisted me in coming to my conclusion, which is to support this legislation in the hope that it will open up possibilities within an ethical framework. I congratulate Senator Patterson and the member for Moore, Dr Washer, on their initiative in bringing forward this private member’s bill and I support the bill.

See this speech in context