Mal Washer (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present the explanatory memorandum to the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006, and I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I would like to especially thank Senator Kay Patterson for this great effort and the excellent work she did. Kay, you were a sensation; you did a great job. I would also like to thank Natasha Stott Despoja and Ruth Webber, two senators who were very cooperative in the formation of this bill, and the many senators who supported the bill on both sides of the house. My thanks must also go to the scientific community and the excellent work done by the Lockhart committee.

The Senate amendments are scientifically acceptable and basically increase penalties for prohibited practices, prevent the use of animal ova in somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), and propose a review to consider a national legislative or regulatory approach to non-blood human tissue based therapies. Any attempt to have further amendments in this House will be totally unacceptable as we all know the bill would not survive a review by the Senate.

The main issue of contention in the Lockhart review is SCNT. SCNT is where the nucleus of a patient’s cell—for example, a skin cell—is removed and put into an unfertilised ovum that has had its nucleus removed. This egg now containing the patient’s DNA, the blueprint for life, is chemically and electrically stimulated causing it to divide and form a blastocyst or a ball of cells. Within this ball of cells there are a number of unique embryonic stem cells that are capable of forming all the tissues of the human body. These cells are harvested and then put into a culture medium and molecularly stimulated into a lineage to create patient specific tissue. This tissue is then used for the purpose of research for the development of novel drugs to be used in therapy against the patient’s disease, or the tissue can be used for implantation, for example pancreatic insulin secreting tissue in people who are insulin dependent diabetics. This tissue, being patient specific, does not require immunosuppressive drugs that may cause a much higher risk of cancer and infection. It is interesting to note that tissue derived from embryonic stem cells (ESC) has better transplant tolerance than adult stem cells (ASC). Australia’s most eminent scientists believe that this will be the next great step towards achieving treatment for the chronic and disabling diseases that are so prevalent amongst our population. Adult stem cells are rare and extremely difficult to grow in culture and after 30 years have only achieved nine US FDA real treatments, all related to bone marrow generated diseases.

One of the scientific problems that has been raised with ES cells is the development of teratomas. This problem has largely been overcome by research using CD30 markers, alginate covering of the cells and molecular triggers—for example noggin, which directs the formation of neuroectodermal tissue, and now the ability to separate any ES cells from the formed tissue. In other words, if there are no residual ES cells there are no teratomas. The latest cancer research shows the source of many common cancers is in fact due to adult stem cells.

Cited chromosomal breakdown has not been demonstrated in cell lines in culture since 1998 unless the cultures were subjected to mutagenic trauma.

Egg donation will be voluntary. These eggs are not fertilised by sperm. The eggs could be sourced by donation from IVF unfertilised eggs or derived from ovaries removed for medical reasons and probably eventually from ovarian tissue formed by ES cells themselves. Cardinal George Pell’s assertion that these ova could be harvested from human foetal tissue is covered under state legislation and underpinned by guidelines issued by the National Health and Medical Research Council. Human foetal tissue is already accessible to Australian researchers and has been available since 1980 under carefully regulated conditions and has been used for many important studies. This is simply an extension of existing legal access to foetal tissue already occurring in Australia and in other countries in the world. The bill ensures the current principles of informed consent for participation in medical research and maintaining the prohibition of the sale of eggs and embryos. The NHMRC has the appropriate expertise and experience to develop guidelines for egg donation, and is already responsible for guidelines on consent for assisted reproductive technology and human tissue.

The legislation for approval of SCNT exists in many countries throughout the world including the USA, the UK, Sweden, Singapore, China et cetera. If this parliament does not approve of this technology it would appear that at least three Australian states will legislate to have it legalised.

Opponents of this legislation seem to base their opposition on the destruction of SCNT embryos which is necessary to harvest the patient specific ES cells even though there has been no sperm involvement. There is no possibility of forming life without intra uterine implantation, which is totally illegal with severe jail penalties. The hollow ball of insensate cells the size of a grain of sand, containing the DNA of a patient with an intractable disease is designed only for the purpose of cellular culture therapy. For more than 20 years sperm/egg embryos have been destroyed in the treatment of infertility by IVF. More than 30 per cent of women of reproductive age take the oral contraceptive pill which prevents implantation of sperm/egg embryos.

So let us support the majority of Australians who welcome this research which in animal models has already proven successful in macular degeneration, creation of oligodendrocytes necessary for spinal cord injury recovery, dopamine producing cells necessary for treating Parkinson’s disease, heart cells necessary to treat many forms of heart disease and insulin producing cells needed to treat insulin dependent diabetes melitis already proven with human ES cells.

I commend this bill to the House.

Harry Jenkins (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion to facilitate this House having the debate that it has to have on the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. Almost exactly four years ago, parliamentarians made a landmark decision to allow research on excess assisted reproductive technology embryos so that progress could be made in infertility research and in-vitro fertilisation to assist couples who could not otherwise have children and that research could be undertaken using embryonic stem cells derived from these embryos. That legislation also banned human reproductive cloning and placed a moratorium on therapeutic cloning or somatic cell nuclear transfer. Most importantly, the bills which were enacted into law both clearly mandated an independent review of the legislation within three years to assess the developments in technology in that time period; to assess the developments in medical research and scientific research and the potential therapeutic applications of such research; and to assess any change in community standards.

That independent review was conducted by a committee appointed by the then Minister for Ageing in consultation with the states and territories. The committee that conducted the review were experts in law, science and ethics and were ably chaired by the late John Lockhart. The committee consulted extensively through written submissions, face-to-face meetings, facilitated stakeholder discussion forums, a review website and selected site visits. They also tried to get a handle on public opinion through focus groups and telephone surveys. They conducted a literature review of what had happened in the scientific field since the legislation last passed this House. On this basis, and having regard to their terms of reference, they provided the federal parliament with 54 recommendations.

It is now 12 months since those recommendations were provided to us, and they have now been subjected to further scrutiny through the work of the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs. I think we should acknowledge that the bill that we have before the House today is only here because of the hard work of Senator Patterson and her colleagues, especially Senator Ruth Webber and Senator Natasha Stott Despoja, and the willingness of Dr Mal Washer, who spoke before me, to pick up the task in the House of ensuring that we debate this bill today. This bill basically encapsulates the majority of the recommendations of the Lockhart review and it is, in my view, incumbent upon this parliament to deal with those recommendations seriously.

The bill is about a number of important issues. It is not all about stem cells and cloning; it is also about strengthening and improving the current legislative and regulatory regime and about improving methods for achieving pregnancy through assisted reproductive technologies. The bill continues the absolute ban on reproductive cloning to make a whole new human being. I think that is something everyone agrees with. The bill also recommends that clinical practice and scientific research involving assisted reproductive technology and the creation and use of human embryos for research purposes should continue to be subject to specific national legislation.

The bill continues the current ban on the trade and commodification of human eggs, sperm and embryos. The Lockhart review found that an inadvertent effect of the 2002 legislation had been to prevent research into improved methods for achieving pregnancy in ART clinics and that it was inadvertently impeding training and quality assurance activities at these clinics.

This bill enacts a number of recommendations that will address these inadvertent consequences of the last legislation, including permitting procedures to test human eggs for maturity and to test egg and sperm viability—it should be noted that these procedures were allowed prior to the 2002 legislation—and simpler applications for licences where these are solely for training and quality assurance activities in ART clinics.

The bill contains a number of provisions that will improve current licensing arrangements; that will ensure that vacancies on the National Health and Medical Research Council Licensing Committee are promptly filled; that will provide for the inspection of non-licensed facilities to ensure that laws and guidelines are being complied with; and that will impose significant criminal penalties, including up to 15 years jail, for breaking the law.

The bill also requires the minister to report to parliament on the establishment of a national stem cell bank and a national register of donated excess ART embryos. This will help facilitate research and ensure that this research material is used as widely as possible.

The bill will, under stringent licensing conditions, allow for two new activities not previously permitted but recommended by the Lockhart review. The first of these is the use of so-called fresh embryos. Those are embryos generated in the process of IVF that have been found to be unsuitable for transplantation usually because of genetic flaws and, if they were not used for research purposes, they would otherwise be discarded. Arguably the use of these embryos is not permitted under current legislation, and so it is a part of this bill to ensure that the use of fresh embryos is possible. That arises in part because there was an ambiguity in past law and that ambiguity is cured by this bill.

The second new activity not previously permitted but recommended by the Lockhart review is the use of human embryos created by somatic cell nuclear transfer and other techniques that do not involve the fertilisation of a human egg with a human sperm. Such embryos are to be created only for the development of specific embryonic stem cell lines as is currently legally permitted in the United Kingdom, Sweden, Japan and Singapore. It is of course this latter point which has been the subject of most controversy and the most attention, and it is to that which I will now direct my remarks.

In dealing with the ethical issues posed by somatic cell nuclear transfer and by the Lockhart review suggestion that embryos be created by somatic cell nuclear transfer for the purpose of research, I have found it easiest to analyse the issues by concentrating on the definition of an embryo and analysing what this bill permits and does not permit in relation to an embryo. Since the enactment of the 2002 bill, the NHMRC has had an expert group look at the definition of ‘embryo’, and this bill changes the definition to reflect the consensus reached, using terminology that is biologically accurate, clearly understandable and unambiguous. An embryo for the purpose of this legislation is an entity created by a sperm fertilising an egg. Such embryos cannot be created for other than IVF purposes. Under licence, these surplus embryos can be used for stem cell research. In that regard, nothing in this bill changes the current law.

But in the definition of an embryo in this bill is also included an entity created by somatic cell nuclear transfer or other techniques which do not involve a sperm. In particular, an embryo includes the cellular entity formed when an egg, from which the nucleus has been removed, is then combined with material from an adult cell and allowed to divide into a multicell stage. It is not known whether this entity, if it were implanted in a woman, would result in a baby. However, it is the technology used to create Dolly, the sheep, and consequently this entity needs to be acknowledged as having the theoretical potential to create a human life.

The reason for using the technique of somatic cell nuclear transfer is to create an entity genetically identical to the donor of the adult cell. Scientists seek to do this to study disease development by using adult cells from individuals with that disease. The other reason is to generate stem cells genetically identical to the donor with the theoretical capacity to grow into tissue the donor will not reject. This is the debate people would have seen publicly about growing, for example, new spinal cord. It is these embryos—embryos created without a sperm—that under this bill can be deliberately created for research. This is the major change since the last legislation.

It should be noted that, under this bill, embryos, no matter whether they are surplus IVF embryos or embryos created without sperm, must not be allowed to develop beyond 14 days. Those who have objected to the creation of embryos without sperm for the purpose of research have put two main arguments. They argue that embryonic stem cell research is bad science. There are those who argue that we do not need embryonic stem cell research when we have adult stem cells. But this ignores the fact that embryonic and adult stem cells are fundamentally different. We need to understand the basic science of these cells and their differences before we can determine which would be most useful for the many disorders we seek to treat.

The scientific evidence points to the obvious fact that, in such a rapidly moving area of science, we need to support a variety of research efforts within and across embryonic and adult stem cells. There are those who claim that, because the hoped-for breakthroughs in therapy from embryonic stem cells have not occurred in the last three years, we should abandon this approach as fruitless. But scientific breakthroughs do not come as expected or, indeed, as needed: it took 50 years to develop a vaccine against polio; it took around 15 years to develop the new Gardasil vaccine against cervical cancer; and, more than 30 years after Richard Nixon committed $100 million to find a cure for cancer, that has not happened. But, last year, the US government committed over $6 billion to cancer research, because some wonderful progress has been made.

It is easy in politics, I think, to characterise the statement ‘We don’t know what we don’t know’ as a slipshod political statement—indeed, we have had some of that in the House this week—but I think in relation to this bill that it is a true statement: we don’t know what we don’t know. We do not know, unless we could fast forward the clock 50 years, whether scientific progress will have come through embryonic stem cells or adult stem cells. We do not know that now and we cannot know that now. The only way we will ever know is to allow both sorts of research to proceed. No-one could offer an assurance that, if we were to stop embryonic stem cell research, at the end of those 50 years we will have made all of the scientific advancements that we could. We would be shutting off one avenue that may lead to those scientific advancements. Consequently, because we don’t know what we don’t know, I believe that we cannot avert our eyes from embryonic stem cell research. I do not accept the argument that embryonic stem cell research is bad science.

However, that does not resolve the key ethical issue of whether it is right to create an entity that has a theoretical capacity to become a human being, for the purpose of research. I have carefully considered this question, which I acknowledge is most certainly not an easy one. I am assisted by the clear intent of the bill that such an entity would not be allowed to develop beyond 14 days, a stage which is prior to the development of the primitive streak on which all further development would be based. At this stage the embryo, which consists of around 100 cells, is referred to as a blastocyst. I have considered what is right and wrong in this matter. It is a question on which very reasonable people can differ, and I have determined that, in my view, it is ethically permissible to allow the course proposed by the bill to facilitate research that is of unknown and unknowable potential. I do not believe it would be right to not explore the potential of this research to cure the disease and disability which cause so much suffering.

There are some final points I would like to make about Australia’s legislative and regulatory approach to these issues. We should not lose sight of the importance of the fact that Australia has an excellent national legislative regime in this area—one that covers all ART and research activities in Australia, no matter where they are conducted or how they are funded. We should have national legislation in fields such as this. The enactment of this bill will see this regime backed up with very strong oversight and penalties. The regime is also backed up with a series of NHMRC guidelines that address informed consent, institutional ethics approval and the ethics of working with human subjects. Senator Colbeck’s amendment to this bill in the Senate will mean that there will be an opportunity to look at the current state and territory laws which govern the donation of human tissue and organs and their use in research. Finally, because this is an area where science and medicine and public opinion are all moving forward, the bill requires another review, like the Lockhart review, to report to the Council of Australian Governments and both houses of parliament within four years.

In my view, we should not resile from the responsibility to follow the consequences and implications of our votes on this bill and the act it will amend. We should ensure that future reviews are dealt with thoroughly and properly by this House. This is not an easy bill for this parliament to deal with. It is not an easy bill for individual members to make up their minds on. All of the political parties in the parliament have extended to their members a conscience vote, and that is highly appropriate. I think we need to recognise with great courtesy and respect that there are those who cannot support this legislation, and in turn they must acknowledge that in this pluralist society there are many views on these issues and that ethics is not the purview of any one group. The 2001 report on human cloning from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs addressed this:

One view of the status of the embryo should not be imposed on society as a whole especially when to do so may be to the detriment of those with serious or debilitating illness or disease. There is also a broader duty to society to be taken into account ...

I agree with those words. I believe we need to distinguish the ethical and moral arguments from the scientific and biological ones, and we need to understand that they both have a place and a right to be heard. From time to time in our political lives we are given the opportunity to make important decisions that shape the future and determine what sort of country we will be. I believe this is one of those occasions, and I support the bill.

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My contribution is made as a legislator, not as a scientist, and I bring an open mind and an honest heart to this debate. I have not the arrogance to believe that on all matters I hold the one true view, that my opinion is necessarily the correct and only one. In this debate there will be disagreements and arguments over ethics and principles. Embryonic stem cell research and somatic cell nuclear transfer are difficult matters for us as members of parliament to consider.

Ethical divisions and uncertainties are inherent in the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. We are dealing with matters at the very boundaries of scientific understanding. Australia does play, and should be able to continue to play, a leading role in the world of scientific endeavour. That is why I stand here today in support of and alongside former Australians of the Year Sir Gustav Nossal and Dr Alan Marshall and current Australian of the Year, Professor Ian Frazer.

My background is in retailing—selling suits, shirts and ties. I do not pretend to understand the science behind modern medical progress. However, I do understand the impact medical advances of the last half century have had on our health and wellbeing. Initially there was disquiet, even outright opposition as there is in this place today, and then a gradual acceptance that fears of discovery, fears that the fruits of scientific research will destroy the moral fibre of society, were groundless fears. Professor Ian Frazer, in a letter to me earlier this year, tellingly made that very point. He said:

In the 1970s there was considerable public debate about the morality and safety of genetic engineering and a worldwide moratorium on research in the area was considered.

He continued:

If the moratorium had been implemented, then the cervical cancer vaccine would not have been developed in the 1980s and a means to prevent half a million deaths worldwide each year would not have been developed.

When Joseph Lister began using carbolic acid solution to wash his hands before surgery, many of his contemporaries laughed at him. But Lister was said to have never bothered to reply and only heaved an occasional sigh at the world’s stupidity. If those in this place are derided and draw the wrath and condemnation of those who came to a stance of disagreement with this bill, so be it.

Consider, too, the apprehension in society—which I am old enough to remember—when the South African surgeon, Professor Christian Barnard, pioneered kidney transplant surgery in the late 1950s, then performed the first open-heart operation and then, in the following decade, performed a heart transplant. There was debate back then on the ethics involved in applying the findings of scientific exploration to saving and prolonging human life. The doomsayers predicted dire consequences from man interfering with the natural order. Today, kidney transplants, liver transplants and even heart and lung transplants are commonplace. The one tragic thought, though, behind all of these surgical marvels is the fact that someone—often a young person—has to die in order that someone else has another chance at life.

In the five decades since these transplants were pioneered, we have come to terms with the ethics involved with having someone else’s organs implanted. Five decades in terms of human history is a relatively short time, and the advances that have been made have been remarkable. In addition to transplant surgery, in-vitro fertilisation and surrogacy have meant much to couples who in an earlier era would have gone through married life without the joy that children bring and which the wider population takes for granted.

All of these advances were part of the evolution of medical science that this bill seeks to further advance. All their development met with degrees of ethical debate around well-founded, genuine concerns. However, these hurdles were overcome and society today accepts these procedures as a part of ethical medical practice. After all, who would deny a childless couple the natural experience of parenthood? Who would deny a young child the opportunity of the experience of life? Who would deny sufferers of kidney disease the opportunity of a normal life that did not involve regular sessions of dialysis?

When Christian Barnard performed his first heart transplant at the Groote Schuur Hospital in Cape Town, it was a major triumph for medical discovery; now it is simply a major operation. Stem cell research is still in its infancy. We know not for certain what those enquiring minds will produce, but there is the promise of a fundamental change in the course of history by providing cell replacement therapies for many debilitating and life-threatening diseases.

Today we must again spur on our physicians to keep pace with the further development of science and technology, or let tremendous opportunity fall away. Times change and so can attitudes. Of course there are hazards, among them the risk that none of these endeavours will bring to fruition what we most desire. But, if the dangers involved in landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to earth, adapting penicillin to administer safely or taking X-rays of patients without giving them cancer were too great a risk to ever venture, where would we stand today?

During this debate attempts have been made to discredit science and scientists. When speaking with an immunologist in the field whom I will name only as Ray, he said with the sincerity that only a father could have:

We are not monsters or ogres we are fathers and mothers just as the rest of the community—not closeted away from reality nor set apart in some scientific ethics free zone.

He continued:

This bill could do me out of a job. Wouldn’t that be great?

This is the real world. We are talking about real people with real problems looking to science for breakthroughs that can change their lives for the better. Where is the will of a nation to go beyond—to push past the boundaries set by the unchangeable—to that place of excellence in ethics and science that would propel our most incredible minds to seek beyond current thinking for new therapies in a yet unimagined quest for breakthroughs in medical science?

Australia, the US and Israel are the three countries in the world leading the way in stem cell research. Australian Dr Barry Marshall, who earned the 2005 Nobel Prize for his work on the causes of stomach ulcers, said:

We can be 100 per cent certain that if the current legislation stays in place in Australia there will be no more advances in this area and everybody who’s interested in it will go overseas.

In my home state of Victoria, Professor Alan Trounson, Director of Monash Immunology and Stem Cell Laboratories, says the ‘brain drain’ of scientists has already begun. It is already difficult to attract good researchers and we do not need to place additional hurdles in their way. We need to give our own researchers the opportunity to work with global colleagues here in Australia.

Do we as a nation of hope for generations turn away from stem cell research that may have potential to prevent suffering? The ethics of depriving the community of potential cures should also be considered. To this end, we as legislators set numerous regulations and ethical standards to be adhered to by the scientific community. The continued prohibition of the sort of research this bill would allow will be a disaster for medical research in Australia, in my opinion. As a nation we will not be simply standing still; we will not even lose ground. The effect will be that we will crash backwards in terms of medical research. It will rob us of the opportunity of punching above our weight in this policy area, as we do in so many other areas. Researchers will go offshore to continue their work or some will be tempted to seek ways of circumventing the law and carrying out their research without regulatory supervision.

Australia needs a policy framework that will enable groundbreaking medical research to continue here with proper checks and balances in place. This bill is our chance to set those ground rules so as to allay the fears of those who have well-founded objections to some aspects of the unknown. Those opposed to research using embryonic and somatic cell nuclear transfer have urged that research be restricted to adult stem cells. The Howard government has in fact had a long record of funding adult stem cell research. Through the Backing Australia’s Ability programs the government has committed $34 million, and through the NHMRC $32 million was provided specifically for adult stem cell research. In this year’s budget this commitment was further strengthened with an additional $22 million. This demonstrates a major investment in adult stem cell research as a potential to prevent and treat disease and improve the lives of Australians.

I am asking now that somatic cell nuclear transfer and embryonic stem cell research be given the same opportunity as adult stem cell research. No human being should be condemned to a life of suffering when the opportunity to seek out a cure awaits our assent. We, a people of innovative explorers, should never be self-censored by our collective fear of the unknown, the untried and the untested. The gravest misdoing in this debate would be for us to do nothing when we have the power to do something. It could be likened to the indifference of condemning a sufferer of pneumonia when there is penicillin on hand, or sentencing a diabetic when there is insulin, or abandoning a quadriplegic and telling them they are not worth hope.

People are not looking for a Liberal solution or a Labor solution or, indeed, a particular brand of solution—they are just looking for a right solution. I speak today for those many Australians who cannot speak for themselves and for their families, their carers, their friends and those given the responsibility for their continuing quality of life. I speak today in hope for the hopeless, that we might rise to challenge the nation for those whose every breath and whose every move is a challenge to be conquered. I speak today for the potential beneficiaries of cell replacement therapies.

Being a singer of songs and a lover of lyrics, I am taken by Shane Howard’s heartfelt words in his song Flesh and Blood:

You’re flesh and blood … Don’t refuse me your love.

Those words rang in my ears as I considered my position on this debate today. To oppose this bill would be to ‘refuse my love’ to those who could benefit from the passing of this legislation. I ask members of the House to believe with me and put our collective faith in the integrity and ethics of our medical scientists, enabling them to rise to this, one of the great challenges of our time. I support the bill and commend it to the House.

Simon Crean (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise also to support the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. This debate on the use of human embryos for research is in many ways an extension of the debate that we held in this parliament back in 2002. As then, this legislation now is subject to a conscience vote. That is rather unique in the parliament but it does attest to the sensitivity of this crucial issue. As elected legislators to this parliament, we approach this subject on this occasion as individuals, bound not by party policy nor by party discipline. It is up to us as individuals to examine our consciences and to make our own decisions in the light of the research, of our questioning of the issues and of our own values.

The issue and the debate this time is no less difficult nor less complex than it was in 2002, but then as now we are well informed. We have not rushed into these issues. There has been much to inform us in relation to this very complex subject, seeking as it does to balance the challenge of research to improve the quality and longevity of life and the ethical considerations associated with allowing that very research.

In essence, we are having this debate for two reasons: first, because medical science and knowledge have advanced in the past four years and, second, because one of the safeguards built into the previous legislation passed by this parliament in 2002 was the requirement for a review after two years. The proponents of this bill, which I support, want amendments to allow advances in medical research and sciences which aim to cure diseases for which presently there is no cure. Those opposed argue on ethical grounds for the sanctity of human life.

In 2002, the parliament decided to prohibit human cloning, to prohibit the creation of human embryos other than for assisted reproduction programs and to allow the use of excess human embryos from those assisted reproduction technology programs for research purposes but subject to strict regulation. The legislation also required a review. That review was conducted by the Hon. John Lockhart and subsequently became known as the Lockhart report. That committee reported in December last year.

In June 2006, the Prime Minister responded to the report, saying that the government would not be putting forward changes to the legislative framework for research involving human embryos. It was against that background that two private members’ bills emerged, one proposed by Senator Stott Despoja and Senator Webber in a joint approach and tabled as a draft bill in the Senate, and Senator Patterson’s proposal, which we are subsequently debating.

In essence, this bill incorporates most of the recommendations of Lockhart—that exhaustive review required by the 2002 legislation. While I recognise the sensitivity of this issue and the strongly held views of many people in relation to it, and while I have considered the number of letters and emails from my constituents about this bill, both for and against, clearly it is an issue that concerns many people in our community. I have had to consider their views. I have had to consider the information the parliament requested and on which we were reported to. I thank all those people who have taken the trouble to write to me. I always appreciate their input as their representative in this parliament.

Against all of that, I have also reviewed my reasons for supporting the bill back in 2002. I think the reasons for support then remain valid today. I am reinforced in that view by the research and the analysis in the Lockhart report. The 2002 bill allowed, as I said, research on embryos created for IVF purposes that would otherwise be destroyed. At the time, I thought that that was important to support because it gave hope to people with presently incurable diseases and for the health of future generations. It allowed our world-leading biotech scientists to continue their research and to further develop our knowledge and, importantly, it allowed this issue then, as it is now, to be the subject of a conscience vote.

I supported the bill in 2002 because it was the right thing to do, the right thing for people with chronic diseases who presently have no cure, the right thing for future generations and the right thing for the scientific research community—and it is the right thing for our future knowledge as, hopefully, a growing knowledge economy. I believe the significant advances in science and research, and the limitations posed by the existing legislation, which have been exhaustively considered by Lockhart, warrant the further changes that we are debating today.

The Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 implements most of Lockhart’s recommendations. Stem cell research holds out hope to people suffering chronic, debilitating and often ultimately fatal diseases like diabetes, Parkinson’s and motor neurone disease. I came to the view that embryonic stem cell research should be permitted because of my belief in the value of IVF treatment in giving couples the chance to be parents, to have their own children, a joy which previously had been denied them. The surplus embryos produced for IVF, I believe, could be used for research as they would be destroyed in any case. I was persuaded that those stem cells should be used in research to find cures for the diseases I have mentioned. I came to that view particularly not just from reading the research but from meeting many sufferers of these diseases, people making the plea to us, as their representatives in this place, to give them hope. They were firmly convinced that their hope lay in future research into this important area.

Recently, I attended a forum on diabetes that further reinforced my belief. It is true that the cures for many of these diseases are not immediately imminent, that they may be years away. Unfortunately, many people may die before cures are found. Nevertheless, the pleas again from the patients and from the researchers who attended that forum are compelling: ‘Let the research continue. Give us the hope, give us the opportunity, give us the belief that we can be cured.’

So we must find a way. Australia has a great history of medical research and medical discoveries. I not only want us to participate in that research; I want us to be in a world-leading position in that research. Some of our best and brightest medical researchers have left Australia, or would consider leaving if this legislation were to fail, because they would not be able to legally carry out their research here and, because of their ethical position, they will not carry it out illegally. We should ensure that our law allows them to do it, but with appropriate and strict safeguards.

Medical science has moved dramatically in this area in the last four years. I think it is important to point out that, at the time we passed the legislation, we included significant safeguards in it—for example, a prohibition on human cloning and human-animal hybrids. This bill goes further. It prohibits the creation of a human embryo, by fertilisation of a human egg with human sperm, for a purpose other than achieving pregnancy in a woman. It also prohibits the creation or development of a human embryo by fertilisation of a human egg with a human sperm that contains genetic material provided by more than two persons. This bill also proposes that human embryos can be created for the purposes of research, but only under strict regulation by the National Health and Medical Research Council. The point I make is that, in many significant respects, this bill introduces stronger safeguards against abuse than were passed by the parliament in 2002.

The Australian Academy of Science, Australia’s pre-eminent and highly respected scientific body, advocates Australian participation in international stem cell research. Like many other scientific bodies, the academy has commented on this issue. It advocates that we participate in international stem cell research—obviously subject to strict ethical standards. The academy reinforces the fact that there have been important developments since 2002, but, significantly, says new research shows the value of the use of adult and embryonic stem cells in efforts to find cures for presently intractable diseases. Importantly, the academy says:

Adult stem cells from a patient have the great advantage of proven safety and the absence of immune rejection. Embryonic stem cells and their relatives made by somatic cell nuclear transfer have the great advantage of being able to make every kind of cell in the body and to multiply indefinitely. The recommendations of the Lockhart committee will allow both adult and embryonic stem cell research to proceed in parallel to maximise the opportunity of developing medical applications from this research.

Like many others, the academy supports the recommendations of the Lockhart committee and, of course, this bill.

The basic ethical issue raised by many people is that the bill will permit the creation of embryos which will then be destroyed during the research process. Some people take the view that these embryos are human life—which should not be killed. However, we presently permit the creation of embryos for IVF. Once one embryo is allowed to develop into a foetus and a human baby, the other embryos are discarded—effectively, destroyed.

What we are proposing in this bill is the creation and destruction of embryos for the purpose of research into ways to preserve life and find cures for diseases. I believe that this process and its aims and IVF are equally worthy. It should be permitted, albeit with the safeguards against abuse that are included in the bill. I do not accept the ‘slippery slope’ argument that, once we accept therapeutic cloning, the acceptance of reproductive cloning becomes inevitable. In this parliament we often have to make difficult legal and moral judgements. One action does not necessarily lead to another in any area of legislation. It is up to us to be constantly vigilant to ensure that there are safeguards in place. That is why we have strict safeguards here. That is why it is also proposed that the legislation we pass, if it is the will of this House, be subjected to further review after six years.

This is a conscience vote. I respect the different views that are being expressed here and in the Senate, but I strongly believe that we should pass this legislation. It is the right thing to do. It will bring hope to those suffering from cruel and painful diseases for which there is presently no cure. We can ensure that there are strong safeguards against abuse and malpractice, but we should pass this legislation, with safeguards, to allow this research to take place here in Australia, using our medical facilities and our research expertise for the benefit of our nation. I support the bill.

Gary Nairn (Eden-Monaro, Liberal Party, Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today I wish to speak to the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. I think people should be focusing on the words of the bill. The title of the bill specifically describes what it is all about. In speaking to this bill could I, firstly, commend Senator Kay Patterson and Mal Washer, the member for Moore, on the work they have done to bring this bill to the House, and also the Prime Minister and other party leaders who have provided all members of parliament with a conscience vote on this particular issue.

This bill came about following the Lockhart review, which was required to take place after the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002—which was passed by the parliament—called for a review after a period of time. The Lockhart review was chaired by Justice John Lockhart. I should also point out who else was on that review panel that looked at this matter in some detail and put forward fairly detailed recommendations. The other members of that review team—besides Justice Lockhart, who was a former justice of the Federal Court—were Associate Professor Ian Kerridge, a clinical ethicist; Professor Barry Marshall, a specialist gastroenterologist and community advocate; Associate Professor Pamela McCombe, a clinical neurologist; Professor Peter Schofield, a neuroscientist; and Professor Loane Skene, a lawyer and ethicist. So a very eminent panel—obviously people with very high qualifications: medical, professional, legal and ethical—made up that Lockhart review.

In speaking to this bill, I also acknowledge the correspondence that came to my office from constituents, by email, telephone and mail et cetera.  These are people in the community who hold very strong and differing views on this matter. It is not surprising. I am sure other members of parliament have experienced exactly the same situation. When the parliament is going to legislate on many things, you have representations from the community and, ultimately, as a member of parliament, you decide on how you will vote on any piece of legislation. Particularly in these sorts of situations where members are being given a conscience vote, they do very much take into account all of the views of their constituents and ultimately have to make a decision.

In contacting me, many of the people who are opposed to this legislation have referred to human cloning. They have tended to say: ‘Please don’t pass this legislation, because we are opposed to human cloning.’ I agree with them; I am as well. This bill prohibits human cloning for reproduction, as did the bill in 2002. The bill is highly technical and it is difficult for people to understand what the bill is all about. So I will describe in laymen’s terms what aspects will be allowed if the bill is approved.

When the word ‘cloning’ is used, people tend to think it must relate to humans, but it does not. Therapeutic cloning involves extracting the nucleus from a somatic cell, for example, a mature cell such as a skin cell that is neither an egg nor sperm, and placing it in an unfertilised egg—and I emphasise ‘unfertilised’—that has had its own nucleus removed. The egg is stimulated to develop to the blastocyst embryonic stage of some 50 to 250 cells. Stem cells are then obtained from culturing cells from the inner mass of that blastocyst. These stem cells could then be used to repair or, perhaps in the future, create individual human organs. In making that somatic cell, you will not be allowed to develop it beyond 14 days.

I suppose this is the area where people have differing views. I do not see that as creating a human being to then destroy, as some people do. As I said, it is an unfertilised egg, as opposed to a human life, that is used and then stimulated by, say, somebody’s skin cell to form that human tissue. In that respect, I cannot accept the argument that you are creating a human life to destroy. You are creating human tissue but for good medical purposes and, hopefully, curing a number of diseases and other disabilities that currently there is no cure for.

Others argue that we do not need to do this because we already can do a lot of this work with adult stem cells. Adult stem cells, which are currently being taken from discarded embryos from the IVF program, certainly have their role. Some great research is being done in using adult stem cells and that research should continue. We are not talking about competing with that; we are talking, from a research point of view, about adding to the opportunities, via this bill.

So you are taking an unfertilised egg and you are stimulating it with a skin cell to form that sort of blastocyst that is ultimately used to look at how you might repair particular organs that might be diseased in some way, or potentially grow them. The big advantage of being able to use embryonic stem cells is that you are ultimately working with the same DNA as that of the person you are trying to cure. Some of this work is being done with adult stem cells, but if it is developed to the point of repairing an organ of an individual then the DNA is going to be different because it has not come from that individual. Therefore you run the risk of rejection or of a person having to go through quite long periods of time on antirejection drugs, which adds complications. Whereas in this case, if you are taking a skin cell from an individual—when you are ultimately looking at repairing, say, one of their organs or adding cells to one of their organs to overcome a particular disease—then you are dealing with their DNA. So you are taking away that prospect of rejection. It is potentially a huge advantage for the scientists to be able to work in that way.

I have great confidence in our scientists and the ethics of our scientists. My training comes from a scientific background so I guess I have great confidence in science generally. I am not trained in the medical area, but my professional training is in science related areas. So I feel strongly that our scientists can be given these extra opportunities without their being abused and that the ethics of our scientists are such that we will not see certain activities. In fact the legislation is very specific about prohibiting certain activities, but I am confident that our scientists would not be heading down any of those tracks anyway. There are very strong safeguards within the legislation to prevent many of the things that some people are concerned will occur if this legislation is passed. As I think the member for Hotham before me said, the legislation is very strong—it is perhaps even stronger than the 2002 bill that was passed in this House—with respect to safeguards.

Finally, I think all of us at some time in our lives are touched by circumstances where loved ones are affected by particular diseases or disabilities and you would really love to find a way that you could help them. In some respects, when looking at legislation like this you should not allow specific personal experiences to totally override your views—you need to look at all sides of the argument; and I think I have done that in this respect. However, your personal experiences are something that you call upon to give you wisdom as well in making these sorts of decisions.

As members in this House well know, I lost my wife last year to cancer. Cancer is one of the areas that one would hope this legislation could have a substantial impact on. I very openly say up-front that I do not for a second believe necessarily that if some of this research had been happening a few years ago then it may have provided a cure for what my late wife went through and passed away from. However, living that experience certainly instilled in me a determination that, as legislators in this Australian parliament, we should do all that we can to give our eminent scientists the greatest opportunity to address some of these issues.

After Kerrie passed away, I went and sat down with her oncologist. I said to him, ‘I’m in the parliament, in the government. Is there something that you would like to tell me that perhaps we could do or we could do better so that hopefully others that might be faced with what Kerrie and I faced over that short five months could have a cure?’ He said a number of things, as you expect from a doctor giving advice to a member of parliament—and I am sure that all members of parliament cop advice from doctors and researchers. One thing that he said to me that really stood out was: ‘I don’t think you should concentrate necessarily on putting resources into specific aspects of cancer research. Put the resources into general research that ultimately can apply to a whole series, in the case of cancer, of different cancers.’

There is funding that goes towards breast cancer research and all sorts of things like that. They are all good. But he was really saying to me: try and do something that can improve research right across the scope of this area, and if you can do that then you have done something extremely positive because it is amazing how different things develop out of that general research into specific areas of cancer cures. I see this bill particularly as a response to that advice from the oncologist because this does cover not only cancer but also a whole series of diseases and disabilities. There are, potentially, opportunities that could go in a number of directions.

For people suffering from these conditions, hope is all they have to keep them going. There are many of those people in my electorate of Eden-Monaro. I was with young children with juvenile diabetes, as many other members of this House were only a couple of weeks ago, when we were raising awareness of the need for further research in that area. A number of young children from my electorate came along that day. Given that solutions to a range of diseases and disabilities could be boosted through this research, I cannot deny the chance of a cure for these people. I commend the bill to the House.

Julia Irwin (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In this debate on the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006, members will have a conscience vote, as has been the case on a small number of issues that have come before the parliament in my time. Members have used the format of the debate to express their own, often personal, reasons for supporting or opposing the bill. I say from the outset that I have looked at the arguments put in the Lockhart review report and, on those grounds alone, I would be prepared to support the bill.

I have to say that the scientific case for the changes made in this bill is well made in the Lockhart review. Those opposing this bill have failed to show how the potential benefits flowing from these scientific advances could otherwise be obtained. They have failed to show that alternatives to this approach can provide treatments so desperately needed. They are effectively closing the door on potential treatments which may relieve much suffering and provide worthwhile advances in improving the lives of so many people.

I can appreciate that other members of this House have strong opposing views on the matter and, in the end, the vote of all members will reflect their personal views rather than by looking at the issue in the same way as the legislative review committee, led by the late Professor Lockhart, did. I should explain to the House what has influenced my own vote on this legislation. Like all members of the House, I have received letters and emails from a number of individuals and groups representing sufferers of diseases which it is hoped will be overcome by advances which could come from research which is presently banned in this country. I must admit that, like some other members of the House, our own personal experience has led to our determination to follow potential treatments, whenever they can be reasonably obtained.

There would be few members who have not been through the experience of seeing a close relative or friend suffer as a result of a disease for which a treatment or cure might flow from the type of research which would be allowed under this bill. If I am right, the majority of those will support this bill, if only for the reason that it will bring some hope to the lives of those sufferers and those close to them, but it is not a faint hope. This research offers better scientific understanding and better treatment for disorders such as type 1 diabetes, motor neurone disease and Parkinson’s disease. While it will take time and many present sufferers will not be able to receive the treatment in their lifetime, one of their dearest wishes is for others to avoid the suffering that they have endured. Those who will not support this bill—and I definitely do respect their reasons—will always have the option of refusing treatments which may flow from this research. They can continue to exercise their conscience and refuse treatments, but they should definitely not deny others access to treatments.

This leaves open the unanswered question of what the approach of any future government should be if research which is banned in Australia but allowed in another country should lead to a breakthrough in treatment. As we know, research involving somatic cell transfer is permitted under regulation in the United Kingdom, Singapore, Canada, New Zealand, Sweden, Belgium, Spain, Finland, Israel and the United States of America. If there were a treatment devised in one or more of those countries, would that treatment be regarded as the fruit of the poison tree and face a ban in Australia? I think the politics of that situation would compel any future government to allow such treatments—either that or face the situation where those sufferers able to afford it would travel overseas for treatment. So that leaves us with the dilemma of deciding whether to allow scientists in Australia to be part of the research and to be among the pioneers in the treatment of these diseases. Or will we be left in the waiting room, wondering if we should have taken a different course?

As I said earlier, many of us have our own personal experiences which have influenced our views on this issue, and my own experience is recent and has influenced me greatly. In July this year my father, Alan, died after more than five years, following his diagnosis with the terrible Huntington’s disease. When he was first diagnosed with Huntington’s, he made the comment that he would rather have been diagnosed with cancer. When I heard that remark from my dad, my first thought was that he was so, so wrong, and I told him so. But, having seen my father deteriorate over those five years, I now wonder if he was right—and, Dad, I think you were right.

He was a man who served his country in the Air Force, a man who had a distinguished career at the University of Sydney, a man who served his community as a councillor on Parramatta City Council, a man whom you respected as a father and a man who was greatly loved. When you stand by and watch someone like that deteriorate day by day—from needing his food prepared and, later, when it became impossible for him to be cared for in the family home, being placed in nursing home care—and when you see the toll that Huntington’s takes on a person, you are definitely left asking if anything can be done to help those who suffer from this terrible disease.

Research that may be allowed under the proposals in this legislation may lead to some discovery which could give a ray of hope to those suffering from Huntington’s and other disorders. While that may not help those currently suffering, it will give them the hope that, in future, others will not be forced to suffer as they have suffered, and this is especially true of Huntington’s. It is a genetic disorder which is passed on with a 50 per cent probability. If, like me, you have a parent who has Huntington’s, there is a fifty-fifty chance that you will have the disease, and that is the thought that I have lived with in recent years.

When my father was first diagnosed with Huntington’s, my sister took immediate steps to be tested at Westmead Hospital. It was found that she did not have the disease, and that came as a great relief to her. But in my case it was a difficult decision. I have two children, so if I had the disease there was a high probability that at least one of my children would have Huntington’s. So for four years I anguished over whether I should have the test. If I were to have the test and were found to have the disease, it would definitely alter my life and the lives of my children from that day on. If I were found not to have Huntington’s, it would be a great relief for me and for my children. It was a very difficult decision to make 

When I finally decided to have the test, it was one of the most traumatic times in my life. Having seen the terrible effects of the disease on my father, you can imagine how I felt at the prospect of being told that I had the disease and that I would need to tell my children that they may also have the disease. When I was given the results, to my great relief I found that I do not have Huntington’s; but the thought that the result could have been different is never far from my mind. What would I be like today if the result had been positive? What future would I have to live for if I were destined to suffer the ravages of Huntington’s disease? Would I feel guilt at the thought that my children and grandchild, Liam, may have inherited the disease from me?

In all of this there was only one glimmer of hope, and I can imagine that it is the same for the hundreds of Australians diagnosed with Huntington’s disease. That faint glimmer of hope is that scientific research may one day find a way of treating Huntington’s and even be able to prevent its transmission to future generations. So, Mr Deputy Speaker, you may be able to understand why I could not slam shut the door that may lead to treatments that prevent the ravages of diseases like Huntington’s.

There are many thousands of sufferers of diseases such as motor neurone disease, Parkinson’s disease, type 1 diabetes and many other disorders. Discovery may come too late to help those in the advanced stages of these diseases, but I am sure that I speak for those sufferers in asking that we keep the door open to research which may one day lead to a cure or treatment of their disorder. Their hope is not for themselves but, knowing the terrible effects of those disorders, their fond hope is that in a future world no-one need suffer as they have and that, even if it is only in a small way, through their suffering, future generations may be free of these diseases. So the legislation has my wholehearted support.

I can understand that some members and, indeed, many Australians have reservations; I can respect that. But having faced the prospect of having my own life and the lives of my children affected by Huntington’s disease, I cast my vote today for hope. I am definitely still left with my Christian belief that it is right for mankind to seek ways to cure the sick and heal the infirm: these are the noblest of human endeavours. This legislation, which allows research under strict controls, gives hope to thousands and thousands of Australian men, women and children. The door of hope should not be slammed shut by suspicion, fear and ignorance.

Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In addressing the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 today, whilst I will speak of a personal decision and from a personal perspective, I will not be speaking on the basis that I expect to benefit personally from the passage of this legislation or the research that will come from it over the decades ahead. I do, though, speak on the basis that I sincerely hope that the lives of my children and their children, and of my children’s friends and loved ones and their fellow Australians, will benefit from this legislation gaining passage through this House and from the cures to diseases and disabilities that may come from it.

Australia is a diverse society with widely held views of an equally wide variety and within those varieties of views we also see a large variety of beliefs—a fact often acknowledged and rightly lauded for giving this country the cultural richness which we all enjoy. It is therefore no surprise in a moral debate as important as this that there are many and varied views and opinions on what the House should decide.

Some Australians believe that life begins with the creation of an embryo and have a moral objection to therapeutic cloning. Others believe that life does not begin with the creation of an embryo and they do not have an automatic moral objection to this proposed legislation. Yet another view is that an embryo not from an egg fertilised by a sperm is not a traditional embryo but a cellular extension of the donor’s DNA that was never destined to be implanted and become a human being.

Looking around the House here today and having talked to my friends, constituents and colleagues on the issue, I know that the views held are wide ranging and often differ greatly even between those of the same religion. One belief is not morally superior to another. They exist together, side-by-side, in Australian society. There will never be full agreement in our society on when life begins or, indeed, on how it begins. For this reason, I do not agree that a certain type of medical research should be described in black-and-white terms as immoral simply because it does not fit the moral beliefs of some Australians.

However, one moral value which I believe is universally held by all Australians is that we have a responsibility to care for the vulnerable, the sick, the disabled and the elderly in our society. These are fundamental Australian values—indeed, they are universal human values. So, where medical research has the potential to alleviate human suffering and save lives, I believe it is difficult to justify a ban simply because of the perceptions and views of some in our society. That is not to say I do not respect the moral views of those who have objections to this legislation on moral grounds; I do respect their views. But their views are just one part of the community attitudes on this matter.

I firmly believe that we cannot justify a continuing ban on research which has shown such promise in animal studies in treating diseases and physical incapacities such as diabetes, heart disease, Parkinson’s disease, retinal blindness and spinal cord injury. It is just potential, and it may be many years before we see treatments for humans, but it is potential that, to my mind, is becoming too great to ignore.

Rather than a ban, what is justified in the light of the moral objections of some Australians is to replace a ban with tight regulation. That, in essence, is what the Lockhart review committee recommended and it is what Senator Patterson has drafted in the bill before us. I believe it represents a conservative and appropriate response to a complex medical and ethical issue. As research scientist and writer Dr Elizabeth Finkel said recently:

The role of government then is not to take sides but to arbitrate. Instead of a sledgehammer ban, the law should be crafted into a fine regulatory tool. Where there was wide community consensus, as in the repugnance towards cloning for reproductive purposes, the report said the ban should remain. But where the community was divided, as it was over the potential medical benefits of therapeutic cloning, the brick wall should be replaced by a hurdle—

a significant hurdle.

Individual research projects should be evaluated on a case by case basis, by ethics committees and a government licensing committee. Some proposals would fall by the way-side, others might make it over the hurdle.

Some opponents of this bill have attempted to argue that we do not need to go down this path—that we can sidestep the difficult ethical issues surrounding the therapeutic cloning issue and just focus on finding cures from adult stem cell research. However, I do not believe that that is a realistic alternative. No politician or medical researcher could say with any certainty which line of stem cell research—be it adult, embryonic or any other—will produce cures, because science in this area is in its infancy.

It was only in 1998 that medical researchers isolated human embryonic stem cells, which have the ability to turn into other cell types, otherwise known as ‘cell plasticity’. Given that, in medical research terms, eight years is a very short time period, it should come as no surprise to those who follow science that there are currently no approved medical treatments from this research—and the story is the same for research from adult stem cells. Contrary to the claims of some that adult stem cells have produced treatments for over 65 diseases, the Lockhart review found that there were no approved medical treatments based on cell plasticity either. And what leading medical researchers believe at this point is that adult stem cells do not have the same ability or potential as embryonic stem cells to make virtually any cell type in the body and to self-renew indefinitely.

Medical researchers are optimistic about the potential of therapeutic cloning because it could allow them to make cells from a patient with known diseases—for example, Parkinson’s disease or motor neurone disease—and create a stem cell line on which to study the disease and to test new or improved drugs. Researchers also believe that, in the longer term, it may be possible to use therapeutic cloning to make cells that are matched to individual patients, reducing problems of immune rejection with future stem cell and tissue therapies. It is just potential and, in many cases, will be decades away, but we should allow our medical researchers to explore this potential under an appropriate and strict regulatory framework.

At this stage, no-one knows whether it is adult or embryonic stem cell research, including therapeutic cloning, that will prove the most useful and effective in treating different diseases, but in keeping all research paths open we are more likely to identify the best mechanisms to reduce human suffering and to improve quality of life. It is my firm belief that we should never turn our backs on the potential to save a human life or to substantially improve the quality of life of someone with a serious illness or disability.

The defeat of this bill may not affect the lives of some Australians, but it will have a potentially devastating effect on other Australians and others worldwide. If the ban on therapeutic cloning is not overturned, though, the research will continue overseas—in the United States, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Singapore, Israel and China—with varying degrees of regulation and ethical standards. It will continue with the help of Australia’s world-leading medical researchers, many of whom will no doubt leave these shores in frustration at not being able to compete and collaborate with their colleagues overseas. It will simply remove an opportunity for Australia to play a pre-eminent role in the regulation and conduct of this type of research.

One day these Australian medical researchers working overseas may produce cures for a range of life-threatening diseases, based on drugs and therapies derived from therapeutic cloning. What then will Australia do? Will we legislate to block Australians from accessing that treatment and cure derived from therapeutic cloning that may save their lives or the lives of their children and grandchildren? More unrealistic still, will we legislate to prohibit Australians from travelling overseas to access these treatments? Or, if we are to be morally consistent, under a ban on therapeutic cloning would we legislate to prevent all Australians from accessing these treatments? The truth is that we would never do that. No democratic parliament on earth would ever consider such a thing.

In Australia, where we value the care of the vulnerable, the elderly and the sick, we would never deny such treatments to our citizens. But, having blocked the research on moral grounds, we would then be forced into dealing with the approval and subsidisation of treatments derived from therapeutic cloning and using those treatments in Australian hospitals and clinics. We would then be forced to accept the right decision in order to save lives.

A bigger issue is the one raised by the previous speaker—that wealthier Australians will be able to travel overseas and receive these treatments, while Australian doctors try to catch up and gain the knowledge that they need to treat Australians here. In fact, most Australians—our constituents—will be faced with the dilemma of waiting for Australian medical research to catch up to the rest of the world when these cures finally become available. I think it was best summed up by Barry Marshall, the winner of the 2005 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. At the Press Club, he said:

It does not really affect my life if there is no stem cell research in Australia. If our young scientists all leave for Singapore, if Australians always must wait a few extra years after everyone in the United States and Britain already have a new treatment for, let’s say, diabetes. I can always get on a plane and pay thousands for some new treatment or cure in California but most people can’t afford that kind of expense in Australia.

To my mind, the risk we run if we vote down this bill is that people will suffer and die from diseases because they could not afford the expense of travelling overseas for treatment.

It was also mentioned that whether or not Australians choose this treatment is up to them. They can choose not to, and I respect that choice. The Jehovah’s Witnesses have maintained their religious opposition to many medical treatments and continue to do so. We should, as we do, allow Australians to opt out of treatment, but we should not allow those same Australians to deny the rights of others to opt in. Australia has shown over the years that the best way to handle medical advances is through regulation, not through prohibition. We did it with genetic engineering, organ transplants and IVF. The result is that we have saved and created lives, and we have offered people real opportunities for better standards of living.

The Lockhart review recommendations, embodied in Senator Patterson’s bill, represent the latest example of how to deal with medical advances. We owe the Lockhart review committee our thanks for the intelligence and courage they showed in addressing such a difficult issue. I had the honour of meeting with the late Justice John Lockhart in September 2005 as part of his committee’s consultations. It was one of those days when the House was busy and there were other pressing issues, and I just wish I could have spent more time with him as he explained where the committee was garnering its information from on the many views. The thing that struck me the most was his intelligence and his integrity, and his respect for the variety of moral views on this issue within the Australian community. We all know he died a short time after that, unfortunately, and he will not see the fruits of his work dealt with by this parliament.

If we look at the Lockhart review and the guidance that it gives us, if we look at personal beliefs such as the Christian beliefs that many in this House hold and if we think about what would be best to do in the future, more so than now, for our fellow Australians, then we need to listen carefully to the many points of view that this debate has brought forward but focus on three areas: our responsibility to care for the vulnerable, the sick and the elderly; the loss of some of our world-leading medical researchers who may be lured overseas if they cannot conduct research here; and the consequential impact that that will have both on the ability of Australians to access this sort of treatment and on the time it takes before that treatment is widely and freely available in Australia.

In short, what we are dealing with in this legislation is the opportunity for a better life for our fellow Australians, our children and our grandchildren. This is for all Australians both present and future. So, for the sake of all Australians who might one day benefit from this medical research, I urge members to support this bill.

Peter Andren (Calare, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In my contribution to the debate on the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002, I stated:

I have come to the conclusion that research into adult stem cells is proving more productive than research involving embryos, and I have grave concerns about the destruction of human embryos whether excess IVF or not.

Nothing in the four years since August 2002, the Lockhart review included, has convinced me or, arguably, any other reasonable and objective observer that this situation has changed. I have closely monitored input from my constituents, and I totally respect the concerns expressed by both sides in this debate on the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. I must say that the overwhelming number of submissions, emails and letters to me on this issue, in almost all cases individual and highly personal accounts, have firmed me in my opposition to this bill.

When you compare the title of the 2002 bill with that of this bill, you see that the not-so-subtle change in this bill to ‘prohibition of cloning for reproduction’ represents a major and disturbing moral shift. It is a shift in definition of when and how life begins and a redefinition, if this bill is passed by parliament, that suits some in the scientific community and no doubt the pharmaceutical community but that I believe fails the test of human dignity, morality and ethic. I say that in all-too-painful awareness of the tragedy of disease that has affected people close and dear to me, some of whom may hold out hope of cure from any research. I believe such hope of cure from embryonic stem cell research has been deliberately talked up while the most promising outcomes have come from adult stem cell research.

In August 2002, I also said that such research using excess IVF embryos:

... is at the edge of cloning. IVF embryos are used for research but not at this stage for human therapy.

We are now being asked to step across that line. I see absolutely no reason to resile from my comments four years ago when I observed:

Some scientists say that making a clone to extract stem cells ... is different and therefore more acceptable from making a clone to grow a baby.

But in the case of therapeutic cloning there is no denying, even to the degree allowed by this bill, that the embryo—a human—could and would be created for the specific purpose of pulling it apart. I cannot accept that, particularly when adult stem cell research is showing that non-rejectable stem cells from the patient’s own body are delivering promising research outcomes with none of the accompanying ethical and moral dangers.

Again I noted in 2002 that discussions with scientists such as Professor William Hurlbut of Stanford University, whose son has oxygen-denied brain damage, satisfied me that the destructive use of embryos is not necessary to search for cures. It is misrepresentation to suggest that in rejecting this legislation we are condemning people to a lack of hope and treatment and our scientific endeavour to the global backwaters. Parallels have been drawn in this debate between embryonic stem cell research and transplant surgery. The differences are stark and bear no consideration in this debate. This is about creating life in order to dismantle it. It is totally different from even the use of excess IVF embryos for stem cell research.

We have been told not to hold back through fear of the unknown. I am not about to cross that line. We have been told to place blind faith in scientists—for instance, to have no doubts about the safety of burying high-level nuclear waste—but the scientists and their research supporters are human like us, and that goes to their ethics as well. Let me quote from a letter that most parliamentarians would have received from a man who lives in Canberra. He is about to graduate with a PhD in medical sciences and is in partial remission from hairy cell leukaemia. He rejects the half promises and claims of those who would promote embryonic cell research as an answer to his or other people’s disabilities. He says:

... by allowing the manufacture of human embryos for the specific purpose of destroying them for research, we will have enshrined the ethical principle that is permissible to kill one human being in order to treat others.

The potential breakthroughs in stem cell research revolve around adult stem cells. We have seen recent advances involving adult stem cells: scientists are growing human heart valves using stem cells from the fluid that cushions babies in the womb; adult stem cells offering hope in the battle against type 2 diabetes were recently shown in a Louisiana experiment to increase insulin production in mice and to aid kidney repair; British scientists have developed a tiny liver from adult stem cells, as announced early this month; and breast tissue grown from adult stem cells has improved the process of breast reconstruction surgery.

On the contrary side, there is a distinct lack of scientific evidence and of clinical trial results showing any provable outcomes from embryonic stem cell research. In fact, there are continuing dangers from cancer formation, while Korean research that backs some recommendations of the Lockhart review was exposed as fraudulent. This legislation crosses the Rubicon by allowing the creation of cloned human life for the purposes of experimentation, and there is the distinct likelihood of women being exploited for the many thousands of human eggs required for this embryonic stem cell incubator.

By redefining just what is a human embryo this legislation places the first stage of human life, the zygote, outside our ethical and legal responsibility. The Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney, in its submission to the Senate inquiry on this bill, pointed out that in 2002 this parliament banned the creation of human embryos for the purpose of research or therapy—a decision made without a dissenting voice. We all should ask what has changed to make the Senate vote so narrowly now in support of such research. The submission hits the nail on the head: ‘Cloning is never genuinely therapeutic if it results in the destruction of a living human being so created.’ This is to be achieved by shifting the definition of a living human being, moving the goalposts, so to speak, to facilitate the research imperative—research for research’s sake—when the adult stem cell route is available, ethical and providing results.

Griffith University research in Queensland has shown that adult stem cells from human olfactory mucus are able to give rise to new nerve, liver, heart, kidney and muscle cells. The principal researcher, Professor Alan Mackay-Sim, says that the new research ‘turns on its head’ the argument that adult stem cells would not be as useful as embryonic stem cells for cell therapies. In an article for ON LINE opinion, prominent Toowoomba doctor and opponent of embryonic stem cell research David van Gend stated:

Cloning human embryos for research will perfect the technique needed for cloning babies and for growing cloned fetuses for their organs.

…            …            …

So by the time the next review of our cloning laws takes place, and scientists come asking for live-birth cloning and fetal farming, we may not care.

Let me finish by returning to my speech of 27 August 2002, when this parliament decided overwhelmingly not to go down the path this new legislation now takes us just four years on. I said:

I do not know when the soul, spirit or essential humanity enters the being, but if we need conception to begin the life path then, ipso facto, it is then that life begins. We have reached a point in our human development where science dictates—where the vast majority of we lay people are basically forced to trust the scientist because he or she knows best.

Mine is not a Christian position, but it is certainly a spiritual one. Scientists are divided on this issue. Whom do we trust? I trust my instinct, and I note the words of one scientist whom I might be prepared to trust: Dr Peter McCullagh, of Sydney University, who quoted the late Michael Polanyi, Professor of Chemistry at Manchester University, who said:

In the days when an idea could be silenced by showing that it was contrary to religion, theology was the greatest single source of fallacies. Today, when any human thought can be discredited as unscientific, the power exercised previously by theology has passed over to science; hence science has become the greatest single source of error.

Those words also have a chilling relevance to the advocacy of nuclear technology when scientists have yet to find a way of managing the waste or other dangers of the monster their profession has unleashed. In rejecting this bill I urge us all to follow the only ethical path—that of continued adult stem cell research. As I said last time, why don’t we free up the many millions of dollars to be spent on this ethically indefensible research and redirect it to improve the living conditions of those hundreds of millions of people around the world who will never enjoy the benefits of Western medical research and who are battling diseases long controlled in the West, on top of poverty and the exploitation of their labour and resources? I strongly reject this legislation.

Louise Markus (Greenway, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, in speaking to the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 I would like to spell out that I am speaking as an individual today, that the position I take and the responses and the statements that I make have in no way been the result of pressure by any third-party individual or organisation, or, can I say, any local church. Bills such as this one before the House today are a matter of individual conscience. Each one of us has the responsibility and indeed carries the severe and heavy weight of these matters in order to take a stand one way or another to make a decision: yes or no.

Although I generally would approach such matters from a conservative point of view, having a strong view that life begins at conception, I have approached this matter from the outset with an open mind, attending many briefings by scientists and reading as much material as possible to inform my decision. In the Journal of Biomedicine and Biotechnology, in an article entitled ‘Human embryonic stem cell research: no way around a scientific bottleneck’, James L. Sherley, Associate Professor of Biological Engineering at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, wrote:

... reports on the controversy around hESC ... only listed nonscientists as critics.

…            …            …

The public needs to know that many expert stem cell biologists are also against research that results in human deaths.

He states:

... [such] research cannot be justified on scientific grounds. Effective, long-lasting cell therapy requires adult stem cells.

Further on in his article, he says:

In order for promised hESC-based therapies to be successful, first hESCs must be converted into adult stem cells.

…            …            …

Adult stem cells can be obtained from informed consenting adults, and they already have examples of successful cell therapies. Bone marrow transplantation is one example ...

These arguments are also backed by over 200 doctors. Doctors against Cloning state:

Scientifically, claims about potential benefits from therapeutic cloning have been misleading.

A distinctive lack of scientific evidence and the absence of clinical trials, which indicates that there may not be any benefits to human embryo stem cell research, is one reason I oppose the bill. I ask the question: will this send scientists down a track that will attract funds that will produce no results, when these funds could be focused on adult stem cell research which shows there is already evidence of real relief for disease? Professor Jack Martin, from the University of Melbourne, expressed openly on more than one occasion to the Senate committee that ‘there is no proof of principle regarding the benefits of embryonic stem cell research’. I would like to see further investment in research to find answers for people suffering from such debilitating diseases as Parkinson’s, MS, Alzheimer’s, diabetes and many more. I have friends and family who have suffered and continue to suffer from such diseases—an uncle with Parkinson’s, a dear friend with MS, two beloved friends who died from cancer only a few short months ago, a cousin with type 1 diabetes, and a grandmother who suffered from Alzheimer’s.

I personally do not want to see people suffering, and all of us would like to increase the time, money and resources directed towards medical research. Where we disagree is how to go about this research. Are people in this place prepared to put aside moral and ethical considerations and also shift focus away from possible real answers—that is, discoveries from adult stem cell research? Associate Professor Sherley claims that there are vast gaps between promise from human embryo research and scientific reality. There are numerous clinical trials already taking place around the globe involving adult stem cells. Such trials indicate that there may be no need for therapeutic cloning. N Scolding, in ‘Stem-cell therapy: hope and hype’, in the Lancet, writes:

Techniques for culturing human embryonic cells have advanced ... but an increasing appreciation of the hazards of embryonic stem cells has rightly prevented the emergence or immediate prospect of any clinical therapies based on such cells. The natural propensity of embryonic stem cells to form teratomas—

tumours—

their exhibition of chromosomal abnormalities, and abnormalities in cloned mammals all present difficulties.

My second reason for opposing the bill has to do with the falsified information in the Lockhart review—its recommendation which is the foundation for this bill. The Lockhart review’s recommendation to pursue this was based on the work of Korean researchers, Professor Hwang being one of them, which was publicly retracted as fraudulent not long after the report was released. I find it personally very difficult to support the recommendation and the subsequent bill with a foundation or basis of or link to fraudulent, falsified and possibly deceptive claims.

My third point relates to licences. Why are there so few licences for research into disease since changes to legislation four years ago? The NHMRC confirms only one licence has been issued, to IVF Australia, which focuses on treating one single condition. Is this real hope for people with disabilities and diseases or false hope presented to extend possibilities and the use of artificial reproduction technology?

I have two main ethical concerns. The first relates to the creation of an embryo for experimentation and destruction, as noted in an article by Frank Brennan in the Age in October this year. As a professor of law at ACU, he said:

If we allow the creation of SCNT embryos for destruction and experimentation, why would we not also allow the creation of embryos formed by natural fertilisation.

Lockhart himself noted that logic does not define a moral difference between embryos formed from SCNT and those formed through natural fertilisation. Are they not both forms of human life? If planted into a womb, they have the potential to develop fully—fully human. What value are we going to place on human life? When ought someone to value human life—only sometimes, in 2002 but not in 2006? What is the line that we are considering crossing—the creation of human life only for experimentation and destruction? Do we want to go down that path? Is there another line to cross? If it is ethically acceptable to create SCNT embryos for experimentation, why is it not ethical to create naturally fertilised embryos for experimentation? I believe neither is ethically acceptable in a society where human life is valued.

When this bill was first discussed some months ago I was unsure what decision I would make. At first I thought if a sperm was not involved then it might not be a human life. I thought that it might be okay until, after careful study, it became clear to me that the embryo created through SCNT has the same future potential to develop into a full human, being a clone, as an embryo created by a human egg and sperm.

Another ethical challenge is with regard to the 14-day limit on embryos for experimentation. Professor Jack Martin, from the University of Melbourne, told the Senate committee that any research on embryos generated in this way for the study of disease would certainly require embryos to grow beyond 14 days. So will we be back again and possibly again to make more changes? Cloning depends on a continuous supply of fresh human eggs, and without eggs cloning is impossible.

Few in the debate over recent months have mentioned women and the possible risks to women. Egg extraction requires large doses of powerful hormones to hyperstimulate the ovaries. Professor Bob Williamson told us that egg extraction involved a small element of risk, but how much is small? The risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome is experienced by 10 per cent of women, where 30 or more eggs start to develop simultaneously and fluid leaks out of the blood vessels and collects in the abdomen. The ovaries can swell to the size of a grapefruit. Imagine these consequences—stroke, organ failure, polyps, ovarian cysts, respiratory distress or death, long-term risks of infertility and reproductive cancers.

In all the briefings I have attended it was noted that therapeutic cloning is very inefficient, requiring hundreds, if not thousands, of eggs to produce a single clone. Where will the eggs come from? Will an incentive such as a financial payment be required to entice women to donate eggs, or will the importation of eggs from overseas be an additional step? Women may risk their lives for cures that may never be found through this type of research. Katrina George suggested that research ought to be about healing, not causing harm.

Harvesting ova from dead women and using leftover eggs from IVF have been suggestions. Research has indicated that this is not realistic. Another suggestion was for women on IVF to donate extra eggs. This was tried in the UK and women refused. Overseas experience shows that the only way is to pay women. In England, it has taken only a couple of years to head down the path of commercialisation. There is a risk that, just as those in the current debate have changed their minds since 2002, the current ban against growing cloned embryos beyond 14 days could be lifted in a few short years.

In 2002 the majority of all members in this House supported the use of excess IVF embryos for experimentation, but all who declared their position opposed the creation of human embryos only for destruction and experimentation. The Lockhart report favours the creation of an embryo to be used for experimentation and then destroyed, provided that the embryo is not implanted and provided that it not be permitted to thrive beyond 14 days. What bill will be put forward in another one, two, three or four years?

The bill lists practices that will be completely prohibited—that is, the bill is placing in law offences that never needed consideration in Australia. They include placing a human embryo clone in the human body or the body of an animal, importing or exporting human embryo clones, creating a human embryo for a purpose other than achieving pregnancy in women, creating or developing a human embryo by fertilisation which contains genetic material provided by more than two persons, developing a human embryo outside the body of a woman for more than 14 days, collecting a viable human embryo from the body of a woman, creating a hybrid embryo, and commercially trading in human eggs, human sperm or human embryos.

The prevailing legislative regime requires this research to conform to ethical codes and community expectations, including that proof of concept should be shown in animal models before research is carried out on humans. Longstanding ethical codes respect what constitutes ‘human dignity’ in research which by its nature is destructive of excess ART human embryos. Do we want to have these codes overturned? Personally, I think not.

If we look back at the list of offences, we see that the penalty for these offences is 15 years imprisonment. This brings me to my final reason for opposing this bill, and it is based on personal experience. I have visited prisons as a volunteer for 15 years, some of that time with Prison Fellowship, and have met hundreds of people who have bent, broken and ignored different types of written laws to commit offences. As a family counsellor, I have counselled many parents and young people who, when no-one else was watching them in their own home, have bent, broken and ignored written laws to commit offences. Many of these offences would make us feel sick if we described the details of them. Someone at some time will, when no-one is watching, bend, break and ignore these boundaries and commit one or more offences. I am not confident that the legislative framework will protect or prevent the offences listed from being undertaken, and that is of great concern to me. I therefore oppose this bill.

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is appropriate that this important legislation, the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006, is to be decided by a conscience vote in this House. It was always inappropriate that this matter be decided by the cabinet and it was arrogant of the cabinet to attempt to impose its will. This is a matter where it is appropriate for the parliament to assert its authority over the executive, and I congratulate those involved in bringing it to the parliament, in particular the honourable member for Moore.

Having a matter such as this come under the consideration of a conscience vote behoves all members to take the vote seriously, as I know all have. For my part—and I thank those who have made themselves available to assist honourable members and senators to come to a conclusion—I have read the Lockhart report in its entirety and I have read most of the submissions to it. I took the opportunity to meet with Professor Skene, the acting chair of the Lockhart committee, and I thank her for her time in answering my questions and dealing with my concerns.

I attended most of the lectures by various experts organised in recent weeks in Parliament House, and I thank those speakers for their time. I have listened to most of the contributions made in this House and in the other place, and it is certainly fair to say that there are good people with good intentions on both sides of this argument. I thank those from my electorate who either support or oppose the bill and who have contacted me and spent time with me talking through the issues. I know that other honourable members have also been grappling with this issue, and I thank those who have taken the opportunity to talk through the issues involved. In some cases we have come to different conclusions, but it has been good to have somebody else who has also had to come to a conclusion on this issue to talk it through with.

It is unsurprising that people have come to differing views on this issue, because there are compelling and emotional arguments to be put on both sides of this debate. On the one hand are cures to debilitating illnesses which cause great human suffering, which are responsible for deaths and which are held out as being possibly curable as a result of this research. On the other hand we are reminded that any changes to the ways in which we deal with human life or what has the potential to become human life should not be taken lightly. They are a huge step.

After reviewing all the evidence, and considering this matter closely, I have decided to oppose this bill. In 2002 this parliament considered the matter. I was not a member at that time, but I have gone back and looked at the debates and I have come to the conclusion that I would have supported research on surplus IVF embryos but would not have supported cloning, as every other member did not support cloning at that time. I have come to the conclusion that there has not been enough evidence over the last four years to lead me to change my view. I regard myself to be a supporter of stem cell research. The potential benefits are undoubted. They are not immediate—even proponents say they are many years away—but they are undoubted. I remain, however, unconvinced that the potential benefits of embryonic stem cells are sufficiently greater than those of adult or umbilical cord stem cells to justify a step as significant as cloning.

It is appropriate for scientists to push the envelope. It is appropriate for scientists to come to us and say, ‘These are the potential benefits and outcomes if you allow us to go down this road,’ and I congratulate them for doing so. However, we as members of parliament have a different obligation. We are charged with determining the limits. We are charged with determining what is appropriate and what boundaries we as a society are prepared to place on research. We are charged with balancing the differing arguments between the potential benefits of and the protection of what is or has the potential to be human life.

Much has been made of the influence of religion in this debate, and there is no doubt that some honourable members and senators have been influenced by their religion when coming to a decision on this matter. As I have said, in similar debates before in the House there of course has been a separation between church and state. There can be no separation between religion and conscience. But it is not only a matter of religion. You do not need to be an adherent to any particular religion or any particular faith or church to believe that cloning human life is a huge step—a step not to be taken lightly and a step not to be taken without undoubted justification. As I have said, in everything I have read and in every debate I have listened to I have found insufficient evidence of the benefits of embryonic stem cell research—over and above those of adult or cord stem cell research—to justify this very significant step.

The Lockhart committee argued that society would not accept embryos created simply for research purposes with no prospect of survival. I find this a false distinction. If it is unacceptable to do that to an embryo created through the normal mechanism, I find it equally troubling to treat an embryo created in a scientific manner in the same way.

I want to spend a short time talking about the recommendations of the Lockhart review in relation to IVF—a completely separate matter, in my view. People who choose IVF are choosing to create a life. Not all the embryos created will be used but there is potential for each and every embryo to be implanted and to become a full person. The wonderful IVF doctors and practitioners are giving people around the world the opportunity to enjoy the benefits of parenthood, which tragically is denied to some people but can in many cases be fixed through IVF. As a parliament and as a nation we should do everything we can to support those endeavours. I note that the Lockhart report made certain recommendations to assist IVF doctors and practitioners. I found myself conflicted, wanting to support those recommendations but not feeling comfortable enough to support the other recommendations in relation to cloning.

I wholeheartedly support the Lockhart committee’s recommendations only in relation to IVF. Should this bill be defeated, which I do not expect to be the case, I flag that I would be looking at options to see those aspects of the Lockhart report coming into law in relation to IVF. I note that some of the recommendations in relation to IVF have not required legislation but are simply recommendations to various government bodies, which I hope have been implemented by those government bodies, particularly in relation to lifting the burden on prospective IVF parents in their continual need to sign clearances and to be reminded of their choices for their surplus embryos. I think they are very sensible recommendations.

I do not intend to speak for long. I know that many members wish to make a contribution. I simply wanted to indicate to the House the reasons for coming to my conclusion. I again commend all honourable members for the quality of the debate. I recognise that they are people of good intention who have come to different conclusions. I am sure as a House and as a society we will reach a median which society is happy with even though I may personally be opposed to it.

De-Anne Kelly (Dawson, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We all seek cures to the terrible diseases and injuries that afflict modern man—cancer, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, spinal cord injury, to name but a few. Researchers are now pressing the Australian parliament to allow therapeutic cloning of human embryos, called somatic cell nuclear transfer, as a potential cure for many of these diseases. The Australian parliament banned this in 2002 but, as we are aware, it is again under review following the Lockhart report, which recommended human embryo cloning and human-animal ‘hybrid’ embryos. Thankfully, the Senate has disallowed human-animal hybrid embryos.

What are the facts about stem cells? Stem cells can form any cell in the body and therefore are able to become liver, bone or nerve cells and so on. There are two sources of stem cells: adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells, known as human embryonic stem cells. The former are harvested painlessly from many parts of the adult human body while the latter are made from four- to seven-day-old embryos which have the nucleus removed and the nucleus of another cell, such as a skin cell, inserted so that they can form stem cells. Dolly the cloned sheep, which we are all familiar with, was formed from the embryo of a sheep using a similar technique.

I think all Australians would ask: what, to date, are the results of research work on these two types of stem cells? Embryonic stem cells have not produced any cures and, in fact, in animal experiments have formed tumours. Professor Alan Mackay-Sim of Griffith University has said:

The serious problem of tumour formation from embryonic stem cells of any source remains a major obstacle.

By contrast, however, adult stem cells are credited with some 65 therapies. The most common we would all be familiar with is bone marrow transplant to treat leukaemia. Griffith University has also grown adult stem cells into new brain, liver, heart, kidney and muscle cells and has been conducting clinical trials at Princess Alexandra Hospital in Brisbane to regenerate spinal cells to help paralysed individuals walk again. Those clinical trials are ongoing.

At this juncture, I would like to talk about an expert in adult stem cell research. People ask why some stem cells produce therapies and others do not. We were very fortunate to have had many experts generously give their time to assist members in this House and in the Senate. One of them is Professor James Sherley, professor of biological engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He is a scientist at the forefront of adult stem cell research. From my perspective, he provided the best explanation for laypeople of the way in which stem cells differentiate. The bodies we have now are not the bodies we had two years ago. Our cells constantly regenerate—and it is adult stem cells that regenerate. Some parts of our body change their cells far more rapidly than others. Adult stem cells have the ability to divide asymmetrically—in other words, whilst they divide into new adult stem cells, they divide into the cells of the tissues that they repair or replicate. Adult stem cells have the ability to hold the memory of the cells around them—in other words, when they asymmetrically divide, if they are liver cells they will divide into one adult stem cell and a new liver cell. Embryonic stem cells, however, cannot repair tissue—which is, of course, the prime task of an adult stem cell—because they do not divide asymmetrically.

One of the reasons that embryonic stem cells form tumours at such a high rate is, as we would know, that they are there to create a whole new human being. The argument is that the tendency of embryonic stem cells to form tumours rather than divide asymmetrically and form new tissue can be overcome by research. According to Professor Sherley, that is very unlikely to be the case. What has happened is that the proponents have now changed tack; they are now looking to study disease processes rather than find cures. In fact, Harvard University has now asked that the embryos they are studying be allowed to grow beyond 14 days, which is of great concern to those of us who in 2002 said it would be a slippery slope if this were allowed.

I would like to go to some other points that Professor Sherley made. With cloned embryos, there are inevitably defects in genetic make-up. It is very difficult for a cloned animal to be grown without defects. As we know, Dolly the sheep had significant defects. The genes are altered. The stem cells that would be derived from human embryonic stem cells will, likewise, have significant defects.

I would like to move to the question of whether we support with additional funding the call for more work to be done on human embryonic stem cells when many experts doubt that there can be any effective therapies derived. I would prefer to see funding being put into adult stem cells, for which there are already some therapies derived and for which clinical trials are going on with human beings—whereas human embryonic stem cells are still at the animal trial stage, without any successes.

Having talked about the lack of scientific progress with human embryonic stem cells, I would like to turn to the core question, which is that human embryonic stem cells are not pieces of tissue, as some have asserted. There are questions about whether embryos are human beings and when human life begins. Professor Sherley says:

Both scientists and physicians know very well that human embryos are alive and human. A human life begins when a diploid complement of human DNA is initiated to begin human development. Therefore, a life can be initiated by the fusion of sperm and air or by the introduction of a diploid nucleus into an enucleated egg (ie, “cloning”). Given that embryos are human beings, they have a right to self and a right to life.

I would like to explore this a little further. We were all, at one stage, as small as embryos. Embryos are tiny collections of cells which are very small, but, if allowed to grow, they will form a whole new human being. I am very concerned that this legislation, if passed, will allow the creation of human embryos—some to live and some to die. I believe it is morally wrong to take the youngest of humans—with their souls—and sacrifice them when they have no voice to speak in their defence. I believe God gives each of us an immortal soul and that, if we have that soul at birth, we probably have it three months before birth, six months before birth and perhaps 8½ months before birth. We are making a decision to sacrifice other human beings who have no voice to speak for themselves.

If that sacrifice were to be for cures for many of mankind’s illnesses and ailments, I think it would be a difficult argument. But, demonstrably, at this point in time, not only are there no therapies from human embryonic stem cells; there are no successful trials with animals. Also, according to experts in stem cell research, there are inherent difficulties in the make-up of embryonic stem cells that do not lead them to a form of differentiation that can lead to cures. From a scientific point of view, I think those are very serious arguments against proceeding down this path.

It is my intention to vote against this legislation. I have another concern: the ability to access ova will plainly be difficult. The Senate has rejected one of the proposals of the Lockhart review, which was human-animal hybrids created from animal eggs and human sperm. As I said, I am pleased that the Senate has rejected that. Recently, researchers in the United Kingdom created a half cow-half human organism. It was later destroyed. I think most of us in this parliament would be horrified at such a prospect.

The Lockhart review and this bill, the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006, propose that, potentially, eggs from aborted female foetuses could be harvested to make up for the obvious difficulty of sourcing sufficient ova. It raises the question that aborted female foetuses could become mothers without ever having lived themselves.

In making a plea to the parliament, I do ask members to support the government in putting more funding towards adult stem cell research, which I believe has shown very encouraging results over a long period. I note the argument that others have used—that is, Australians might be denied the benefits of research, if it is successful, on embryonic stem cells. Can I say that no Australian is denied the benefits of research undertaken overseas at present on a range of other therapies. The argument to support this legislation, although there are as yet no successful outcomes, I think is a spurious argument.

Others have spoken of the heartache and distress of relatives and friends stricken with terrible illnesses. I have also supported a family member with a long and lingering illness and a painful death, although I do not now intend to elaborate on that. I respect the concern that other members of the House have to find any cure, but I do believe that it is also wrong and disrespectful to those who are suffering to divert funds from research that is demonstrably having results, such as adult stem cell research. I think the best thing that the parliament could do would be to support research which is showing results, such as adult stem cell research, and reject a path that the parliament rightly rejected in 2002. As I said, I will be voting against this bill, and I strongly support more funding for research on adult stem cell research.

Chris Hayes (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is not a religious debate and it is certainly not, as some would have it, an argument between science and superstition. The debate on the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 is based solely on ethics and the recognition of basic human values. From the outset can I say that I firmly believe we cannot seek to alleviate the suffering of some by creating and then destroying another human life. This is not a concept foreign to many members of this place, as it was central to the debate concerning two bills before this parliament in 2002, namely the Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002 and the Research Involving Human Embryos Bill 2002.

As the matter of cloning of human embryos was comprehensively dealt with by this parliament at that stage, which resulted in a unanimous position of banning human cloning, I would assert that it now falls to the proponents of this bill to demonstrate what has changed since the last time this matter was considered by the parliament. In 2002 Senator Patterson, in summing up her position, said:

I believe strongly that it is wrong to create human embryos solely for research. It is not morally permissible to develop an embryo with the intent of truncating it at an early stage for the benefit of another human being

I could not agree more. I think the then minister’s strong statement clearly sets out the ethical position held by this parliament four years ago. The Australian parliament rejected human cloning. In doing so, Australia effectively joined with 30 other nations in banning human cloning on ethical grounds. As this was the position only four years ago, I think we are entitled to ask: what has changed to cause us to reconsider that decision? It seems to me that the only thing that has changed since 2002 is the review that was provided for in this legislation, namely, the Lockhart review. I am sure that, in establishing that review, it was not the intention of the parliament to create an escape mechanism by which it could abrogate its responsibilities for ethics to a committee. The issues paper, circulated by the Lockhart committee in August 2005, stated:

It is not the purpose of the reviews to revisit underpinning community debate and rationale for two Acts. Rather, the purpose is to review the Acts in the light of any changes in scientific or community understanding or standards since 2002, and any indications that the provisions are no longer appropriate and/or practical in their application.

Notwithstanding that the Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill and the Research Involving Human Embryos Bill were supported and unanimously passed by this parliament, we now have a bill before us which seeks to reverse that decision.

In passing the legislation, the parliament clearly and decisively set a course of banning the creation of human embryos for the purpose of experimentation other than in relation to surplus eggs in the IVF program destined for destruction. It was within this strict regulatory regime that limited permission was granted for research on eggs provided by women in the IVF program which were no longer required and were destined for destruction. It now seems that some would like to rely on this proposition: if research on surplus IVF eggs is permissible, then why not do research on any embryo provided that it is for the purpose of bona fide scientific research and not implantation?

It would appear that the Lockhart committee has relied on this qualified exemption in respect of surplus IVF eggs to unravel the underpinning proposition of the 2002 legislation. The committee attempts to draw a distinction between the moral status of human embryos based on how and why the embryo was created. According to the committee, an embryo created for the intention of reproduction is seen differently to one created for experimentation and destruction during scientific research. In fact the committee said:

... while it was difficult to logically define a moral difference between embryos formed by fertilisation and those formed by nuclear transfer or related methods, it appeared that embryos formed by fertilisation of eggs by sperm may have a different social or relational significance from embryos formed by nuclear transfer.

It is this distinction that forms the basis of the committee’s recommendation to permit experimentation on any embryo provided that it does not have a social or relationship significance. What I struggle with is that in four years we have come from a position of banning human embryo cloning to now considering whether to permit scientific research and experimentation which as a consequence permits the creation of human embryos.

The 45 recommendations made by the Lockhart committee included allowing the creation of embryos by SCNT, utilising female eggs and/or, in the case of hybrids, an animal egg provided that it is not be implanted in a woman or allowed to develop beyond 14 days. While the creation of hybrid embryos has been removed from this bill, this has not removed the problem of having a limited supply of embryos. That was the stated vision for the inclusion of hybrids in the first place. I am concerned that the limited supply of eggs may be overcome through the creation of markets aimed at increasing the supply and consequently creating unwanted or unintended social consequences. The inquiry heard from Katrina George, director of the Womens Forum, of the difficulties faced in other countries in securing the necessary supply of human eggs without providing women with commercial incentives. As I understand it, some women in the UK are being offered discounts on the IVF program should they decide to donate eggs for research. The argument of the Womens Forum is that if egg donation is open to commercial incentives women, and presumably women from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, may be more likely to be exposed to coercive practices or, at worst, exploitation.

I know that such outcomes are not intended by those supporting the expansion of the use of cloning for medical research, but they are something that I am certainly cognisant of. In any event, the question remains: what has changed in four years to warrant a reversal of the parliament’s decision to ban the cloning of human embryos? That is exactly what an independent scientific consulting group was engaged to assess and advise the cabinet on. After reviewing the Lockhart report, Matthews Pegg concluded that little if anything had changed that would warrant a change in the existing legislation. They were not alone in that view of questioning the benefits of embryonic stem cell research. Dr Nicholas Tonti-Filippini is quoted in the parliamentary committee report as saying:

Nothing has changed scientifically to support some kind of new argument of necessity to use SCNT embryonic stem cells. If anything, the possibility of developing therapies involving cultured embryonic stem cell transplant has become more remote as more has become known about the difficulties.

Like many members in this place, I took the opportunity to meet James Sherley, Associate Professor of Biological Engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, when he recently visited Canberra. If anything, this man was accusing many in the debate, including me, of letting the scientific proponents of embryonic stem cell research get away with not having to justify their optimism about the likely therapeutic outcomes from this research. In an article published in the Journal of Biomedicine and Biotechnology, Sherley argues:

In order for promised hESC-based therapies to be successful, first hESCs must be converted into adult stem cells.

He goes on to conclude:

So, why destroy human life ... when the essential barrier to effective cell therapies is the need for more research to understand adult stem cells? Adult stem cells can be obtained from informed consenting adults, and they already have examples of successful cell therapies.

Unfortunately, as we approach this debate, very few people seem to distinguish or, in many cases, understand the essential differences in the various disciplines associated with stem cell research. Many mistakenly attribute the advances in stem cell research to embryonic stem cell development when in fact, to date, the most significant developments have occurred through adult stem cell research. Adult stem cell research has shown promise in treating a range of conditions including Parkinson’s disease, spinal cord injury, blood diseases and heart damage. Indeed, improvements in bone marrow transplantation are a very real example of what is currently available and developed through adult stem cell therapy.

Professor Alan Mackay-Sim, director of the Eskitis Institute of Cell and Molecular Therapies at Griffith University, has strongly advocated that adult stem cell research is an ethical alternative to human embryo cloning. He says it is probable that such adult stem cell lines will render therapeutic cloning irrelevant and impractical. Similarly, considerable advances have been made in therapies involving neonatal or umbilical cord blood stem cells, as I understand it. To date, patients suffering with various diseases are being treated with stem cell based therapies from cord blood. Stem cells from cord blood are laying a very strong foundation in terms of rejuvenative medicine. Only last week it was reported in the UK that researchers at the University of Newcastle had successfully grown mini livers capable of being used to test new drugs and, in the future, providing life-saving treatments to patients in need of liver transplants. Again, while an important field of stem cell research, this does not cross the ethical divide.

I appreciate the reality that there are strong competing views between various scientific disciplines. I also appreciate the commercial reality of attracting and retaining funds within the respective research institutions of this nation. To some extent, one of the grounds being relied upon to support embryonic stem cell research is to allow Australia to stay in a competitive position with international research. It is argued that not to allow cloning would place this country at a competitive disadvantage to other world players in the quest to develop therapies for various diseases. If this is the intention behind the bill, I wonder whether this is the ethical thin edge of the wedge when it comes to the cloning debate.

While the position of the bill is clear, in that human cloned cells cannot be allowed to develop beyond 14 days, I wonder what our position would be if scientists in other parts of the world were to report greater benefits from having an embryo reach 28 days. Our scientists may again feel that they are being left behind in research or are at a competitive disadvantage if they do not follow. If we were to allow that, why would we not consider the scientific advantage of allowing research up to the early stage of foetal development? After all, some have already speculated about the prospects of this development in organ replacement therapies. Will we maintain the position that anything beyond 14 days is unethical and therefore unacceptable, regardless of reason? If we take this step, can we really say, ‘This far and no further,’ or have we already crossed the ethical divide?

In passing this bill, I believe that we will have already crossed the ethical threshold. Only four years ago this parliament took a position based on ethical considerations to ban human cloning of embryos, and today we are debating whether to allow cloning, provided the embryo is destroyed within 14 days. I strongly assert that passing this bill will compromise our position on ethically based research.

With such a fundamental change in the 2002 position, you might expect to see some clear evidence that, without this change, it will be to the overall disadvantage of humanity. At least you would expect to see some evidence of significant developments in scientific research to justify more permissive legislation, particularly when such serious ethical issues are at stake. But no: we are being asked to pass this bill without the slightest indication that there is any real prospect of successful therapies emerging. In fact, we are yet to see any reason for optimism based on the clinical work performed on animals. Despite this, we have people speculating on a range of therapies likely to result from embryonic stem cell research. I agree with Professor Sherley’s caution in this regard. As he says, researchers:

… must take care that they do not take advantage of the hopes and fears of people who yearn so desperately for cures that they will regretfully overlook their own moral objections.

Professor Jack Martin, in his submission to the Lockhart review, said:

The potential benefits of treatment of diseases with human ES cells have been greatly exaggerated, with many of the suggested cures only long term possibilities and some not even remotely possible.

No member in this debate is against scientific research being undertaken for the betterment of humanity. However, it should not be based on some lofty aims or some speculative hope but on a very clear indication of the consequences of the research if it is to lay any challenge to our notion of ethical standards, which was so aptly summarised for this parliament in 2002 by Senator Patterson.

In delivering the 2006 Thomas Moore lecture, the noted ethicist and human rights lawyer Father Frank Brennan said on the status of human embryos:

Some, including many scientists, think that an embryo should be accorded some special ‘human’ status only if it be created by the union of an egg and sperm, be more than 14 days old, and be intended by its ‘creators’ for implantation in a womb. Others think that an embryo should be accorded special respect from the moment of creation regardless of means, intention or age.

I fall into the latter category, and I oppose this bill.

Cameron Thompson (Blair, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a range of remarks that I want to make about the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. I want to begin by stating that my position on the bill is well known: I have not hidden my strong support for it, just as I did not hide my support for its predecessor, the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002. I congratulate Senator Kay Patterson for preparing this bill and for having it pass the Senate. Without prejudging the vote in this House, I personally hope for and strongly anticipate its passage through this chamber and subsequently into law.

I was going to begin with something of a critique of the opportunities and health advantages that are sought to be engaged through the processes that this bill would seek to regulate, but I think I will leave that aside for the time being and come to something that I think is also quite significant. I want to begin by discussing the very process of somatic cell nuclear transfer that has been picked over and discussed by members and in the general community at quite some length since this bill was first countenanced.

I say quite clearly that there is a big difference between an embryo formed by the joining of a human egg and a human sperm and an empty human egg such as those to be used in the SCNT research process. Empty eggs such as these are ejected from the bodies of women every month and these ejected eggs are in no way part of the human life cycle. SCNT involves the removal of the nucleus of an empty egg and its replacement with human DNA from another source. The egg is denucleated and material added to spark the creation of stem cells that bear the imprint of the added material. This empty egg is not an embryo in the sense that ideologues and some of those with an axe to grind in this debate would have you think. It is not implanted in a human uterus and at no time is it part of the human life cycle.

Over the years there have been various pieces of legislation in parliaments, federal and state, governing practices that do impact on human embryos, even on foetuses and on babies. Of course, the health impacts and the types of legislation that I discuss do have wide ramifications and are widely discussed and will remain a sore point for people with a particular view in our community. These laws attract controversy, and not without good reason. However, this bill and the therapies and research it controls do not enliven the same degree of intervention and should not enliven the same degree of reactive controversy.

I am a strong advocate of this bill because I recognise, and from time to time I have reason to mix with, people who are fighting so strongly for a cure to serious debilitating illnesses. When they say to me and to my colleagues, ‘We want you to work to help us find a cure,’ they do not say that just as a debating point; they say it, as you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, with a tear in their eye. They say it because they are committed to relieving sickness and illness in our community. I want to always have it said about me that I had that attitude as well.

I do not accept that it is reasonable that I should appeal to part of a constituency to be popular or for some other particular reason by taking a certain ideological viewpoint and that I should set that pursuit aside and not be genuine in my efforts to find the funding, to give the support, to make it happen for those people who are suffering things like MS or motor neurone disease or diabetes. I suppose it comes from the fact that I am myself a sufferer of diabetes type 1, and this has often been discussed by me and by others about me.

In the lead-up to this bill coming before the House, I have spoken publicly on this topic. Recently the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation staged in the parliament the very successful Kids in the House event, where young sufferers of type 1 diabetes, including Phoenix Weaver and Sean Binns from the electorate of Blair, came all the way to Canberra with their parents and carers to remind us of their suffering and ask that we rededicate ourselves to the search for a cure. As part of the Kids in the House activities, the JDRF hosted a dinner in the Mural Hall, where I heard leading researchers from all over the world saying how close we are to finding that elusive cure to diabetes type 1. At present the possibility of a cure seems so close you can almost taste it. In fact, there are several avenues of inquiry all holding out real prospects that the serious consequences of diabetes, such as those I have described in my speech on the 2002 bill, will soon become a thing of the past—although how soon is the big question.

Among those options for research, the most prospective and most realistic opportunities for an effective and lasting cure are those that involve the processes we are discussing here today—embryonic stem cell therapy and somatic cell nuclear transfer. The same researchers that have enlivened such hope in the large community of 140,000 type 1 diabetics in Australia as well as in their parents and loved ones are telling us that our support for this bill will aid the process. They are saying it very clearly. The cure for diabetes may come through these techniques and therapies or it may come from another source. But we do not have the luxury of divine sight to know in advance that we can afford to blithely rule out these practices.

I have heard the words of fellow members that claim that stem cells from adult sources or from umbilical cords or placentas are all we need to pursue cures such as the one we are so desperately in need of in the case of diabetes type 1. But these are my colleagues, not scientists. Sometimes they quote a scientist in their cause, but in every case there comes that age-old whiff of ideology or self-interest that rings so familiar from the 2002 debate.

The scientists I heard addressing the JDRF dinner were those leading the campaign that funds research of all types. They support research into the development of insulin pumps—not like the one I wear today, but pumps that would recreate artificially the entire process that controls the release of insulin into the body automatically. That would be a huge step forward, and these are options being supported strongly by the JDRF. But that does not stop JDRF scientists supporting the research options that are presented as a result of embryonic stem cell therapy and SCNT.

So I hear what they say. Their advice is good and unequivocal. It comes from a source that is authoritative and untainted by dogmatic ideology. There is no conflict of interest—which is the fundamental problem: the credibility gap faced by scientists who are themselves engaged in alternative research.

These are the scientists, the ones engaged in alternative research, who hear the words of the opponents of this bill and know that its defeat would force their research competitors to leave the country. The rigorous competitive challenge among Australian researchers for funding to pursue cures to major illnesses like diabetes, MS or MND would be cut in half. It would be slanted and stunted as a result.

Scientists who genuinely believe that SCNT and embryonic stem cell therapies offer the key to these vital cures will just have to relocate their research elsewhere. Opponents of this bill have to face up to the fact that, through their actions, they may well delay these cures. They have to face up to the fact that if they succeed in bringing this part of our research to a halt they may derail the entire Australian effort in the very research which may one day provide the cure or cures and many other things.

I speak about cures and about diseases, but these therapies offer the potential for other therapeutic benefits that are not so readily discussed and, in some cases, understood. Members would be familiar with the Australian Red Cross Blood Service, which collects blood for transfusions across Australia. To this end, more than 1.1 million donations of blood are collected from Australians every year. This is a wonderful service which creates life-giving opportunities for Australians who have been in car accidents and who are undergoing operations and other medical procedures every day of the week. But we know that that service is not infallible. Sadly, many Australians with diseases such as HIV-AIDS contracted through tainted blood are testament to this fact. Sadly, also, today the donation system groans under the weight of demands on its services and the restrictions that reduce the number of available donors to protect the health of the recipients of that blood. Once again, there is the prospect of hope that, through embryonic stem cell research and SCNT, we can develop a productive source of blood to meet this growing need into the future without the kinds of logistical and health-endangering problems that come through the current practice of sourcing blood through donations exclusively.

Blood donated through the existing system is used as follows: 30 per cent to cancer patients, 15 per cent to heart disease patients, 15 per cent to stomach and bowel disease patients, 12 per cent to burns victims, 12 per cent to accident victims, six per cent to liver and kidney disease patients, five per cent to haemophiliacs and five per cent to babies and pregnant women. This is a core part of our health system that could be directly affected by this kind of material, and you do not have to be particularly engaged in the scientific process to see the magnificent opportunities that that raises.

Without going any further, I strongly endorse the bill and encourage all my colleagues to do likewise.

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What has changed since 2002? The then health minister, in summing up her position on cloning, said:

I believe strongly that it is wrong to create human embryos solely for research. It is not morally permissible to develop an embryo with the intent of truncating it at an early stage for the benefit of another human being.

Well, what has changed? We are now being asked, in considering the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006, to examine and then approve the creation of a human embryo for the very purposes which Senator Patterson argued so persuasively in 2002 should not be allowed. So there must be some scientific breakthrough or some new moral perspective to warrant not only the consideration of this legislation but also a vote in favour of it. And that is what we need to examine: what has changed?

On the question of scientific breakthroughs and promise, Professor Loane Skene, who was a member of the Lockhart committee, gave a presentation to those members of the parliament who wished to hear from her and she described therapeutic cloning as pure science. I commend Professor Skene for her candour and the frank manner in which she answered questions that were asked of her. Professor Skene is clearly an advocate of therapeutic cloning but she did not seek to mislead those who asked the question, ‘What is the promise that is available under this form of experimentation?’ She did not seek to mislead; she said that it was pure science—in other words, it held out no particular promise. So, on the scientific field, nothing has changed since 2002 when the parliament unanimously voted against cloning.

The member for Blair has just advised us of the suffering that he experiences as a sufferer of diabetes type 1. I am very sorry for that. I am very sorry for the suffering of any and all human beings. But the member for Blair then went on to say that a cure for diabetes type 1 is ‘so close you can almost taste it’ and that this proposal for therapeutic cloning is contributing to the scientific knowledge that will lead to a cure for diabetes type 1 which is ‘so close’ that ‘you can almost taste it’. That is, unfortunately, incorrect. There has been no development in relation to therapeutic cloning that would give the member for Blair, and other sufferers of diabetes type 1, any hope or promise that such a cure will be found through therapeutic cloning. Indeed, there is no particular promise at all associated with this line of research.

We need then to examine what has changed in relation to the ethical consideration of this issue. The proposal before us creates a new ethical boundary. There is no dispute from the Lockhart committee that the bill would allow the creation of a human embryo, yet in his contribution the member for Blair said that this would not be an embryo and that an embryo would not be created despite what ‘ideologues’ say. I do not believe for a moment that asserting that this process creates a human embryo is an ideological position. The Lockhart review committee’s report said that this is the creation of a human embryo. Is the member for Blair accusing them of ideology when they conceded—volunteered—that this was the creation of an embryo, when they are, in fact, advocates of therapeutic cloning? It is incorrect for the member for Blair to assert that only people who are ideologues could claim that therapeutic cloning creates a human embryo. The Lockhart review asserted with full confidence that there is no doubt that this process does create a human embryo.

Furthermore, there is no dispute that such embryos are destined for destruction. The Lockhart committee does not assert otherwise. It is very open and honest that the purpose of the creation of these human embryos is for experimentation and destruction. That is beyond debate and beyond dispute. The boundary that we are being asked to cross in this parliament is to create a human life for the purposes of experimentation and then destruction. That is a huge ethical boundary that we must all consider very carefully.

What significance are we to attach to the embryo so created? Those who argue in favour of this legislation effectively answer ‘not much’; it is not really very important. Those who argue against this legislation say that this embryo is important. Again we should look at what the Lockhart committee report says about this, because it needs to grapple with this new ethical issue. It says:

... the Committee found that, while it was difficult to logically define a moral difference between embryos formed by fertilisation and those formed by nuclear transfer or related methods, it appeared that embryos formed by fertilisation of eggs by sperm may have a different social or relational significance from embryos formed by nuclear transfer.

Those are the key words: ‘a different social or relational significance’. This becomes the new ethical definition: if an embryo has a social or relational significance, we should respect it and protect it; if an embryo does not have a social or relational significance, we should not worry about its destruction. What a subjective judgement that is. Who is going to go around Australia and the world deciding whether a particular embryo has a social or relational significance? That is very worrying. It is very dangerous territory to have such subjective judgements made outside of this parliament by people who just determine on the basis of their own view of the world whether a particular embryo that has been created has a social or relational significance. As Father Frank Brennan argues, this is very dangerous territory.

When does a cloned embryo attain such a social or relational significance that it then demands, according to those who wrote the Lockhart report, proper consideration, respect and protection? Apparently the answer to that is on the 14th day. How about that! On the 13th day, this embryo does not have a social or relational significance. On the 15th day, it does have a social or relational significance. So, on the 14th day, we will destroy it to prevent it getting a social or relational significance on the 15th day. That there is something magical about the 14th day is an absurd proposition. I asked Professor Skene and others, ‘What is this great moral event that occurs on the 14th day of the existence of this embryo so created?’ The only answer they could give was, ‘We think that is roughly when nerve cells begin to form. Since nerve cells could begin to form around then, it might hurt this organism when it is killed.’

This is quite absurd. They needed a number, they chose the number 14 and then they tried to give some meaning to that number. I then asked, ‘How could we be assured that we as a parliament are not asked to then approve the creation of these embryos for, say, 28 days or 56 days or 112 days?’ The answer was, ‘No such request has been made overseas.’ Great! We are now reassured that, because no request has been made overseas to date, no such request ever will be made. By this time, we have crossed the ethical boundary. As other speakers, such as the member for Werriwa, have said, is there a new boundary to be crossed which is called ‘the early stages of foetal development’? Are we then going to be asked to approve the creation of and experimentation on an embryo right up to and including the early stages of foetal development, and then approve its destruction? Surely the parliament would be getting pretty squeamish about that, but I do not know where the boundary is once you create the 14 days. I do not know where it stops, and that is why I believe it is so dangerous.

We all—everyone in this parliament—want cures to debilitating diseases that prematurely end lives and that so badly affect the quality of life. But all the advice that has come to me and to other colleagues who are arguing against this legislation is that adult stem cell research holds more promise than the pure science, as described by Professor Skene, associated with therapeutic cloning. The fact of the matter is that all of the representations that I have received on this from local residents of the electorate of Rankin have asked me to vote against it. Not one has asked me to vote in favour of it. Other people may have had different experiences, but I am reporting at least one indicator of the feeling in my community, and I always take account of the feelings that are expressed in the community that I represent. Ultimately, we are being asked to agree to the creation of human life for the purposes of its destruction. I cannot agree with that, and I oppose the bill.

Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When this parliament debated the difficult issues of embryonic stem cell research and cloning four years ago, I made the point in this House that the propositions upon which the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002 had been constructed challenged every one of us in this House to balance two critical issues: firstly, the innate and worthy desire of mankind to improve, to conquer diseases and to progress to new frontiers of medical science; and, secondly, the need to maintain medical research within ethical boundaries.

Like many speakers, I reflected on the fact that pushing the frontiers of medical and scientific research has been a hallmark of our civilisation. It is the reason mankind has continuously progressed. All of the inventions, the discoveries and the breakthroughs that have moved society forward have been the result of constant human endeavour and the desire to overcome obstacles, to stretch the boundaries and to push the limits. The engine of human progress has been driven by a desire to continually improve, to never reach a point where we say we have done all we want to do.

However, as a society we have always had to, and in the future will always have to, pause and consider the important ethical arguments as we move to new areas of human endeavour. Four years ago the great question was whether the propositions advanced in the bill crossed that ethical divide and breached a fundamental ethical boundary of mankind. Back then, the proposition was of course to allow embryos excess to the IVF program to be used for research. Cloning of all types was prohibited.

The choice was this: should excess IVF embryos which were destined for destruction in any case be made available for research within important and strict boundaries? Some argued at that time that the 2002 bill crossed that ethical boundary because the embryos would be destroyed as a consequence of the research. I did not agree with that view. Four years ago I supported stem cell research on excess IVF embryos within boundaries; otherwise the embryos would either remain in a freezer in perpetuity or be removed and cease to exist. Whilst I fully respected the views of those who opposed stem cell research in the 2002 bill, I wholeheartedly agreed with the Prime Minister, who said during the debate:

In the end, I could not find a sufficiently compelling moral difference between allowing a surplus embryo to succumb by exposure to room temperature, on the one hand, and the use of those embryos for potentially therapeutic research, on the other. That is why, in the end, I come down in favour of therapeutic research.

Today in the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 we are faced with a new decision. We are asked to move beyond the 2002 framework by allowing the creation of cloned embryos for research. Fours years ago I strongly believed that the proposition advanced at that time and eventually legislated did not cross or breach the ethical boundary. In reaching that decision I disagreed with the minority who opposed any embryonic stem cell research whatsoever.

Four years ago we were asked to allow research on existing embryos which had been created but which would otherwise be of no use or destroyed. To that, I said yes. Today we are asked to give permission to create cloned embryos for research. To that, I must say no. Four years ago, after careful consideration, I strongly believed that the proposition that was advanced did not cross the ethical boundary. Today, I strongly believe that the proposition advanced in this bill would cross that boundary, and for that reason I will not vote in favour of the bill.

There are some who say that there is no difference at a scientific level between an embryo created through the IVF process and a cloned human embryo, each of a few days duration. At a scientific level, I am sure they are probably right. But that is not the issue that matters for me. The issue that matters is the intention. The excess IVF embryos which are available for research but not cloning were created with one intention: to create a human life, a person who would be born and live a life. What is proposed in this bill is the ability to create cloned embryos with a different intention: to conduct research.

I accept that the intention of the proposed research is still to provide for life by seeking to find cures to the most afflicting diseases confronting our fellow citizens today and into the future. I accept the good and noble motives of those advancing that proposition in this debate, but I cannot agree that the two are ethically equivalent. I also do not criticise the scientists and medical experts for advancing these propositions, although I must note in this debate that by no means are the medical or scientific communities united on this bill. I do not criticise them because it is their purpose to strive for new frontiers. However, it is society’s role, and particularly this parliament’s role, to determine the boundaries and legal framework. That is what we are here for.

I respect the views of those who support the bill, even though I differ with them, and I do not agree with every argument advanced by opponents of this bill. However, I have weighed the issues carefully, as I did on the last occasion. Whilst all of us will have differences in one way or another on matters such as this, we should all be united by the wonderful advances scientists are making with adult stem cells, which are showing real promise, and the prospects that embryonic stem cell research may show within the unanimously agreed guidelines of 2002.

The debate has involved some passion. Some have criticised that, but I do not. If there were not passionate argument, advocacy and disagreement on issues such as this, we would have some cause to worry about the capacity and health of our parliament. As is always the case with conscience votes, all of us, irrespective of how we vote, will disappoint some people and please others. I have received a considerable number of phone calls, faxes, emails and letters. For those Casey residents who took the time to let me know their views, I thank them. I have read and listened to everything put to me, but my decision and my vote on this matter has not been determined by the calculation of the weight of opinion within the community or within my electorate, but rather, as it should be in any conscience vote, by my own consideration of the detail of what is proposed and my own conscience.

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Resources, Forestry and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Although it cannot be pinpointed exactly, evidence suggests that life on earth has existed for about 3.7 billion years. It has also been suggested that about 130,000 years ago the first primitive humans walked the globe. For much of that time, humanity has debated the questions of what life is, how it is defined and what form it can take. This longstanding debate has sought to define the ethical boundaries surrounding these questions and, as time has progressed, these boundaries have changed, adjusting to society’s technological and research developments and requirements. The debate that we are holding today will not be the last debate of this nature. It is something society will expect and constantly question and, thanks to our democratic society, it is something that will always be debated. They are pertinent questions as, in essence, this is what we are debating here today.

Following the private member’s bill introduced by Senator Kay Patterson in the other place, the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 seeks to amend the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 and the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002 so that they are in line with the 2005 recommendations of the Lockhart legislative review committee.

As we all appreciate, scientists tend to argue that the primitive streak is the first sign within the dividing cells of a multicellular structure that signals life. If development of this primitive streak were allowed to continue, it would ultimately become the basis of the nervous system of an embryo. A nervous system would enable pain to be felt and signals the possibility that a more complex life could develop. It is also fair to say that not everyone agrees with this position and some argue that really this is all just a semantic game. But such an argument dismisses the very core of this issue; it is why we are here today debating this bill in a proper, constructive and cooperative way through a conscience vote.

The ethical dilemmas surrounding the issue of embryonic stem cell research are founded in individual definitions of when and how life is created. Very few of us in this House are scientists, but an understanding of the processes involved in the issues we are debating is necessary so the complexities of this bill can be digested and an informed conclusion can be made.

Central to embryonic stem cell research is the process of somatic cell nuclear transfer—SCNT technology. This process involves taking the nucleus of a somatic cell, such as a skin or blood cell, and implanting it into an egg. Through chemical and physical stimulation, cell division occurs in the same way that an egg fertilised by a sperm would commence to divide and go on to create an embryo. However, where the issue is complicated is whether or not you can speculate that the entity created by SCNT technology is an embryo. It is a question up for debate, along with the question of whether or not this entity would develop into a foetus. Can an embryo only be created through the fertilisation of an egg by a sperm? If not, could a human clone be produced through an entity created through SCNT technology?

No human being has ever been cloned and so whether or not a comparable process would result in the birth of a human clone baby is unknown. One of the reasons a human clone has never been produced is that, just as it is here in Australia, and appropriately so, in many countries across the globe human cloning is banned for obvious, substantive reasons. Let us also be clear: this bill does not change that. Human cloning and the processes that might—and I stress might—give rise to this process are still outlawed in Australia, and any breach faces heavy fines. And so it should.

The issue of human cloning is not up for debate today, although some people may be forgiven for thinking it is. This issue of embryonic stem cell research using SCNT technology processes is complex, yet too often the debate is obscured by emotive reactions and fearmongering that reduces the debate down to one that suggests the passage of this bill will allow scientists to create a human clone. That is not what this debate is about.

Dr Gregory Pike, the Director of the Southern Cross Bioethics Institute, has referred to the preferred use of the term ‘SCNT technology’ over ‘therapeutic cloning’ as a case of semantic gymnastics. But many scientists see the term ‘SCNT technology’ as a more accurate one, as ‘therapeutic cloning’ does suggest that cloning is taking place, when this really is not the case. The SCNT process is not cloning, despite what those of us who do not have a scientific background would think.

This brings me to an important point. There is a widespread very low level of understanding of the actual issue and the processes involved. This is not due to ignorance on behalf of the public or an inability by the media to accurately convey the issue; rather it reflects the fact that embryonic stem cell research using SCNT technology is highly complex and that, at the end of the day, it boils down to some very small differences in definition.

Objections to the legislation based on current public opinion that does not support the issue of therapeutic cloning or SCNT need to take this into consideration, because it is worthy of contemplation: if the public had a good grasp of the science being applied, would that change public attitudes? This is an important part of this debate, because more often than not, when people do not fully understand the issue at hand, they are more likely to make an emotive judgement. This is particularly the case with public opinion regarding anything concerning cloning, which is always guaranteed to evoke in people’s minds a situation where science is out of control and is being pursued almost as if it were a game, and that is not the intention of the bill before the House or of any members of the House or the Senate, where this bill has previously been debated. In highlighting this point, however, once again I would like to stress that I do not feel that the low level of community understanding on this issue is a negative reflection of the public’s aptitude or that of the media, but it simply highlights the intricacies that define the debate and the need for such education deficiencies to be overcome.

This brings me to another important point: the question of intent. While there is a lot of speculation about whether or not it is ethical to endorse SCNT technology as a form of scientific research, because it might produce a life form and that life form might develop into a clone, these are not issues concerning this bill, as they are addressed through stringent safeguards contained within it and supported by all participants in this debate. The bill clearly lays down requirements that any stem cells produced through SCNT technology be destroyed after 14 days. This is not a randomly selected figure. It is commonly believed in science that after the 14th day from when the nucleus of a somatic cell is transferred into an egg there is a likely chance that a primitive streak will develop. As I mentioned before, this is a critical stage because if a primitive streak is allowed to develop it ultimately signals the possibility that a more complex life could develop. So with requirements in place to minimise any ethical complications, coupled with further requirements that restrict the use of the cells, safeguards are provided that address community concerns about the technology’s potential and intent.

The requirements governing the use of the cells require a licence to be issued by the National Health and Medical Research Council licensing committee in accordance with legislated criteria and that the research is undertaken in accordance with the licence. So far only nine licences have been issued in Australia. One joint licence has been issued in New South Wales to IVF Australia and the Diabetes Transplant Unit at the Prince of Wales Hospital to create stem cell lines from frozen excess embryos that will be used in a range of diabetes tests. All those organisations are reputable and respected institutions in the Australian community, irrespective of one’s point of view in this debate.

Australia is not alone in identifying the intent of the research as fundamental to the issue. In the United Kingdom similar requirements have been laid down in the law, with all research carried out to be undertaken for therapeutic purposes only where knowledge about the development of embryos, serious disease or the development of therapies may be gained. On the other side of the globe in South Korea, therapeutic cloning is allowed for research purposes only and is limited to 18 diseases, including diabetes, leukaemia and Alzheimer’s. The intended use of the cells will play a central role in the awarding of a licence to carry out the research and should provide the community with some comfort. This bill will not provide science free rein to experiment however and on whatever it likes in the name of science and science alone; this bill is designed to provide society with one of the best available options to enhance the quality of life of humanity.

Those in favour of the bill have highlighted that SCNT technology is a necessary vehicle for future medical solutions and that, while, yes, gains have been made scientifically in the area of adult stem cell research, both of these lines of research need to be explored in order to gather the most intelligence we can about serious diseases afflicting our society. This is not a debate choosing between adult stem cell research and embryonic stem cell research. Both have enormous potential and both need to be explored, as they hold significant benefits in finding a potential cure or advancement that would improve the health status of people suffering a variety of diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, cystic fibrosis, Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, multiple sclerosis, motor neurone disease, spinal cord and brain damage, and muscular dystrophy.

In Australia almost 92,000 people suffer from type 1 diabetes, making up 0.5 per cent of the total population and a growing problem. It is a horrible disease that severely affects the quality of life of the sufferer. I also draw the attention of the House to the fact that, increasingly, we are seeing it emerge in children, which means that they will have the terrible disease for life and that their lives will be shortened by up to 15 years. In 2004 alone, almost 1,000 children were diagnosed with the disease.

There is therefore a real need for science, through a controlled process, to explore avenues that present us with the possibility of finding a cure or at least a development that will help reduce symptoms and complications. No-one in this debate is suggesting that the ultimate answer to diseases like diabetes lies in embryonic stem cell research alone, but it does present us with enormous possibilities to advance science for humanity’s sake. To suggest that this form of research will provide the answers to the world’s health problems would be foolish and ignorant of the nature of science. Very much like politics, science is a field defined by incremental gains with small steps that, combined, allow for significant advances, rather than sudden revelations. Embryonic stem cell research is just one small piece of a much larger puzzle.

At present, adult stem cell research is already being used to treat over 70 human diseases, but embryonic stem cell research is still in its infancy. That is why we are having this debate today. It is an area that has only been explored for eight years compared to the 50 years of adult stem cell research. Can we legislate against this avenue of scientific exploration on the grounds that it might not yield any significant results, when so much is still to be explored?

What if it does provide a pathway to finding a cure for diabetes? I am not saying that any means should justify that end—such would be a dangerous approach. But I do support the bill, as it presents an appropriate opportunity for advances that will ease human pain and suffering. Furthermore, I support it because stringent requirements have been incorporated into the bill. These requirements will ensure that any research is carried out with a clear intent that accords with the fundamental purpose for which this bill was created. I believe it does strike an appropriate balance between scientific advancement and research monitored through regulation and the valid concerns of the community.

That is why I stand here today to indicate my clear support for this bill, as I am a person who will always look towards hope rather than be held back by fear. I also extend to the House my appreciation for the opportunity to participate in this debate—it is an important debate—and for the manner in which it is being approached by all members of the House. These conscience votes give us a terrific opportunity to do our own research and to express our individualism. I commend the bill to the House.

Andrew Southcott (Boothby, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, I want to go to the heart of why the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 will be decided through a conscience vote. The reason is that issues surrounding life, the creation of life and so on are not issues that are party political in Australia. The political parties were formed around issues in the workplace, industrial relations and the role of government. I believe it would be a very backward step if ever we did have political parties formed solely around one side of the argument on matters such as we are now debating. We see in the United States, for example, that the parties have to a much greater extent coalesced around issues such as abortion. You see that campaigns there are very much dominated by such divisive issues as abortion or embryonic stem cell research. I say: long may we have a diversity of views within political parties on these issues of life. That is why having a conscience vote is very important—because there is not a ‘party view’ on this issue.

When we weigh up a conscience vote, as members of parliament we listen to the evidence and to our constituents and we look deeply to our own experiences. As members of parliament we all come to this place with different formative influences and different motivations and we draw from different sources of inspiration. As a medical student and doctor before coming into parliament, I remember being inspired by reading the stories of historic medical advances. I think of the story of the Canadians Best and Banting, who isolated insulin from the pancreata of dogs in a small lab in Toronto in the 1920s. That discovery has improved and saved the lives of millions of people with diabetes today.

I confess that Howard Florey was a boyhood hero of mine. He was from Adelaide, studied at Adelaide medical school and grew up in the electorate of Boothby. By using the earlier discovery made by Sir Alexander Fleming of the penicillium mould, Howard Florey was able to develop the antibiotic penicillin—a development which was available for soldiers in the Second World War and has been used for the last 60 years. This was another landmark development which triggered further advances.

These are just some of the breakthrough developments in the treatment of disease in the last century. Some advances have been controversial; some have been ethically challenging. I think of organ transplantation. Organ transplantation is widely accepted today. We have a national organ donor register. Several states encourage citizens to nominate on their driver’s licences their wish to donate organs in the event of their death, and yet to harvest organs requires a very difficult determination by two medical practitioners that a donor is brain dead. It involves the harvesting of organs from an individual with no prospect of further life.

There have been a lot of comments and arguments about embryonic stem cell research. The main issue today, though, is the issue of somatic cell nuclear transfer. That is the threshold issue which the parliament must consider. What we need to do is weigh up the hope of advances through this technique within an ethical framework against the moral and ethical considerations that this technique involves.

Firstly, what is involved in somatic cell nuclear transfer? There has been considerable confusion about the science of this approach, even from some of the journalists reporting on this debate. It does not involve removing the nucleus of an embryo, which I have seen several articles state. The constituent parts of an SCNT embryo are a cell and an egg. The cell might be a skin cell. The technique involves removing the nucleus from an egg and then replacing it with the DNA from a donor cell such as a skin cell.

This would only ever occur with the consent of the person from whom the cell is taken. It would only occur with a specific purpose to remedy some ill, such as diabetes or Parkinson’s, for that individual. It would only occur for a specific purpose as determined by a patient’s clinicians. It would only occur if an application were granted by the NHMRC licensing committee. It would only occur if it were given the go-ahead by the ethics committee of the university or the hospital that was conducting this technique. It would only occur if it were consistent with the professional ethics of the college of which the clinicians were members. But ultimately it would only occur if the individual whom the therapy was for made the decision that this therapy was for them.

I have decided to support this bill. I believe that there is a range of views on the science and on this therapy. I believe that individuals can determine this decision for themselves and that it should be done subject to a very tight regulatory framework. I should point out that the chance of an SCNT embryo being a viable embryo is less than one per cent. Of course this legislation prohibits the embryo ever being implanted. It prohibits an embryo going past 14 days. SCNT is legal in Belgium, China, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, South Korea, Singapore, South Africa, Sweden, Thailand, the United Kingdom and the United States.

I draw to the attention of the House an article which appeared in Nature Biotechnology on 10 October 2006 by D’Amour et al demonstrating how a group in California has developed pancreatic endocrine cells from human embryonic stem cells. They have produced cells which can produce all of the pancreatic hormones. This has enormous implications for people with diabetes and indicates that the science is perhaps further advanced than any of us had thought.

I would like to say a bit on the issue of chimeras and hybrids. I agree with the comments of the Chief Scientist, Jim Peacock, who said that chimeras should not be allowed. There were very few submissions to the Lockhart review which mentioned it. I believe that the Senate amendment was a sensible one. The issue of chimeras, or animal hybrids, was much more controversial than the issue of SCNT, which we are considering.

The weight of opinion in the scientific community is in favour of this bill proceeding. The weight of opinion in the medical community is in favour of this bill proceeding. I would like to close with some words by one of our most eminent scientists, Sir Gustav Nossal. His submission to the Lockhart review stated:

Embryonic stem cell research is rich in promise. It has already demonstrated its potential in the study of disease causation, in development of new diagnostic methods and in basic research. In the longer term, the possibility of new therapies for serious diseases is real, though this will be the work of decades rather than of years.

This bill offers some hope for these therapies. Regardless of our decision in the parliament, this research will go on around the world in a large number of OECD countries. If this bill does pass, Australia will be part of that ongoing research. I support the bill.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

New science and new ideas often spark controversy, as people question their own views on what is right or wrong. From William Harvey’s 1628 discovery that blood circulated in a single direction to The Origin of the Species in 1859, progress often occurs against our will. Embryonic stem cell research is the latest in a long line of confronting sciences. We are yet to see if embryonic stem cell research will be proven effective against a range of diseases and conditions, but in my view that is not a reason to prevent this research from occurring. Paul Brock, an amazing man, a motor neurone disease sufferer and a deeply religious man whom I am privileged to know, drew an analogy to Ian Frazer’s work with the human papilloma virus. It took 20 years of painstaking research to come up with a vaccine. We should not give up on embryonic stem cell research when embryonic stem cells were only discovered in 1998.

People like Paul Brock support this research not for their own sake but because it offers hope to so many disease sufferers in the future. That is why we are here debating the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. That is why we are talking about somatic cell nuclear transfer, or SCNT—because many people feel a moral obligation to address this suffering. SCNT is a process where the genetic material, or DNA, is taken out of an egg and replaced with the nucleus of a normal human cell like a skin cell or a blood cell. The newly constituted egg then divides into more cells once stimulated artificially.

Through this extraordinary process, scientists are working towards extracting DNA from the cells of people with genetically based conditions such as type 1 diabetes, genetic blood disorders, Parkinson’s disease and motor neurone disease and then transferring that diseased genetic material into an egg. By turning adult cells of patients with these diseases into embryonic cells, SCNT could allow scientists to look for the first time at how disease develops from day one. Down the track, SCNT could allow researchers to develop and test tailor-made drugs for those diseases, but it is the more basic research into disease development through looking at diseased stem cells that is critical today.

I support this bill because I hope that this research can alleviate the suffering of thousands of Australians. We are still a long way from widely available therapies, but I would not be here supporting this legislation unless I were hopeful about its potential. We are, all of us, elected to this parliament to represent our constituents, to advocate for their welfare and to work for their wellbeing. We all seek to fulfil those roles differently, and I certainly respect the views of those who cannot support this legislation, but it is not responsible behaviour to suggest that this bill would make ovaries ‘commercial property’ or lead to ‘rabbit men’. I believe our role is to establish markers and to place barriers to prevent unethical, irresponsible and dangerous research from taking place. We must always act cautiously, as opposed to not acting at all.

Science compels us to take action because it offers hope to humanity. It also offers challenges. We have a moral responsibility to balance this hope of ending suffering against the ethical challenges that science throws at us. Ultimately, on these issues you have to always look to your own conscience. It is my duty to do what I can to alleviate the pain and suffering of Australians and to enable them to live a good and fulfilling life. That is one part of the moral question. The other part is to protect the essential individuality of each human being and to not allow humans to be created only for research. For me, the pain and suffering of millions of people with diabetes, Parkinson’s and motor neurone disease takes precedence over an SCNT embryo that is not unique genetic material but is created in a laboratory and, by law, will not be implanted into a woman’s womb.

Paul Brock and millions of people like him are already here among us—fully-fledged people whose lives have been tragically changed or cut short because of disease. For me, their lives matter a lot. We do not bemoan the loss of an egg every month or the loss of sperm. Eggs and sperm both hold within them the ingredients of life, yet we do not think of them as human beings. But we once did. Before microscopes, sperm was regarded as special in the same way—each sperm was considered a ‘homunculus’, or a little human, that was placed inside a woman for growth into a child.

Some argue that it is too soon to consider somatic cell nuclear transfer. We are told that the parliament is being rushed into this legislation by overexcited scientists. It is true that stem cells have not delivered any therapies yet, but it is sobering to remember that embryonic stem cells were discovered a mere eight years ago. Adult stem cells have been researched for around 50 years. In those eight short years, embryonic stem cell research has come along in leaps and bounds, much of it because of Australian scientists.

From the first isolated examples of the derivation of human embryonic stem cell lines, scientists have developed more than 75 fully characterised lines. Despite claims to the contrary, a proof of concept of the principle of therapeutic cloning in animals was established in 2000, right here by an Australian scientist—by Megan Munsie, a great young woman. As yet, no human stem cell lines have been derived through SCNT. Earlier this year, a group of Australian researchers reported using human embryonic stem cells to create a human prostate in a mouse. I am sure that the 12,000 Australian men who are diagnosed with prostate cancer every year will be watching that research carefully.

Science does not proceed in a neat and linear fashion. We should not hold back research on the basis that not enough research has been conducted. We are told that adult stem cells should be used instead of embryonic stem cells. It is the case, undeniably, that advances are being made in adult stem cell research. It is also true that adult stem cells are almost impossible to grow in culture, which is why we have to transplant adult stem cells, such as with bone marrow. In addition, after more than 30 years of use in therapy, bone marrow cells still cannot be grown in culture as generic undifferentiated cells. We need to support research in both areas because both have different things to tell us. If we do not allow properly regulated research on embryonic stem cells, we will lose our best minds to those countries which have already resolved these issues.

One thing I am deeply concerned about with SCNT is the possibility of exploitation of women through embryonic research or any other form of research. We know how gruelling IVF can be for women. I am sure that everyone in this parliament would agree that we do not want to see any woman being forced to go through that process to extract eggs. When IVF was first introduced, many women were concerned about the impact. But the joy that IVF has brought to so many families is there for all of us to see. The way to stop exploitation is to give women the power to make decisions about their bodies and their reproductive lives. The regulatory environment around IVF has worked well to give women choices. Forcing women to give up their eggs or paying them for their eggs is illegal under the current legislation and in this bill, with penalties of up to 10 years in prison. If scientists cannot source the eggs that they need, so be it. Like blood, eggs are in short supply; however, we do not pay people or coerce them into donating blood. These lifelines should remain a gift, not a commodity. Australians have a great history of generosity as well as a strong legal environment to protect this generosity. I do not believe that anyone here wants to change that; I certainly do not.

In the Senate, women overwhelmingly supported this bill—19 out of 23. I think that counts for something. We have also heard that this bill puts us on a slippery slope. Apparently, this is the next step to creating cloned human beings. I disagree. I cannot think of a single participant in this debate who has argued for reproductive cloning. In 2002, I argued strongly against reproductive cloning, and I have not changed my views. Every one of us is unique and we must preserve that uniqueness.

We all deserve to have an equal chance, to carve out our own path in society and to contribute to that society. That is why this bill retains the ban on placing a cloned embryo inside a human body or an animal body. It will be no defence that the cloned embryo could not survive. Those who break the law could be imprisoned for up to 15 years. It will also be illegal to sustain a human embryo outside a woman’s body for more than 14 days, regardless of how that embryo was created. The safeguards are there. In fact, this bill tightens up many established IVF practices, such as explicitly making it an offence to create an embryo by fertilising an egg with sperm unless it is for implantation in a woman’s womb.

The Australian science community has a long history of working with state and federal governments to properly regulate research that poses difficult ethical questions. We already have the technology to test and select embryos for diseases and conditions as well as for gender and other more controversial genetic factors. Amniocentesis has been available since the 1970s, and we have dealt with the ethical issues involved in that for years. Since the early 1990s, genetic testing and screening of embryos has been available to couples undergoing IVF so that they can decide which of their embryos should be implanted.

In my own state of Victoria, the Infertility Treatment Authority regulates these reproductive technologies strictly. Genetic Health Services Victoria will test only for a restricted set of diseases and conditions. Parents then have the choice of terminating or not implanting the embryo, but that choice is limited within an ethical framework.

Difficult choices, no less difficult than the one we face with this bill, are made by Australians every day. In my view, we should not be screening potential children based on appearance or gender; but equally, in my view, we should reduce pain and suffering where we can. Where to draw the line on termination is, of course, a question for the parents concerned. We can only examine these difficult ethical questions about science as they arise. That is the lesson from IVF, amniocentesis and genetic testing.

In many ways, the bill before us today is a striking parallel to the IVF debates of the 1980s. IVF challenged us to think about whether it was right to create embryos in a laboratory. More importantly for us today, IVF creates thousands of excess and genetically unique embryos that are destined never to become babies. The IVF debate raised the same issue that we face today: should we create an embryo knowing that it could be destroyed? Even with the embryos that are implanted, only 20 per cent take hold and become children.

Unlike the SCNT embryos we are dealing with in this legislation today, IVF generates excess embryos with unique genetic footprints through the fertilisation of sperm and egg. We have over time reconciled ourselves to the consequences of IVF and the creation of excess embryos. Since the birth of Candice Reed, the first Australian whose birth was assisted by IVF in 1980, we have welcomed thousands of IVF babies—around 7,000 last year alone—in Australia. I certainly would not deny parents the joy that these children have brought. I cannot deny that this is a difficult decision, but I support this bill knowing the hope that it offers to disease sufferers.

We have come a long way since Watson and Crick ‘found the secret of life’, the structure of DNA, over 50 years ago. Let us not run away from the amazing promise of medical research. Let us confront it head-on and guide both science and society towards its potential. I support the bill.

Michael Johnson (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak on the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 in the Australian parliament today. I want to thank my friend and colleague in the Senate Senator Kay Patterson for drafting this bill to the high quality and probity that is clearly reflected in it. I consider this bill to be one of the most important pieces of legislation that has come before the parliament in the five years that I have had the great honour of sitting in the House of Representatives.

There has been a lot of advocacy and passion in this debate both in the parliament and in our communities—certainly in the electorate of Ryan. I welcome and respect that debate as being healthy for our democracy. We have a conscience vote on this bill—and I will be voting according to my conscience—so I hope that the residents of Ryan will accept my position whether or not it coincides with theirs. In exercising my vote of conscience I will, therefore, be consistent with the views I have expressed in previous public statements on this issue. I indicate formally in the parliament today and to the people of Ryan, whom I proudly represent, that I strongly support this bill and that I will be voting for it.

This is a profoundly important bill because it is about giving people hope that some of the most terrible diseases on the face of our planet, which inflict immense suffering on people, can be cured at some time in the future. It gives hope that cures will be found for Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease, diabetes, spinal cord injury and various forms of arthritis, not to mention strokes and many of the cancers that destroy the lives of our loved ones and friends.

The background to this bill lies in the recommendations of the Lockhart report. In June 2005 the then Minister for Ageing, the Hon. Julie Bishop, appointed a six-member legislation review committee to independently review the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 and the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002. The legislation review committee was chaired by the late John S. Lockhart AO, QC, a former justice of the Federal Court of Australia and a distinguished Australian. The review committee received 1,035 written submissions and heard personal presentations from 109 people across every state and territory in our country. The committee reported to the minister in December 2005, recommending:

... continuation of national legislation imposing prohibitions on human reproductive cloning and some other ART practices, as well as strict control and monitoring, under licence, of human embryo research.

The Committee believes that it is important for Australia to maintain its role as a leader in the advancement of high quality and ethically sound scientific research and medical practices. To this end, we support the continued use of both adult and embryonic stem cells under existing guidelines for research and do not recommend that any additional legislative restrictions be applied.

On the contentious issue of Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT), sometimes known as therapeutic cloning, the Committee has given its support for SCNT and the creation and the use in research of certain other types of experimental embryos in the very early stage of their development and under strict ethical and scientific regulation.

The Committee agreed that the existing prohibitions in place to prevent reproductive cloning and the placement of prohibited embryos in the body of a woman should be maintained.

The amendments in this bill, therefore, are based on the recommendations of the Lockhart review.

About 300 trillion cells make up the human body, and most of these cells are fully specialised for functions in organs such as the heart and the brain and in tissues such as muscle, fat and bone. Stem cells are the foundation cells for every organ, tissue and cell in the body. They are undifferentiated blank cells that do not yet have a specific function. Under proper conditions stem cells begin to develop into specialised tissues and organs and serve as a biological repair system for the body. Stem cells can also be induced to become other types of cells—for example, blood cells, muscle cells or neurons.

The unique characteristics of stem cells are such that they show great promise for the treatment of debilitating illnesses such as Alzheimer’s disease, cancer, Parkinson’s disease, type 1 diabetes, spinal cord injury, stroke, burns, heart disease, osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. Currently, patients must rely on the use of donated organs to replace organs which are diseased or unable to function fully. I think, I certainly hope, that all Australians are aware that, sadly, the demand for donated organs far outstrips supply. I would encourage Australians to consider being volunteers in organ donation.

Stem cells derived from embryos have the greatest potential to become a wide range of other cells found in various tissues and organs within the body. I understand, from research conducted to date, that stem cells derived from adult tissues appear to have a more limited potential, as they are not able to differentiate as widely and are often confined to reproducing cells identical to those found in the tissue from which they were harvested.

The focus of this bill is on human embryonic stem cells which are derived from human embryos that are four to seven days old. At this stage of development, the embryo is a hollow ball of about 200 to 250 cells and is no bigger than a pinhead. Embryonic stem cells are currently taken from spare embryos that come from eggs fertilised in an IVF clinic. They are donated for research purposes only, with informed consent from the donors. Legislation currently prevents the use of an embryo which is conceived naturally and harvested from a woman. This amendment bill retains this important restriction. Currently, embryos cannot specifically be created for research purposes.

The amendments put forward in this bill are a combination of retaining existing prohibitions and lifting certain restrictions in order to enable further research to occur. The fundamental intention and effect of this bill is to lift the restriction of certain types of research involving embryos, provided that the research is approved by the NHMRC Licensing Committee and that the activity is undertaken in accordance with that licence. Under the proposed legislation, before the NHMRC Licensing Committee can grant a licence they must be satisfied that the proposed project has been considered and approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee, which is constituted in accordance with, and acting in compliance with, the NHMRC’s National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Research Involving Humans. Under the terms of this bill, a researcher may apply for a licence to:

... use excess ART embryos;

create human embryos other than by fertilisation of a human egg by a human sperm, and use such embryos;

create human embryos (by a process other than fertilisation of human egg by human sperm) containing genetic material provided by more than 2 persons, and use such embryos;

create human embryos using precursor cells from a human embryo or a human fetus, and use such embryos;

undertake research and training involving the fertilisation of a human egg, up to but not including the first mitotic division, outside the body of a woman for the purposes of research or training …

The bill retains existing prohibitions on the activities of human cloning, importing or exporting a human embryo clone and creating a human embryo for a purpose other than achieving pregnancy in a woman.

Medical and scientific research are lifetime endeavours. They are a lifetime’s work for those brilliant people in this noble field of work, and such work crosses generations. Today’s research will benefit generations of Australians to come, just as today’s Australians are benefiting from the medical and scientific research of the brilliant minds who came before us. Who among us would not admire Edward Jenner, the man responsible for the discovery of the cowpox vaccine, used against smallpox? More than 200 years ago many tried to cast aspersions on his character and on the terrible consequences that would flow from using his vaccine. The potential for stem cells as a treatment of a number of serious diseases and injuries offers hope to millions of patients worldwide. That is the key point: the potential does exist. This bill is all about hope; it is not some pie-in-the-sky hope, not some unrealistic hope, not some misleading hope, not some deceptive hope but a realistic and meaningful hope, an authentic and genuine hope that is rooted in genuine medical knowledge and research.

In conclusion, let me quote the remarks of a man for whom I have immense regard and admiration, an Australian about whom many of my fellow Australians would share my view. He is a resident of my electorate of Ryan. He is the 2006 Australian of the Year. His name is Ian Frazer. His great work has earned him his reputation. On 30 November he wrote to senators of the Australian Senate and to members of the House of Representatives. I want to quote Ian Frazer because I think all Australians should be aware of what he had to say. He said:

As a medical researcher, I hope you support the bill in its entirety. In the 1970s there was considerable public debate about the morality and safety of genetic engineering, and a worldwide moratorium on research in the area was considered. If the moratorium had been implemented, then the cervical cancer vaccine would not have been developed in the 1980s, and a means to prevent half a million deaths worldwide each year would not have been developed.

…       …            …

The decision you make on Senator Patterson’s bill will determine the ability of Australia’s medical researchers to participate in this exciting new field, and in the longer term has the potential to impact on the quality of medical treatment our children receive. Will our children look back in 25 years and say ‘Our parliamentarians made the right decision, that gave us access to cures for diabetes, heart disease, and neurological disorders’ ...

I commend the remarks of Ian Frazer, 2006 Australian of the Year, to the parliament, to the residents of Ryan and to my fellow Australians who may be listening. He is, of course, the man who can take much responsibility and credit for the cervical cancer drug Gardasil. Many young women, not only in this country but throughout the world, will benefit from the brilliance of Ian Frazer. I commend this bill to the parliament.

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In speaking to the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 I want to focus on what I see as two essential elements—the science and the ethics. Each informs the other, and in order to reach a final position on this matter an understanding of both areas is essential. The Lockhart review considered the science and the Lockhart review considered the ethics. The Lockhart review made recommendations for change—changes that I believe would be to the benefit of both Australia and Australians.

I am first going to focus on the science, as there are elements of this area that have been twisted and turned around in such a manner that the facts have been completely distorted. For example, the Lockhart review recommended the use of animal cells as host cells as part of the SCNT, the somatic cell nuclear transfer, process. There are some who have interpreted this as meaning that we are about to allow the breeding of animal-human hybrids. Such a claim is absurd. The science is such that it is extremely—and that is very, very extremely—unlikely that any hybrid would ever develop. To even attempt this would require implantation of the said embryo, something that the Lockhart review recommended to be illegal. Such over-the-top embellishment of the actual science itself is a mere scare tactic used by opponents of this bill and the research that it will allow.

To make it clear that I do know what I am talking about, I am highly aware that this particular recommendation has not been accepted in the amended bill that we are debating today. The reason I mention it is to highlight and provide an example of the highly emotive and misleading arguments—arguments designed to produce a reaction of fear and not based on any particular evidence from the science itself—that some are proposing about this legislation.

On another angle, much has been made about the possible future benefits surrounding stem cells and embryonic research. However, it is important to understand that these benefits may take years to unfold. The scientists themselves are as cautionary as any when it comes to the potential benefits. As outlined by Hall and others in an article published in March of this year titled ‘Using therapeutic cloning to fight human disease: a conundrum or reality?’, there has been some success on the therapeutic use of stem cells in treating conditions similar to Parkinson’s disease in both mice and monkeys, but it has not been conclusive. There is merely an indication that such a use may be potentially beneficial to the human race in the future. In fact, as stated by a public health scientist, Kristina Hug, it is not the stem cells themselves that are the means to an end in this respect; it is the application of the derived stem cells for treatment that is the area of this potential therapeutic benefit.

What we do know is that Australia has been at the forefront of assisted reproductive technology for some time through the IVF program. Australia led the world in this area. Now we have the opportunity to continue to pursue research that will provide many couples with the prospect of having their own family, their own children.

One of the areas identified by the Lockhart review that receives very little attention is the need to undertake research on embryos unsuitable for implantation. Only viable embryos are implanted. What has gone wrong in the process that results in an unsuitable embryo? We do not know, and that is the truth of it. This bill allows for research on such embryos, under licence, so that we may learn more about the IVF process, possibly correct the wrongs and possibly improve the success rate and assist many couples.

A further point that needs to be mentioned is the argument regarding adult and embryonic stem cells. It is true that there is some potential to develop adult stem cells to use in the treatment of some conditions and illnesses. However, the science says that embryonic stem cells are far more versatile. As outlined by Hug in an article published in Medicina in 2005, adult stem cells are difficult to isolate, fewer in number, difficult to keep from proliferating in culture and not so pluripotent—that is, they only give rise to a limited number of cell types—and they have been exposed to environmental toxins and a lifetime of potential genetic mutation. Hence, at this stage it appears that embryonic stem cells have the greater potential benefit. This bill contains amendments to the original act that will allow the development of embryonic stem cell research at the same time as research into adult stem cells.

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! It being 2 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 97. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.