Michael Hatton (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

We are in a House of Representatives, but in the modern parliaments that we have experienced—in modern parliaments all over the world—the very idea of representative government is a foreign one; it belongs in the 19th century, not the 21st. This chamber is not simply composed of a number of disparate individuals who will make up their own minds on every bill that comes before the House, or who will simply cluster on the basis of whatever their perceived interests are—either sectional or otherwise—in relation to a series of bills that come before the House.

We are party elements within this parliament: the Liberal Party and the National Party for the coalition, the Labor Party and even those few Independents—lone souls that they are down the other end. We still operate within a structure where a determined position is taken on either side and, in order to gain government in this House and to have that supported in the Senate, we need to aggregate a series of opinions, we need to put forward public policy on a range of different matters and we need to involve ourselves in fundamental compromises about whatever our views are on a range of subjects to come to a social view—not just an individual or individualistic one—which the party expresses.

But when we come to debates such as this, where there is a conscience vote, every single member of this House has to make up their own mind and stand their own ground and be truly representative. It is impossible for them to represent every single individual in their electorate on the basis of reflecting the differences of opinion that those people have. You cannot contain within yourself both the yes and the no to a bill. You have to make a determination on the balance of your research and the balance of your response to whatever stimuli there are, whether it is to your constituents or interests within the community from the churches, ethical groups, and the scientific community. You have to make a determination, a judgment, and then stand by that.

For good or ill, on both sides of the House, people have split one way or another in relation to the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 and the debate, as lengthy as it has been—as with similar bills such as those relating to matters that we are fundamentally dealing with here: the RU486 debate, the euthanasia debates and the debates in relation to abortion—goes to the very core of what it means to be a human being living within a society. A society has a vast range of religious, ethical and scientific opinions both now in the 21st century and stretching back through the centuries. We are conditioned by the people we work with, by the people we represent and by our upbringing, but we are brought to this place and this debate and we simply have no choice but to make fundamental choices about what is right and wrong and how we should proceed.

These are the healthiest debates that I have experienced in the time I have been in this parliament—and of course the most difficult. They are the most heart-rending for people who are outside the parliament because the expectation that people in this parliament will vote one way or another will have dramatic implications for people. It either concerns their fundamental beliefs about the nature of life, religion or about an ethical or moral approach to life, or concerns their fundamental views conditioned by the experience of friends, husbands, lovers, wives or children who have had their lives encumbered by a range of incurable diseases—seeing them suffer and not suffer just once or twice but suffer day by day and they are unable to help them or do anything about it. We can offer compassion, empathy, understanding and help, but in this parliament we are in a position to offer legislation which could attempt to ameliorate the condition of those who suffer and also to hold out a hope. It may not be now. It may not be in a year’s time. It may not be—but I do not think it will be this long—in 75 or 100 years time. There is the hope that what we determine today may be the initiator for a better life to come, unencumbered by the most gross diseases and conditions that humans have had to suffer from.

If you take simply the basis of a moral or religious stand in relation to this you can quite easily come, particularly someone from a Catholic background, to a point from which on an ethical basis you should go no further—that the previous bill should not have been allowed; that this bill should not be allowed—and decide that there are strict parameters in terms of how guidelined and straitjacketed a person should be in regard to the bill before the House. I am not someone who accepts that approach. That is just too simple and it is too easy.

The thing that drives me in relation to matters such as this is my personal experience of people who are suffering and have suffered. For those people, it is a belief—even if there is that spark of hope that will not be fulfilled because the work done either on adult stem cells or on embryonic stem cells will not give them a chance to resolve their issues—that prospectively, for the whole of humanity and what is available to it in the future, cures for the fundamental blights that this research looks to solve may in fact be achieved.

Cast your minds back just a few years to the work done by two significant researchers and the effect that they had. With his polio vaccine Jonas Salk saved tens of millions of lives—lives that were encumbered and crippled. People like Alan Marshall, who wrote the book I Can Jump Puddles, gave us a clear view of what it was to be a young polio victim. The scientific work done by Salk and others led to the eradication of this dreadful childhood disease.

The work done by Fleming and, in particular, Florey, the great Australian researcher—Fleming just finding the penicillin mould—led to hundreds of millions of people having their lives saved. Scientific research has been proven time and time again. But there is always a hazard. There is lots of research that has failed, lots of research that has really gone nowhere and lots of research that has lead to dead ends. But if you do not take the steps you will not fix the problems.

In relation to this bill and the one that was previous to it, there is a fundamental undergirding—a safety net in regard to how we proceed. I know the member for Deakin argued that the incremental changes suggested in this bill and others will lead inexorably down a path where we will not have a moral or ethical girding to stop full cloning of human beings. I simply do not think that that is at issue here. I can understand the hesitancy and I can understand the fact that there is a perceived great danger of that, but it is up to this parliament, and the parliaments and congresses of the world, to stress as strongly as we have when other bills have come before us that we are entirely against the cloning of human beings—but not against the copying of a cell to create lines of cells that could lead to therapies for people who have diseases that are unutterably bad.

I taught English and history in a Catholic school. I taught Warwick Love. I have spoken before about Warwick in this House. The reason I spoke about him was that that young lawyer who emerged from De La Salle, Bankstown—one of the best and brightest students I taught—died from cystic fibrosis. If there had been a cure as a result of these kinds of therapies, then Warwick Love may not have died. He was amongst the best and brightest children I ever taught. There was no hope for Warwick. He was burdened by something that shattered his life, yet his spark, hope, openness, generosity and cleverness shone throughout his 26 years. I am voting for Warwick Love and all of those people who need the chance to not live a life encumbered by that.

I am also voting for Paul Brock. Paul Brock has been a member of the Australian Labor Party for 30 years. I have been a member for 39 years. Paul Brock taught English and history for 11 years. I taught those subjects for close on 10 years. Paul Brock was a Marist brother for 15 years. I was in the De La Salle juniorate for two. Paul Brock was a lecturer in English method at the University of New England and taught me English method in my Dip. Ed. He is a fantastic teacher, but he has been cut down by motor neurone disease. He gave evidence to the Senate and to a number of different groups that met with regard to the bill before us now. He wrote to me with regard to this. He has written to other people. He is someone, like Stephen Hawking, whose life has been dramatically changed because he is suffering from motor neurone disease, and he put in a plea for people in his position.

It is not their fault that there is a genetic problem that has caused the difficulty that they have. It is within our power to give hope to them and to others that blighting diseases such as these may be eradicated from the face of the earth and then in future human beings may not have to suffer the terrible agony of someone with motor neurone disease—to be completely intellectually alive, as Stephen Hawking and Dr Paul Brock are, and yet have their body waste away in front of their very eyes, for their lives to be foreshortened in ways that we just cannot imagine. However, their courage and tenacity is a clarion call to others and to us to take their position into account and to have a moral and ethical position that is based on whether we believe that we are a society of individuals who live in association or that we are just disparate individuals and do not actually have a commonality which binds us together to have that concern, love and compassion for others. I think that is the core ground on which this rests.

I would like to quote some part of what Paul wrote to me, because it is compelling, instructive and a fundamental, clear example of what this is all about. He says:

Having been a Marist Brother in the Catholic Church for over 15 years, I know a hell of a lot more theology and moral philosophy than Tony Abbott ever picked up in his year or two at the Seminary!!

As you know, I am now totally paralysed by Motor Neurone Disease. Mind you, having been diagnosed in 1996 and given 3 - 5 years to live, I am a very rare long time survivor of what is still currently an incurable and terminal disease (Professor Stephen Hawking is the most famous long term survivor). While therapeutic cloning definitely does not promise any overnight miracle cures, it equally definitely offers the most exciting and scientifically and ethically reputable basis for research which will help us better understand the cause, point towards some ways of improving the quality and duration of life, and eventually lead to a cure for this mongrel disease.

He then indicates that he is still working in the New South Wales department of education. He then says that in his submission to the Senate inquiry and also more broadly he has:

... concentrated on the ethical and moral issues - gladly acknowledging my own Christian position. Further, I specifically addressed the issue of the Catholic Church’s formal opposition to stem cell research.

As I said to the Senate Inquiry, it is a mistake to assume that all religions oppose SCNT. They do not. It would also be a mistake to assume that every branch or denomination of the whole Christian faith formally condemns therapeutic cloning.

The most outspoken opposition to the 2002 Bill’s legalising stem cell research within strict protocols, and the Lockhart Review’s endorsement of SCNT, has come from some very senior people within the Catholic Church. As a Christian, with a powerful Catholic heritage, I am proud of the great achievements of the Catholic Church throughout history. The Catholic Church has had a splendid commitment to social justice and the protection of the weak from the strong in contexts of employment and workers’ rights. For example, the Papal Encyclical Rerum Novarum on Capital and Labour, written by Pope Leo XIII in 1891 at the height of the Industrial Revolution and its social and economic impact upon working people, remains one of the great statements about the rights of human beings within an industrialised society.

The magnificent care and compassion for the poor, the sick and the weak exercised by organisations like St Vincent de Paul and the many Catholic charitable organisations serving the needs of people in Third World countries help to transform our world. The Catholic Church’s contribution to education – especially, but not exclusively, to the education of the poor and the lower ‘classes’ in 19th Century Europe and both 19th and early 20th Century Australia – has been highly significant in helping to shape a better world. I am proud to be able to say that I spent 15 years of my life as a Marist Brother in a prestigious Religious Order of the Catholic Church, and that I taught in Catholic schools for nearly 11 years.

But he then goes on to say:

But the Catholic Church has also been wrong. Galileo is but the most celebrated example of the Church not only being wrong in its decisions about science, but also in savagely persecuting those who hold views that dissent from dogmatic ecclesiastical pronouncements on matters of science. In our modern era the vast majority of the Australian population does not agree with, nor abide by, the Catholic Church’s ban on contraceptive practices like the Pill. Indeed, I am confident that most Catholics in both belief and practice, dissent from the Church’s ruling on contraception. The Church’s banning of the use of condoms as part of a campaign to alleviate the scourge of AIDS is, I am sure, not supported by the vast majority of the Australian community.

He further says:

I wonder how many Catholics support the Church’s unequivocal opposition to IVF? Despite the fierce opposition of the Australian Catholic hierarchy to the proposal that excess embryos produced in IVF treatments should be allowed to be used for research purposes, with the explicit permission of the parents and under very strict scientific and ethical protocols, authoritative surveys of Australians supported the proposal which was, of course, endorsed by the Federal Parliament in a conscience vote in both Houses in 2002.

It is wrong to assert that the Catholic Church never wavers in its teachings. Even in my own lifetime, I have witnessed significant shifts in positions previously assumed by us within the Church to have been immutable. For example, as youngsters we were taught by the Church that to deliberately eat meat on a Friday, with full knowledge of what we were doing and complete freedom of will, was a mortal sin: if we died before we had gone to Confession (the Sacrament of Penance) and expressed contrition for this ‘wickedness’ and had received absolution from the priest, we would go to Hell!

Similarly, the Church taught that there was a place called Limbo where God sent the souls of those who died without being baptised but who had led a good life. This is no longer part of Catholic teaching. Back in medieval times, it was a mortal sin to practise “usury”—which was lending or borrowing money at interest. This practice has long ceased to be considered a mortal sin!

He goes on to say that he could give other examples over 400 years—it took them that long to get over Galileo, a devout Catholic. He says:

People like myself do not have the luxury of waiting for another 400 years for the Church to correct its current teaching on the science of stem cell research.

It is also worth emphasising that we live in a democratic, multicultural, multi-faithed and non-faithed society—not a theocracy, let alone a theocracy of one particular religious orientation.

In relation to the core of his argument, at the end of his argument about where he stands and what his moral and ethical ground is, there is a summary—and it is the best summary I have seen of an approach to this bill. It says:

The nub of the issue facing the House of Representatives can be put like this. the 2002 Australian legislation allowed for the creation of human embryonic stem cell lines from fertilised human eggs that have become surplus to the needs of IVF implantation—which means that they would never be implanted into the woman’s uterus. But the 2002 legislation did not allow creation of such human embryonic stem cell lines derived from an unfertilised human egg in the SCNT process, which would also never be implanted into the woman’s uterus. But this is a logically and ethically inconsistent situation. Maintaining the consistent logic of its ethical and scientific argument, the Lockhart Report recommended that legislation be drafted to allow the use of unfertilised eggs as well as the fertilised eggs for the creation of stem cell lines. The Bill passed by the Senate would enable that to happen. And that Bill also prohibits the use of animal eggs in therapeutic cloning. It warrants being passed, without amendment, by the House of Representatives this week.

I believe that this bill is in fact on the side of the angels and, in particular, of those young children who have come to this House who have type 1 diabetes. They deserve hope that their lives will not be blighted by that dreadful disease.

See this speech in context