Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

Can I start by acknowledging the contribution of the former speaker, a person for whom we all have a great deal of respect, who obviously has thought long and hard about this issue and who has provided a very necessary perspective to it. At the outset I would like to thank the residents of my electorate, Dickson, who have contacted me over the past few weeks to express their views on this very important but also very emotive issue. Their contributions were, in my view, well argued, often very passionate but always very civil—a quality that has, thankfully, consistently characterised the current debate both inside the parliament and outside it in the broader community. My constituents through their fervent advocacy have certainly helped me to better understand all the complexities and the many different dimensions of the issues raised by the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006.

This has not been an easy issue or an easy decision for people on either side of the debate. Scientists are split in their views. Churches and their leaders and community leaders across society are divided in their views on this issue. Representing the people of Australia in this parliament comes with a great responsibility, of course, to arrive wisely at decisions which will every day affect people in many different ways. When several years ago we were debating in this chamber a similar bill, I found it difficult to support the use and destruction of human embryos for the purpose of embryonic stem cell research. My decision in the end hinged on the fact that the embryos in question were limited in number, already in existence and destined for destruction in any case. The bill before us today represents a progression beyond the boundaries set down by the parliament four years ago. It is for this reason that in my mind there remains great uncertainty about claims made by proponents of this bill as to the outcomes that will be arrived at. It is ultimately the reason that I will not be supporting the bill that is before the House.

In closing I want to acknowledge the contribution to this debate of many community leaders, of people who have had considered views and of people who in some cases have a lifetime of experience in relation to these very important issues. One of the most important people in my consideration when arriving at my decision on this issue was Jack Yorston. Jack Yorston is a young primary school student from my electorate who suffers from type 1 diabetes. Jack was visiting the parliament only a couple of weeks ago as part of the Kids in the House process. In my mind it is an unbelievable life that Jack leads, not just for him of course, primarily, but for his family as well. There are incredible difficulties for people, particularly children, who are suffering from diseases such as type 1 diabetes.

If in my mind there was certainty as to the positive outcomes that would flow from supporting this bill to help people like Jack then it would further compound my dilemma in relation to the consideration of this speech. But I do think that some people have done themselves a disservice in relation to this debate by holding out false hope to people such as Jack that a cure might be just around the corner for diseases such as type 1 diabetes and cystic fibrosis or some of the other horrific diseases that might inflict themselves upon the children of our society. I think offering false hope, extending beyond the realms of reality exactly what might be provided to those children and those families, ultimately has provided a disservice to people who would otherwise support this bill.

I want to also as part of my conclusion acknowledge the strongly held views of many people in my electorate, as I spoke of in the opening remarks of my speech. These are people who passionately believe one way or the other in relation to this bill, and I think that is a great reflection on the way in which, as I said, this debate has been conducted in a mature way. But we do need to make sure that we consider their views in a measured fashion. When we have a situation in this country where, as I said before, scientists, people who are studying these matters on a daily basis, are unable to arrive at a position which is common to them all, it is in some cases very difficult for members of parliament to consider these very complex issues.

I want to take a moment also to thank the people in this chamber and in the other chamber who have, like me, laboured over these issues—some of whom have arrived at different outcomes but all of whom should be respected for the views that they bring to this debate. We live in a wonderful democracy where people are able to conduct these very complex and very difficult debates, and they will continue on for many years to come. But we do need to make sure, as I have been conscious of as part of this debate, that we are not facilitating a natural progression to the next stage. I think in many ways that is ultimately the dilemma that this bill before the House would provide us with into the future. I again thank all of the constituents in my electorate for their considered views. As I said earlier, it is my view that I am unable to support this bill.

See this speech in context