Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and International Security) Share this | Hansard source

Four years ago I spoke in the debate and voted on the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill. I described my position then as one of that bill’s most reluctant supporters. Four years ago I found that debate to involve difficult questions of ethics and difficult questions of science. Four years later I find this debate to involve difficult questions of ethics and difficult questions of science.

Once again, unfortunately, there has been some inflammatory language used on both sides of the debate. This is in part because of passions legitimately raised about deep questions of life and deep questions concerning the preservation of life. In my mind each side of this debate is driven by, in the main, a deep compassion for human life—a deep compassion but differently understood. Therefore, this is a debate where no side should be arguing any absolute moral position, as if they have a monopoly of moral conscience. I certainly, in advancing the position which I will be putting to the parliament soon, do not argue such a position. For me this is again a complex question and, like the Prime Minister, I have actually spent a long time wrestling with the complexity of this debate.

When I last participated in this debate back in 2002 I referred then to the fact that my mother was a Parkinson’s sufferer. Parkinson’s is a truly terrible disease. It involves symptoms of the face, not being able to move, tremors—sufferers feel as if they are trapped in their own bodies. Many members in this place, I know, have family who have suffered from this terrible disease. The member for Petrie is one. I do not know if she is in the chamber at present. Her father is a sufferer. I attended a bipartisan fundraiser with her in Brisbane, not for our respective political parties—that would be odd—but for Parkinson’s Queensland.

I asked my mum then for her views on that vote four years ago. My mother was a Catholic from central casting. Her response when I put to her the question of what I should do in this vote was: ‘In the great traditions of the Church, Kev, that is a question for your conscience, not mine.’ She added that if it really helped, then maybe, just maybe, if you are talking about embryos left over from IVF—IVF of course being designed for the propagation of human life—they could be used. I voted for the legislation four years ago. Mum died two years ago, so she is not here to ask about this one.

She was treated by a marvellous doctor, Dr Peter Silburn, a leading Brisbane neurologist. I spoke to Dr Silburn recently about the current bill and its impact upon his current Parkinson’s research. Dr Silburn told me—and I hope I do not misrepresent him—that his research critically depends on adult stem cell research and not embryonic stem cell research and not the matters covered by this legislation.

Others from the medical science community have stated that they have different research needs. I understand that and respect that. I do not challenge the motivation behind their submissions to members of parliament and to the parliamentary committee which has looked at these matters in recent times. But we in this place are still left with dealing with the questions of ethics which underpin the legislation.

Many have asked what influence the Christian churches should have on ethical debates of this type. I have said before that the Christian churches are as entitled to engage in this debate as anyone else in the community. The Christian churches do not have a monopoly when it comes to questions of ethics. Fundamental ethical questions can be shaped by a range of theological and philosophical traditions. Four years ago I tried to put it in these following terms:

On the matter of ethics, I referred earlier to the guiding principles that I seek to apply to my conscience in the deliberations on the bill. These are principles that embrace the equal worth of all humanity, the protection of the weak from the strong, the minimisation of suffering, if suffering itself cannot be eliminated, and the contribution to the social good, not just the individual good, and in all things truth ...

That is what I said back then. My view has not changed much since then.

In previous conscience votes in this parliament these considerations—these ethical guidelines for me—have caused me to vote in favour of embryonic stem cell research in the 2002 bill and also in the other conscience vote to vote in favour of RU486 after much, much soul searching. I find it much more difficult to do so on this occasion with the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. The reason is this: I find it very difficult to support a legal regime that results in the creation of a form of human life for the single and explicit purpose of conducting experimentation on that form of human life. Furthermore, I am concerned about the crossing of such an ethical threshold and where that may lead in the long term. For these reasons I will not be supporting the legislation, based on the information that is currently available to me.

I claim no moral superiority in this view whatsoever. We are all in this place on the basis of what we believe and we must be true to our beliefs. In reaching this decision I am acutely conscious of the hopes that those suffering from terrible diseases such as Parkinson’s and others have in future scientific research and innovation which, in their view, would proceed from the legislation, should it pass the House. I say again that it was for those reasons that I voted in favour of the legislation four years ago, but I cannot in conscience cross a further threshold now when we look at the legislation which is before us.

I realise that in taking this decision, which I have not taken lightly, I will disappoint many. But I have to be true to myself, even when it may be unpopular. Some say that, if you have such views on the creation of human embryos for experimentation, it mandates a classically conservative approach to a range of questions. I do not agree. I do not believe that Christian beliefs mandate a conservative position on human sexuality. These are very much matters for the individual—individual choices which should be respected, just as the privacy of people’s personal relationships should be respected.

However, questions concerning the protection of human life, in my mind, are of a different quality and therefore require a different quality of response. On the question of Christian teachings and beliefs, of course beyond these questions there are much broader questions of social justice and what we do in terms of the great questions of poverty and injustice in our country and around the world today. Based on these considerations and deliberations, I simply register to the House that I will not be supporting the legislation which is before it.

See this speech in context