Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to oppose the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. The arguments that lead me to this conclusion are in many ways different from a lot of the arguments of other people who have reached this conclusion. I also feel that a lot of the arguments from those supporting the bill do not go to the core issues as I see them in this piece of legislation.

The key argument that I have often heard from people who, like me, are opposed to this legislation is that adult stem cell research is better. I find that as an argument for opposing this bill utterly unconvincing, for one simple reason: the question of whether or not another form of research is better does not give you any justification for banning an area of research. Even if adult stem cell research were not better, that would not cause me to say, ‘Oh well, therefore we do need this one.’ I think we are in an ethical debate. That is where we are at. I think we should all be up-front that that is the debate we are in and either make the ethical case or not make the ethical case.

In the same way, I reject the argument that has been put by a lot of the proponents of this bill that under no circumstances should we stand in the way of something that might bring about a cure. The reason I reject that argument is that I do not think anyone believes it. I think there are occasions when every member of this parliament and every member of the community in Australia will say, ‘Even if that does give rise to a cure, I don’t think that sort of research should be conducted,’ or, ‘I don’t think that medical practice should be condoned.’

We have dealt with this issue through a sideways method where people have been asking where the ova will come from and whether women will be in a situation where they are being asked to sell bodily tissue. We already have, through state legislation throughout the country, a situation where under the human tissue acts of the different states it is illegal to sell your own bodily tissue. It is a principle throughout Australia and a principle that does not exist in many other countries. In the United States, for example, people get paid to give blood. In Australia we do not do that. There are no doubt situations where somebody needing a kidney transplant will die while waiting for a suitable donor to be found. I have no doubt whatsoever that there would be circumstances where, if we were allowed to sell our bodily organs, people would not die because there would be suitable donors willing to come forward. It would not happen that often but there would be such circumstances. No-one in this parliament is saying that therefore we should change our principle in Australia and make it reasonable to sell our own bodily organs. No-one is arguing that. That is an area where we say that, even if we are standing in the way of a cure, it is a public policy path we do not think we should go down.

The logic of that leads me to say that the question is not the science that is being argued back and forth. We are not the experts on the science. That is not our job. It never has been and never will be. Whatever the best course of action for science, I am quite happy for the scientists to do that bit. Our job is to determine where the boundaries ought to be drawn. To draw a boundary for the scientists is a big step to take and it is a step you do not take lightly. But, no matter what the rhetoric in this chamber has been, it is uncontested that there are times when we draw ethical lines and it is appropriate for the parliament to do that. That has been the case in statute law in this country for more than 50 years—that if we have a situation where the ethical principle is big enough, even if it stands in the way of a cure, we will say no. That does not mean people are imposing their religious faith on each other. I do not understand for a minute where the religious principle is on the question of whether or not you are allowed to sell your blood. There is none. It is a public policy stance and it is an ethical line. We look at the consequences and think it is an inappropriate path to go down.

There are two areas in which this bill crosses an ethical line that I do not believe it is appropriate for us to cross. For those reasons alone I am opposed to this bill. The first reason is that I am opposed to cloning—simple as that. I am opposed to cloning even at the earliest stages. Some people have spoken about ‘science fiction’, as though cloning is making a new human being who is absolutely identical. Essentially what we are talking about is creating an embryo with the DNA of an identical twin of an adult. Not all the genetic material precisely matches—the ovum is going to be different—but you are talking about that concept of creating an identical twin for somebody at that earliest stage of life. There is a contestable argument, which we have had in the parliament, about how much dignity life at that early stage ought to be given, but I think everybody in the debate has acknowledged, even if they do not believe you are dealing with a full person at that stage, that you are dealing with something pretty special.

The second line this bill crosses, which I do not believe it should cross, is where it is so very different to the bill that this parliament dealt with three years ago and the parallel legislation that I voted on in the New South Wales parliament three years ago. Last time around, we were dealing with the issue of whether embryos that had already been created should be allowed to be used in scientific experimentation. I was opposed even to that, but many people got to the line on that issue and argued in the parliaments around Australia—and every parliament in Australia had to deal with the legislation—that the critical issue was: these embryos have already been created anyway; they are going to die anyway; therefore it might not be inappropriate.

This time around we are saying that this embryo is only created for this purpose of experimentation. That is a really big ethical difference. It is not my argument, but some people will reach a measured conclusion that crossing that line, which is something new, is outweighed by the prospect of the blank canvas we have for scientific research. We all have to be honest: what we are faced with on embryonic stem cell research is a blank canvas. It might deliver unbelievable cures; it might deliver very little—we do not know and the scientists are not sure. For us to be engaging in this debate as to whether or not it will, I really do not think takes public policy that far. There is an ethical debate to be had, and that is where the guts of this issue really does lie.

No matter what level of dignity people want to give an embryo at that blastocyst stage, most people agree you are dealing with something more than just ordinary body tissue. The question is: at what point does it becomes special enough that you are willing to say, ‘I’m going to draw a line and not allow science to cross it.’ I believe we are at that limit—I really do. It might be the case that this is standing in the way of possible cures. It might be; neither side of the debate knows. When we prevent somebody from selling their kidney to somebody who desperately needs a matching kidney and it is completely consensual, why is it any business of ours? Because public policy is our business—that is what we do; that is what we are charged to do—and sometimes that means drawing an ethical line.

I do not believe that, even at the earliest stages, we should allow a process of cloning. I do not believe that we should allow an embryo to be created for the specific purpose of destruction. I expect we will be back debating the next stage of this in the next term of the parliament. I do not argue that from a slippery slope perspective; I argue that from two other perspectives. There are two areas where I do not understand, having taken this step, what the next logical argument of limitation is. We have the argument here that there is an absolute ban on reproductive cloning and that, once these embryos are created, it is illegal for them to be implanted in the womb and brought to term. If a woman has donated her ova and we have what people regard as either a human life or a potential human life, I do not know what argument will be used to tell the woman who is the mother—or potential mother, depending on where you sit in the debate—that, ‘Even if you want to have that embryo implanted, we’re not going to let you.’

Logically, I am not sure at what point she ceases to be the mother. I am not sure at what point she loses those rights. It is unlikely that that request is going to be made, but I am not sure, and I am yet to hear, what the logical argument is that says she has no right to make that request. Under this bill she does have no right, and I am not quite sure how that next line gets drawn when this step is taken.

The other thing that appears inevitable, because of an amendment in the Senate and a similar one in the House that say you cannot use an animal egg—and I support both of those amendments—is the problem of where the eggs are going to come from. If we end up with long lines of women volunteering to assist with this research, that will be their decision, but I would be surprised if they did. We are inevitably heading to a very specific call from scientists in three years saying: ‘You allowed us to do this. Actually, we weren’t able to do the research because we weren’t able to get the eggs to begin research with, so therefore we need to revisit the hybrid issue.’ Once again, we will be back here debating whether or not we are standing in the way of cures.

The principle that I start with will remain the same. It will still be cloning; it will still be the creation of an embryo with the purpose of destruction. We will still be in the middle not of a scientific debate but of an ethical debate. Scientists should normally be allowed pretty free rein, and I am very relaxed about that. It is not my job to be a scientist. It is not my job to decide this is the better area of scientific research, and therefore I am going to demand that other areas are shut down. That is why I do not enter this from the perspective of the adult stem cell versus embryonic stem cell debate. I can only see an ethical debate here. I think anybody who says, ‘If you want to impose ethics on science, that’s you imposing your religion on others,’ has not thought through the logic of where they stand on a whole range of other areas where we do draw lines. From my perspective we have one question and one question only in this debate: should the line be drawn? My answer is yes, which leaves me with no choice but to oppose this bill.

See this speech in context