Dave Tollner (Solomon, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

There are strong arguments for opposing the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006, and equally there are strong arguments for supporting its passage through this House. The arguments are technically complex but also require members to reach their own moral, ethical and reasoned conclusions. I respect all of the views expressed by members who have contributed to this debate without fear or favour, and I have listened closely to their contributions.

This debate is about saving life. However you look at it, whether you support the bill or oppose the bill, it is fundamentally about saving life. I can easily understand why those who have family members suffering from, for example, Parkinson’s disease would find it difficult to say no to a possible life-saving treatment that may be availed by a yes vote on this bill. I also have the opinion that research should not be pushed underground into underfunded, unregulated Frankenstein’s monster types of black markets and that responsibly governed bodies like the National Health and Medical Research Council are well placed to monitor and regulate licences and practices in this contentious environment. Yes, there is an argument that one life should not be created and then destroyed for the purpose of saving another life. I would suggest, however, that the diggers who were conscripted against their will and who sacrificed their own lives so that others could live in a better world might well argue an opposing view.

Conversely, as a father I have great regard for the concern expressed to me by Rachel Jenner, a young Territory mother in my electorate of Solomon. Rachel advised that she saw, via ultrasound, her two sons when they were only eight cells big, or three days old. To her, that image represented life and hope in the future and, to her, those eight cells were sacrosanct. To her mind, embryos are sacrosanct.

I also share the concerns that there are health risks for women with regard to egg harvesting as well as the concern that women will be exploited in order for scientists to gain access to more eggs. I am also concerned that there are dangers, such as cancer formation, inherent in the research and clinical application of human embryonic stem cells.

I would love to be able to say thank you to all those people and groups in my electorate who have taken the time to inform me of their views on this issue. However, considering the high-profile nature and fundamental importance of this very public debate, there has been an extraordinarily low response from my electorate. Unfortunately, I must inform this place that I have been given no clear direction at all from my constituents on this matter. I have received two pieces of correspondence in favour of supporting the bill and two pieces of correspondence opposing support for the bill. I of course sincerely thank these people for contacting me. I took it upon myself to go out and actively canvass the issue in my electorate to find out what people really think. I and my office staff contacted many of our friends and associates, and what we found was that sentiment was split fifty-fifty down the middle and that this issue, if our straw poll reflected the views of constituents, is not a matter of high importance to the vast majority of people in Solomon. Therefore, due to this bill offering hope to people with dreadful afflictions but at the same time being ethically and morally debatable, and due to the fact that I have no clear direction at all from my constituents, my conscience tells me that I must abstain from the voting process.

See this speech in context