Margaret May (McPherson, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today in support of the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 and hope my comments as a legislator will be understood as coming from a member who has spent many hours researching this bill and its implications. My position has not been taken lightly. I am neither a scientist nor a doctor, and the matters we as legislators have been asked to consider within this bill are complex. But the bill is important and the recommendations of the Lockhart committee’s report, a committee chaired by the late John Lockhart AO, QC, who was supported by an eminent group of people, deserve a careful and considered response.

It is my belief that the Lockhart committee’s report was comprehensive, measured and balanced. In fact, overall, it was a well-considered report. The committee reported to the minister in December 2005, noting that it had:

... consulted the community extensively through a review website, written submissions, face-to-face meetings with key stakeholders, public hearings and some private meetings (at stakeholders’ requests), facilitated stakeholder discussion forums, and selected site visits.

There was also public opinion sought through focus groups and telephone surveys, and a literature review of recent scientific and technological advances in human cloning, human embryo research and related matters, including stem cell technologies. The final report contained 54 recommendations.

Since the release of the report and the recommendations I have talked to my family, friends, constituents and those more learned than I on this issue. I have listened to varying points of view. Australia is a diverse country, and people in our country hold different values and beliefs—and none more different than those that are held with regard to this bill.

There is not the time today to canvass all those differing views. The bill we are debating today is a bill drafted by Senator Patterson. I would like to say to Senator Patterson that she has done a wonderful job in drafting a difficult piece of legislation that in essence represents the recommendations of the Lockhart review—that is, I believe it is a conservative and appropriate response to a complex medical and ethical issue.

There is one person I thought of often when I was considering this bill and my position. His name is Colin Bambrick and his body is suffering the effects of an insidious disease, a disease that is slowly destroying Col’s quality of life—motor neurone disease. Motor neurone disease is an incurable, inevitably fatal condition. I have known Col and his beautiful wife Lori for a number of years, and over those years I have watched Col deteriorate to the point where he is now in a wheelchair. His brain and intellect are fine, his sense of humour is wonderful, but his body is wasting. The disease progressively paralyses the body—the arms and legs, and swallowing and speaking muscles. Eventually you end up with a mind and a consciousness inside a body capable only of blinking before the breathing muscles give way and you die.

Col’s day-to-day needs are met by his wife, Lori, and his family. They are supported by some wonderful friends, including John and Heather Stevens—two people who I know love and respect this brave man but feel powerless to help. Col still socialises and gets out. He recently attended my niece’s 21st birthday. But socialising is difficult and tiring for Col. He is only 57 years of age and he knows there is no cure for MND. At least there is no cure at this time. But he also understands that the bill before the House today just might find that cure for sufferers in the future. He asked me recently what stage the bill had reached. I told him it had just passed in the Senate and we were waiting for it to come into the House. Col will be listening to the debate with interest, and I know I have his full support for my position with regard to the bill.

Passing this bill will not mean that embryonic stem cell research will find the cures that people like Col would benefit from. Medical research can take years, even decades, to find cures or therapies to assist. Embryonic stem cell research has, however, immense potential for understanding the cause or causes of, and eventually finding a cure or cures for, motor neurone disease and many other life-threatening diseases.

We need to promote and support all forms of scientifically and ethically reputable research. And therein lies the controversy surrounding this bill. The Lockhart review has recommended the use of human embryos created by somatic cell nuclear transfer and other techniques that do not involve the fertilisation of a human egg with a human sperm. Somatic cell nuclear transfer, or SCNT, also known as therapeutic cloning, is an essential research tool for developing disease specific stem cells. SCNT involves creating a stem cell from a patient’s cell. Such a stem cell line would be a copy of the patient’s disease cells and would enable scientists to understand more thoroughly the triggers and process of that specific disease. It does not—I repeat, does not—involve the union of an egg and sperm and the generation of a new individual. This legislation prohibits the embryo ever being implanted. Under this bill, embryos, whether they are surplus IVF embryos or embryos created without sperm, must not be allowed to develop beyond 14 days. The Australian scientific community does not support reproductive cloning. The use of SCNT to clone a human must continue to be prohibited and be a criminal offence. This bill supports that view, and so do I—very strongly.

There have been many myths perpetrated through the media regarding therapeutic cloning, and it has been difficult to cut through the rhetoric and, indeed, the moral high ground that some have taken with regard to this bill. There is no doubt some of us in this place will be criticised and targeted for our positions. But as community leaders and legislators we have a responsibility to make the tough decisions. Each of us in this conscience vote must weigh up and measure the facts against our own beliefs and values and the needs of the communities we represent.

The mix of arguments against the legislation has in part been built on myths. Of course views pertaining to morality, science, faith and politics have been thrown into the mix. So what of those myths? What of the claim that the legislation does not need to change because scientists already have access to adult stem cells and excess embryos from assisted reproductive technology for their research? That is true. However, that does not reduce the potential for scientific and medical advances from research involving embryonic stem cells. These are complementary and not competing fields of research.

Existing law allows research on excess normal embryos but does not allow the study of diseases through research into abnormal embryos or the creation of disease models for research or, potentially, for the development of patient specific therapies that may repair or regenerate diseased tissue. These require therapeutic cloning.

Concerns have been raised about the risks of egg donation and the possibility of women being exploited, and, of course, there is the claim that allowing therapeutic cloning will ultimately lead to reproductive cloning. As I said earlier, the scientific community does not support this assertion, nor does this House.

Scientific research is, at best, just amazing for a lay person like me. I think about organ donation—open-heart surgery was pioneered by Christian Barnard back in the late fifties—and measure that against what is happening in the medical sphere today. I think about young Chris Wills, a constituent of mine who underwent a heart-lung transplant last year. He is now living a normal life—even playing cricket for Australia at the recent Transplant Games in England. There is our IVF program. My own daughter is carrying my third grandchild through the miracle of IVF.

We have had many historical medical breakthroughs in my lifetime that in my view are miracles, such as the discovery of insulin by two Canadians, which has given a quality of life to all those who suffer from diabetes. Are we not to give the same sort of hope to others suffering like Col or young Perry Cross, a ventilated quadriplegic? Perry was hurt in a football accident and suffered the same injuries as Christopher Reeve. Perry is only young—in his late twenties—but has been confined to a wheelchair since he was 19. Perry has hopes that one day through medical research he will walk again, that his spine will be regenerated—and why should he not hope for that breakthrough?

We need to ensure that the recommendations of the Lockhart review are adopted and implemented. Australia has been a leader in stem cell research. The vast majority of the scientific and medical community in Australia and overseas believe that SCNT has tremendous potential to reduce human suffering. We do not want to fall behind international researchers in this area of science. As a country we need to be sharing in the international collaborations, research knowledge and intellectual property that will accompany this science.

Through this bill we can be sure that we have progressive legislation with tight regulation and a clear and well-articulated ethical framework to enable Australia to sustain our position as a world leader in biotechnology research. To Col, Perry and all those other Australians condemned to a life of suffering through their diseases or afflictions, you have my support and I hope the support of this parliament to ensure that this bill is passed.

See this speech in context