Kay Elson (Forde, 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, although it is certainly not something I do lightly or without a great deal of consideration. I have listened with great interest to the many members of this House who have spoken before me in the debate. I do not intend to take up too much of the House’s time today. Many speakers have outlined concerns similar to those I have on the whole issue of embryonic research and cloning. As a mother of eight and grandmother of 15, I have very strong views on how precious human life is. I have spoken before about this issue in debates on abortion and euthanasia.

I am conscious that our consideration must also take into account the ‘thin edge of the wedge’ argument—that once we start down this path, it is easy to go further than we first envisaged—but I have made the decision to allow the use of ‘surplus’ IVF embryos that would otherwise have gone to waste, as we did back in 2002. I think it would be inconsistent not to consider other strictly regulated options as technology develops and possibilities grow.

If we agree that some degree of medical research can be carried out under strict regulation, I think we are saying that regulation is an effective safeguard to ensure we do not go too far down the wrong path. After much consideration, I do not think this bill goes too far or down the wrong path. There will still be strict regulation of embryo research. Embryos created through an ova fertilized by sperm will still not be specially created for the purpose of research. Only surplus IVF embryos that would otherwise be destroyed can be used for this purpose, as has been the case since 2002. This bill will allow, however, an unfertilized ova to be ‘developed’ through cloning techniques to an extremely early blastocyst stage—basically a collection of cells—and then used for the creation of an embryonic stem cell line.

Even saying that, it sounds incredibly like something from a science fiction novel—and a little scary as well. The whole idea of cloning has extremely negative connotations, and rightly so. To look at it from a scientific perspective, it is the development of one cell of a human body into a very small cluster of cells no larger than a pinhead. I understand that the whole process is usually completed in four to five days.

There will be strict regulation. A licence must be applied for and under no circumstances can any embryo be developed outside the body of a woman for longer than 14 days. So there will not be cloned babies with any resemblance to human form being created. It is important to be reminded that this bill retains our existing strict prohibition on many activities, including: placing a human embryo in a human or animal body; importing or exporting human embryo clones; creating a human embryo by fertilisation of a human egg by sperm donated for other than the purposes of achieving a pregnancy in a woman; making heritable alterations to a human genome; collecting a viable human embryo from the body of a woman; and a range of other options that we as a parliament have decided do go down the wrong path, which we must be careful to avoid.

This legislation allows us to go down a path that may significantly ease the suffering of many people. That essentially is why I have decided to support this bill. The possibilities of stem cell research are very exciting and varied. Not all those possibilities may eventuate, but they are definitely worthy of pursuit.

Members of this House would be aware that, before entering parliament, I worked to raise funds for, and awareness of, those suffering from profound disabilities—with Multicap, the Queensland Spastic Welfare League and the handicapped association, now known as the Horizon Foundation. I have seen firsthand the daily struggle faced by many people living with a disability and also the difficulties this situation can cause for families, particularly as their child grows to an adult and continues to require a high level of care. If this research can offer some hope, if it can possibly mean that down the track others will not have to go through the same difficult situation, I think in this parliament we cannot deprive people of that possibility.

I am a realist. I know that stem cell research is still in its early days. No-one should expect it will provide a miracle cure to all our ills. But there is a chance—a very slight one—and, wherever possible, we need to grasp that chance and see what we can do. If it can improve the lives of people living with a disability or disease, surely we have to at least review our laws relating to the technology and see how they can accommodate the scientific development.

This bill is an ‘accommodation’ of the development of stem cell research. Australian researchers are world leaders in this field and to block them from an emerging possibility—such as therapeutic cloning—could seriously set back their research. Therapeutic cloning is a technique used in 10 countries around the world, including the UK and Singapore, who have legislated for it, and the US, where it is allowed due to lack of legislation stopping it. If Australian scientists do not have access to this technique, who knows what chances and opportunities we may lose.

I acknowledge that it is just one field of stem cell research. I also believe that we must do more to develop other fields, including adult stem cell research and especially cord blood stem cell research. I think we ought to do more to encourage the collection of cord blood, as I believe this is a resource that is severely underutilised. I would like to see a situation where women giving birth in every hospital around Australia have the option of donating their cord blood. I know that two of my daughters who have given birth in the last couple of years have asked about donating their cord blood and were told there was no collection service at their particular hospital.

More must be done to ensure that this valuable resource is not lost. I acknowledge that good results have been achieved with cord blood and adult stem cell research, but that does not mean we ought to stop exploring other options. Alexander Graham Bell did an incredible job with the first telephone. If others had said, ‘That’s good enough,’ and not developed and perfected his technology, exploring new possibilities and applications, then we would not have the internet today. So I do not subscribe to the view that we do not ‘need’ to carry out embryonic stem cell research just because other forms of stem cells are proving useful.

The main reason I have decided to support this bill is the strict safeguards that will remain in place. This bill by no means represents a free-for-all or a significant weakening of the original legislation. I acknowledge also that this bill is a result of the recommendations of the Lockhart review, which looked at the issue very comprehensively and was able to consider scientific developments since the original legislation. The review committee members were all highly intelligent experts in various fields and they consulted widely, considering over 1,000 different submissions. I think, therefore, that their recommendations hold a great deal of weight and that it is right we seek to accommodate the main recommendations, as we do with this bill.

As I said earlier, I do not want to take up too much of this parliament’s time. I merely want to outline my reason for supporting this legislation, despite the hesitations I have with this whole area of research. I simply think that if any member of my family or any of the constituents of Forde were suffering from, for example, diabetes, paraplegia or Parkinson’s—all diseases for which this research holds some hope—then I would want to hold on to that chance; I would want to explore that possibility. So, with proper safeguards and regulations in place to ensure this research does not cross over ethical boundaries, I support this legislation. My hope is that one day we will see real results with this research, whether it is in my lifetime, my children’s or my grandchildren’s. I would not like to be counted as someone who stood in the way of that important progress, so I support this bill and commend it to the House.

See this speech in context