Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

We live in a world that can sometimes seem to be moving forward at an alarming rate. Science and technology advance around us at an extraordinary speed. Naturally, as these advances are made, new ethical dilemmas arise that challenge this parliament to come up with a framework within which these new technologies can be exploited. This is the second time in the life of this parliament that we have been called upon to make a decision according to our conscience about an issue that has substantially divided the community as to its morality. As in the RU486 debate, the issue of therapeutic cloning has led many of my constituents to contact me to let me know what they think about the issue. There is no question that views on both sides of this debate are very deeply held and, although I have not done a scientific count, there is no question in my mind that of the constituents who contacted me many more oppose the passage of this bill than support it. I have found this a very difficult issue on which to form a view. Indeed, it was only over the weekend—a lot of which I spent reading as much as possible about the topic, including the Lockhart review and the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs—that I came to a conclusion about how to vote on the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006.

On most of the bills I have voted on since being elected in 2004, I have had a strong sense that the position I have taken is the correct one. Although I will be voting for this bill, I still have substantial hesitations about doing so. I can only say to the electors of Stirling that I have researched this issue as extensively as I can and I have made a judgement based on the evidence and according to my own conscience. I know that my position today will disappoint many of my constituents. It will disappoint many friends of mine who strongly oppose this bill. But I thank my constituents and my friends in Stirling who have made the effort to let me know their views. In return, I will be forwarding them copies of my remarks today, and I would like to do them the courtesy of explaining how I came to my position.

It has not been easy, as a layman, to digest all the concepts that are involved in this debate. I chose not to attend the various briefings offered by proponents on either side of this argument and I made an effort to do my own research to properly understand the decision we are being called upon to make.

One factor that weighed heavily on my mind was the composition of the Lockhart Review Committee and the experience of its members. This legislation gives effect to their recommendations and I think it is useful to understand who was behind them. All six members of the committee were very distinguished Australians with impressive records in the fields of science, law and, very importantly, ethics. They were drawn from across Australia and from differing fields. It is worth while noting that not all were scientists. After looking through the review I was impressed by the arguments they put forward and I believe that the committee did its best to navigate what is obviously a moral minefield. I gave the views of the committee a lot of significance when coming to my own conclusions.

I believe that the job of legislating is up to this parliament. Occasionally people express to me the view that perhaps these things are best left to experts, but I absolutely reject that. I believe that this parliament is the proper place to adjudicate community standards on contentious issues. But I think part of that process is receiving this expert advice and, as I said, I gave great weight to the conclusions that were drawn by the Lockhart committee. I believe that these conclusions achieve a reasonable outcome in allowing research that may lead to life-saving discoveries with the community’s obvious desire to make sure this research is done within clearly defined parameters.

The Lockhart review recommended that certain practices be outlawed whilst recommending that certain practices be allowed. Human cloning, along with other questionable practices that are widely condemned throughout the community—specifically the use of animal ova in somatic cell nuclear transfer, or SCNT—will be outlawed. What will be allowed is therapeutic cloning, SCNT, and this technology has enormous potential to alleviate human suffering.

I want to take a minute to highlight what exactly this SCNT is. It is where the nucleus of a person’s cell—for example, a skin cell—is removed and placed into an unfertilised ovum that has had its nucleus removed. This egg now contains the donor’s DNA. It is subsequently chemically and electrically stimulated, which causes it to divide and form what I suppose could be described as a group of cells. Contained within this group of cells are a number of embryonic stem cells that are capable of forming any of the tissues in the human body. This provides enormous potential to cure particular ailments or to alleviate some of the suffering that is associated with them—although I stress that it is only potential, and I take note of some people’s comments that they believe that this potential has been oversold.

But the potential alone—the potential to alleviate the symptoms of diseases such as diabetes, osteoporosis and motor neurone disease, and to alleviate the effects of spinal cord or brain damage, muscular dystrophy or stroke—is enough for me to believe that these are research avenues that must be pursued even if they ultimately prove fruitless.

I am sure that everyone in this House has had personal experience with people suffering from one or more of these diseases. To see a loved one who has been ravaged by the effects of a stroke or to watch a friend slowly succumb to the indignities of motor neurone disease is a horrific experience for all involved and, of course, for the person who is directly suffering. Although other areas of research also hold the potential to help, it is true that SCNT has so far produced some of the best results and some of the most productive glimpses of what might be possible in the future.

I am convinced that embryonic stem cells provide different and better avenues to advance medical research in ways that adult stem cells simply cannot. I cannot, in all conscience, see this parliament close lines of research that offer the potential to alleviate so much suffering. I believe that that potential is just too great. Although I will be voting for this bill, I understand and I have sympathy for those who will be voting against it. A lot of the opposition revolves around definitions of what properly constitutes human life and ideas about when life begins. This is really at the heart of this debate today.

Obviously, it would be impossible for me—or anyone in this chamber, I am sure—to accept that the collection of cells we are discussing today actually constitutes a human life and then vote for this bill. The idea that we would create a life to then destroy it is completely unacceptable. But I believe that what we are discussing here today can best be understood as human cellular material, not a human life. The collection of cells, which is about the size of a grain of sand, does not have the potential to become a human being. It has never been in contact with sperm. It could not be implanted into a woman with a view to growing into a life. Most importantly, it does not contain the primitive streak which is the first real sign of life. As someone who was raised a Catholic, I fully understand that this is a deeply offensive view to many people, but it is my considered view.

This has been a debate of the highest quality in this parliament and I have tried very hard to listen to as many speakers as I could. I hope, regardless of the outcome that finally emerges from this debate, that the Australian people can feel reassured that the issue has been given the weighty consideration that it obviously deserves. I will be voting for the bill, although, as I said, not without reservation. But I believe that the potential for this new technology to alleviate human suffering is just far too great to be ignored.

See this speech in context