Kate Ellis (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

In rising to make my contribution to the second reading debate on the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006, can I say what a difficult issue that I and many others have found this to be. In light of this, I would like to acknowledge and thank the members of this parliament who have already contributed to this debate. I have been very impressed with the well-reasoned and valued contributions from members on both sides of the House and from both sides of the argument. I would also like to thank the many members of my local community who have contacted me to give their thoughts and opinions as well as some of the research that has been available to them to assist me in making my decision on this matter. I also do not propose to speak for very long on this issue. Many before me have appropriately outlined the major issues. I do believe, though, that I owe it to those whom I represent to outline my decision on this matter and the reasons for that decision.

As we all know, conscience votes are very difficult. I find this one particularly so. I was very well aware that whatever conclusion I reached on this matter there would be those who would be disappointed in my decision. To those I can only say: ‘Please be assured that I have spent much time exploring this issue and listening to and reading the different views surrounding it.’ I have found this debate particularly difficult. In contrast to the earlier conscience vote this year—which, in my mind, was about process and, as such, was for me a relatively black-and-white decision—I have lost sleep grappling with the many different shades of grey involved in this particular matter.

I have heard that it has been assumed that I would support this bill. Ultimately, I have come to the conclusion that I cannot. I think this shows that it is unwise to assume how one would vote on these issues. Instead, we should recognise that each individual will work through these issues and follow their conscience to reach their own conclusions. I do not normally regard myself as conservative. I am not one who is basing this decision on their own religious convictions, though I do admit that at times recently I have been quite envious of those whose faith has made this a black-and-white issue with an unquestioned conclusion. For me, this was not the case.

During the course of this debate people on both sides of the argument have made many strong points that I agree with; however, some people have made suggestions that I profoundly disagree with and would like to very briefly address. There has been an assertion here from several members that only people who do not care about the sick and who do not wish to give hope to their loved ones would vote against this legislation. I find this argument both false and deeply offensive. It is unreasonable to assume that all those who oppose this legislation oppose science and medical treatment. I do not. I believe that science has an important and exciting role in the treatment of illness and disease. I believe in investing in science. I believe in supporting the Australian research community and building on past successes. But I am also clear that this science takes place within the ethical parameters set by this parliament.

Many of us here know the pain of watching loved ones suffer. I certainly know that in my own experience I clung to any hope available and I absolutely understand others doing the same. I support stem cell research. I hope that this research eventually provides remarkable results, though I note that these results may be quite some time away. As the member for Wakefield noted, Professor Ian Frazer, the 2006 Australian of the Year, said that therapies from these proposals could not be expected for at least 75 years. But I support adult stem cell research, I support umbilical cord stem cell research and I support stem cell research using surplus IVF embryos. I cannot, however, support this proposal.

There are two factors upon which my decision to oppose this legislation has been based. The first is my deep reservation and, indeed, opposition to human cloning. Like many within the community, I am absolutely and entirely opposed to human cloning. I see it as unthinkable. I believe that others have tried to gloss over the fact that this is at the heart of this proposal. It is exactly the same process that created the late Dolly the sheep, and this parliament must be very clear about the path that it is proposing we tread down. This legislation states that human cloning is okay, but only for 14 days. I do not think that human cloning is okay at all, but I also have a problem with the fact that I do not see any reason that would rule out our revisiting this clause in the future when scientists decide that in fact they do not just need 14 days—they need an extra week or an extra month, or any other time frame. As I see it, we find ourselves at the top of the human cloning slippery slope, and it is a slide that I believe we should steer well clear of and reject from the outset.

The advances of science bring with them amazing discoveries, remarkable solutions and revolutionary treatments, but they will increasingly also bring big decisions and ethical dilemmas for this parliament. There is a line which must be respected. Where that line is drawn may differ from member to member, but we as a parliament must be clear on our role. It is the job of the scientific community to explore new frontiers and to push new barriers. Equally, it is the job of us as legislators to stand firm and protect the line that should not be crossed.

The second factor which ensures that this proposal is beyond the line that I draw for myself has been well covered by previous speakers. This bill proposes creating human life solely for the purpose of then destroying it. I am deeply uncomfortable with this proposition. I do not believe that the proponents of this legislation have made the case. After listening to the debate, after researching the matter, I do not see the justification for crossing this line. I know that many will disagree with my conclusion, and I have little doubt that the majority of this parliament will arrive at a different conclusion to me and approve this proposal, but upon my election I pledged to remain true and to act in good conscience and I believe that it would be breaking this vow to endorse a proposal that, at the heart of it, I feel so deeply uncomfortable about. Ultimately this proposal may not be wrong, but I certainly do not know that it is right, and as such I cannot support this legislation and I will be opposing it.

See this speech in context