Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Hansard source

The questions raised by the bill before this House, the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006, are as difficult and complex as those that I discussed in this place in the debate on the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002. Back then I described the dilemma of how to legislate scientific research that opens a world of possibilities without surrendering a piece of our moral soul. And now in 2006 I revisit this same dilemma. I envy those who see these issues as black or white; I certainly do not.

In order to come to my decision to support or not support this bill I have waded through mountains of material, from the Lockhart review to some of the many submissions made to the Senate committees. I have also been cognisant of the very persuasive speeches of others in this place, including the member for Gwydir and the member for Higgins. I have also read each and every one of the many letters from my constituents on this matter. For many of my constituents this is a black or white issue. There are those who believe that anything that can be done to alleviate suffering in our community should be done. There are others who believe that somatic cell nuclear transfer is morally wrong.

Ultimately my decision must be based on my own belief of when life starts and the implications of providing a green light to research in the area most closely aligned with the beginning of life. I cannot divorce my own faith from these deliberations. Based on the provisions of the bill, I do not believe that we are sacrificing life in order to research and develop a better quality of life for others.

The Jesuits who taught me at school instilled in me a strong sense of faith and compassion. They also taught me about the importance of a free and informed conscience. Provided my conscience is clear then my decision to support the bill must be based on sound medical reasoning.

In 2002 I voted to allow the use of in vitro fertilisation excess embryos for medical research. Since then there have been many advances in stem cell research using both adult and embryonic stem cells. New data generated demonstrates the value of both embryonic and adult stem cells, and somatic cell nuclear transfer. The science in support of this bill is compelling. In a recent letter to all members of parliament, Professor Ian Fraser highlighted just a few of the recent results being achieved by stem cell research, including the generation of insulin-producing cells with the potential to treat diabetes, cardiac cells which could be used to repair a damaged heart, dopamine-producing cells to treat Parkinson’s disease, and retinal cells and spinal cord cells to repair damaged nervous systems. This impressive list is just the tip of the iceberg of what may be achieved.

I have closely examined the report of the late Justice John Lockhart. I knew John Lockhart and I held him in high regard. It is my view that the committee he chaired was eminently qualified to consider complex scientific, ethical and legislative issues. It would be remiss of us to dispense with this comprehensive review without very careful consideration.

Australia has a proud history of health and medical research and the Commonwealth government is committed to ensuring that Australia remains a world leader in health and medical research. On a per capita basis, our research output is twice the OECD average. This year, the government has committed more than $490 million in health and medical research funding through the National Health and Medical Research Council. This is more than double the funding provided in 1999.

Much has been said in recent years about the challenges of our ageing population. The growth rate of the population aged 85 or over is projected to accelerate sharply. How can we ensure that our ageing population benefits from a decent quality of life if we do not invest in or allow innovative medical research? I am proud of Australia’s achievements in medical research. They are characterised by the sort of spirit and resourcefulness ingrained in Australian society.

In his submission to the Senate committee, Dr Paul Brock highlighted three potential opportunities to be opened up by legalising somatic cell nuclear transfer. Firstly, it could help us understand the cause or causes of motor neurone disease. Secondly, it could extend the life expectancy and quality of life of those living with the disease. And, thirdly, it has the potential to find a cure. I repeat: the potential to find a cure. Motor neurone disease was first identified by French neurologist Jean Charcot in 1869. It is a tragedy that today there is still no cure.

Australian scientists have consistently demonstrated innovation and moderation in their approach. It is important that they continue to reflect the faith that those who vote for this bill have shown in them. The stringent safeguards provided in this bill give me every confidence that there is no ‘slippery slope’. It was not too long ago that we were having similar controversial debates about organ donation and IVF. This year more than 600 Australians have received organ and tissue donations and the most recently available statistics on the number of babies born to women using artificial reproductive technology, including in vitro fertilisation, reported that more than 8,000 babies were born in 2004. Organ donation is now encouraged and championed by most as the greatest gift you could give to another. I personally know a number of parents who have children conceived through IVF and it is clear to me that these children are the greatest gift their parents could receive.

Professor Singer, in his book The Reproduction Revolution: new ways of making babies,discusses whether these developments are really going to improve the human condition or whether they are going to harm it. That is the fundamental question in this debate: will this bill improve or harm the human condition? I believe that anything we can do to improve the quality of human life, we should do.

The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, in their most recent Burden of disease report, stated that there were just under 700,000 Australians suffering from diabetes, more than 40,000 with Parkinson’s disease, almost 600 with motor neurone disease, 7,600 with multiple sclerosis and 124,000 with Alzheimer’s disease. How could we deny these people, and their family and friends who care for them, the possibility of a cure? Providing people with hope is no longer the exclusive domain of religion. And whilst I understand that we will probably not find a cure for any of these diseases in the very near future, it is not for me to deny hope that in the future these insidious illnesses can be cured. I do believe in the sanctity of human life and I believe in the dignity of the self.

In framing its recommendations, the Lockhart committee noted in compelling terms that ‘the higher the potential benefits of an activity, the greater the need for ethical objections to be of a high level and widely accepted in order to prevent that activity’. Whilst my decision to support this bill would never be based on populism, I have no ethical objections that outweigh the enormous benefits this research may deliver to the generations that follow us. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context