Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

Moral courage is an integral part of leadership. You cannot have one without the other. You cannot hope to exercise any form of leadership or authority if you are not prepared to stand by your convictions. We have been in this very position before. This parliament debated, in 2002, the Research Involving Embryos Bill and the Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill. Note the words ‘prohibition of human cloning’. In fact, at the time the Minister for Health and Ageing, who moved this private member’s bill, said:

I believe strongly that it is wrong to create human embryos solely for research. It is not morally permissible to develop an embryo with the intent of truncating it at an early stage for the benefit of another human being.

In 2002 the House voted overwhelmingly along that very line. Yet the bill before us today seeks to overturn the result of that vote, and I will have no part of it. The Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 implements the recommendation of last year’s Lockhart review, which found that research using cloned human embryos may offer the possibility of cures for a number of debilitating conditions. Let me say from the outset that I have tremendous sympathy and compassion for those who live with incapacitating illnesses and those who see this legislation as a possible salvation from such diseases and conditions. But I urge those people to consider the grand scheme of things, look beyond the immediate suffering and think about the door we are about to unlock. This amendment will be giving scientists the go-ahead to clone human embryos on the pretext that stem cells from these embryos will offer scientific advances that would not otherwise occur.

It is interesting that the United Nations Declaration on Human Cloning, which is barely 18 months old and to which Australia is a signatory, calls in part for ‘all measures necessary to prohibit all forms of human cloning’. I am surprised that many members of this House who are such devotees of the United Nations and its declarations are supporting this amendment. Of them I ask: where is your consistency?

Of course, if we open this Pandora’s box, I am sure we will rue the day we ever opened it because it will permit, in a de facto sense, the establishment of a slippery slope. The member for Kennedy made that very point. This bill provides that embryos may only be used in the first 14 days. How long before it is 28 days, or 42 days, or a number of months? Then what next? I remind honourable members that this bill already permits hybrid embryos. Sure, it is for the testing of sperm—it allows an animal egg and a human sperm. It is for testing the quality of sperm. But what happens next? What else can you do? Or do we keep going down this path until we get to Professor Singer’s ultimate aim? He is a so-called ethicist who would virtually approve the removal of children in their earliest form.

I appreciate the difficulty in grappling with an issue like cloning of embryonic stem cells but I also have an unshakeable view on the sanctity of human life and the heavy responsibility upon us as legislators to get this right. In extending my compassion to those who are suffering today, I ask: what sort of legacy are we handing to future generations? The Lockhart report contained one particular line which I feel undermines our position as federal representatives:

... the wider the range of ethical views on a particular activity, the weaker becomes the case for declaring that activity to be illegal, with all the attendant consequences of criminal conduct.

What an extraordinary statement to put in a report like that. In recent years, the parliament has been asked to be open-minded on the matter of stem cell research, cloning and RU486, so now to be told that a diversity of opinion weakens the justification for saying no is hypocrisy in its clearest form. Our job as MPs is to distil the views of the diverse interests of the electorate that we represent and then to vote in their best interests. Each one of us has between 80,000 and 90,000 constituents and, at the end of the day, we have to consider many opinions. In doing so, are we then weakening our position as elected representatives? I think not. The fact that the bill has passed the Senate by only one vote is a clear indication of the level of unease in the wider community over this legislation.

Other members of parliament have also raised serious questions about the medicinal and scientific benefits which apparently would flow from this bill. Senator Alan Eggleston was particularly erudite in his comments, arguing that the parliament should not be pressured into passing this bill to suit the biotechnology industry and scientific researchers. The same interest group has promised us that the research which would be allowed under this legislation could provide miraculous medical advances. I ask the promoters of that point of view whether they are not creating a false expectation. Where are the results from this form of cloned research so far?

We went through the excitement of the so-called breakthrough in cloning technology undertaken by the Koreans, only to find out that it was a fraud. Those of us who were here in 2002 will remember the rat that a number of scientists, including Professor Trounson, were taking around this building and showing how its broken back was healed. We found out after the event that it was actually healed by using adult stem cells. So there is a bit of woolly science around here. What are we offering people other than the expectation of miraculous cures?

On the other hand, we have heard of instances where cancer formation in stem cell implants is a real problem, with up to 25 per cent of implants forming highly malignant tumours. We have also heard that, since the current regulatory regime was enacted, only one licence has been granted for research into treating a scientific medical condition—in other words, the rest of the science is very much at a primary stage.

I also ask why we are passing this bill with such uncommon haste and so soon after the Lockhart report. As an MP and, more importantly, as a father and grandfather I would welcome therapeutic treatments which could eradicate degenerative diseases, but I want to see that occur, initially at least, through adult stem cells. We know there have been breakthroughs with adult stem cells. I applaud the granting in the last budget of $22 million to Griffith University and to Dr Silburn and his cohorts to look into the effects of adult stem cells on neurological diseases. To me, that is starting at the right point. There are many cases now of advancement through adult stem cells. I would have thought that, before we moved on to the next sector, we would want to get that right. That has with it none of the implications of this embryonic stem cell and cloning technology.

As I said before, once you start down the slippery slope, how long will it be until some mad scientist somewhere clones a human being? If you start to allow hybrid embryos, as I said before, there will always be someone who unlocks Pandora’s box and lets an embryo develop further. This is really stuff of the Dr Mengele variety; if anything, it is even worse.

Like the member for Kennedy, I take exception to those who have said that those opposing this bill are being driven by some religious direction or by an extreme religious view. I find that insulting. I find that there are a lot of people in this parliament who are driven by ethics. Certainly the way we were brought up in our religious belief is part of the formation of our conscience but, in the end, these sorts of issues are clear cut. They get down to conscience. They get down to being able to say whether you are justified in creating human life or even cloned human life for the specific purpose of killing that life in the expectation that you might be able to do something with it.

As I have said before, I have no argument with adult stem cell technology, and I am heartened by the fact that there have been early successes in this field. But this clone technology frightens me from both an ethical and a personal conviction point of view. I think a lot of our colleagues in this debate have been driven by a false excitement that somehow this is going to create the new nirvana for science. There is so little to justify that point of view. People who have had many years of conviction on this matter are really stepping back, and even those who voted against it two years ago are now prepared to embrace it. I have to ask my colleagues: are you really being true to your private conscience?

I will end on this note. It is something that I quote very often, and I am quite happy for it to go on the record again and again. It is Robert Bolt’s interpretation of St Thomas More. He says:

When statesmen forsake their private conscience for the sake of their public duties they lead their country by a short route to chaos.

That can be true of many types of government decisions, but it will be indelibly true of something as important as the sanctity of life.

See this speech in context