John Murphy (Lowe, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When I was speaking on the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 last Thursday before the adjournment debate I was about to draw the attention of the House to the other examples of the obfuscation and deception in terminology related to Senator Patterson’s bill which are designed to confuse, mislead and deceive us. For example, the term ‘nuclear transfer’ has replaced ‘therapeutic cloning’. In 2004 the International Society for Stem Cell Research changed the terminology to deceive the public that SCNT is not cloning. Next the term itself, SCNT, replaces the word ‘cloning’ in clause 3 of the draft bill from Senator Stott-Despoja. Then there are the words ‘therapeutic’ versus ‘reproductive’ cloning, as with Dolly the sheep. The scientific journal Nature reports:

... scientists realized that the word ‘cloning’ was generating public concern. So they decided to adopt a more technical term—

SCNT—

less likely to stir up strong emotions.

I will now turn to the second objection. That is, I put to this House that nothing has changed scientifically since it voted resoundingly, on a conscience vote, against the very legislation before us tonight. The only thing that has changed is that we are now being duped into believing that this bill will not permit cloning of human beings. Again, SCNT is cloning, and cloning is SCNT. They are the same thing. The science has not changed. The only thing that is changed is the false and misleading semantics.

I turn to the third objection, which is the basis of the Lockhart report. It is clear that the reports of the acting chair of the Lockhart inquiry, Professor Loane Skene, with Professor Ian Kerridge and Professor Peter Schofield, amongst others, demonstrate their unswerving and disproportionate favouritism towards human cloning, as demonstrated on public record. This comes as no surprise to me given that the debate, to them, has been about science rather than morals. That is their speciality, and I do not begrudge them for putting their scientific views forward, notwithstanding the fact that I do not share those views. Associate Professor Kerridge is reported as saying in June 2001:

Therapeutic cloning has massive potential. Animal work has shown promising insights into how it can be used to repair tissues that can’t normally repair themselves …

Professor Schofield is reported on 9 October 2001 as saying:

Parts 4 and 5 of the Human Reproductive Cloning and the Transpecies Fertilisation Bill (NSW) will allow research on human stem cells, including embryonic stem cells and their use in human therapeutic cloning. This is to be commended ... by which exciting and significant new developments in medical research can be progressed ...

I am concerned that the Lockhart committee has paid little to no regard to the higher ethical arguments against its finding in support of human embryonic cloning. Science is very good at telling us how to do things or how to reach certain ends. The questions it cannot answer are which ends are ethical or which ends are worth pursuing. Scientists do not have a specialised viewpoint on the ethical questions which are, undoubtedly, just as important as the scientific ones. Indeed, as we have seen worldwide, many scientists simply do not have an interest in the wider ethical questions surrounding their deeds. Some have been consumed by pride, glory or commercial gain. Science should not be the final determinant on this issue; ethics and morals must.

Turning to the question of science, the Lockhart committee report has also relied on the so-called research of the now disgraced Dr Hwang Woo Suk, the South Korean scientist with so-called ‘breakthroughs’ in human embryonic cloning. Incredibly, the Lockhart report has failed to revise its findings in the light of the fact that Dr Hwang Woo Suk’s research was falsified and is totally discredited. In this light, we ought to approach the Lockhart report and its findings with some trepidation. This is particularly so if it is to be the basis for making a scientific, right-minded decision on the purported benefits of human cloning or the creation of human embryos. As I have already mentioned, irrespective of the veracity of the Lockhart committee’s findings, the debate today is a moral one not a scientific one.

The fourth objection concerns the outcry of public interest objections to human cloning. I again refer to Senator Patterson’s speech on 7 November in which she says:

I consider that I am also amongst the majority of Australians, who are in favour of research using somatic cell nuclear transfer to help us better understand disease processes ...

For the benefit of Senator Patterson, I have been deluged with correspondence concerning her bill. Literally hundreds of letters, telephone calls and emails have flooded into my electorate office in Lowe. The overwhelming correspondence opposes this bill. The public interest case is not in Senator Patterson’s favour; it is anything but.

Many members of the public oppose this bill. During the Lockhart inquiry, there was a call for public submissions. Over 4,000 submissions were received, the vast majority opposing the Lockhart committee’s findings and this legislation. A very great many in our community are strongly opposed to this bill becoming law. Given the higher moral and ethical issues at stake here, with great respect, I do not accept that Senator Patterson can point to such majority support for this cause. It follows that I believe it would be very unwise for us to proceed down Senator Patterson’s path. For this reason alone, I urge every member of this House to oppose this bill.

I turn now to the tenuous tactic employed by many who seek to make this bill into law. This objection concerns the offering of false hope to many very sick people who suffer disease that, by permitting human embryonic cloning, this will somehow provide the miracle cures that are ‘just around the corner’. Some proponents of this bill are quick to appeal to the vulnerability of sick people suffering with long-term diseases by enthusiastically promoting the possible medical benefits that could come from this bill. I cite again Senator Patterson in her 7 November speech in which she says that this bill:

... is not a decision about politics. It is about people. It is about hope and it is about trust. A vote against this bill will be a vote to dash the hope that is dearly held by those people watching and listening to us who have medical conditions and who expect nothing from this research for themselves but know that in their cells they have a possible key to understanding their disease which may provide a legacy for future generations of people with this or similar diseases. Why should we restrict their hopes?

What a line Senator Patterson spins! With respect, Senator Patterson’s rhetoric is thin and transparent. The old mantra, the lie told again and again, is that we who oppose experimentation on human embryos or embryonic stem cells are somehow impeding research and dashing the hopes of those long-suffering victims of various diseases.

The Senate committee’s website provides texts which offer vain hope. There is no concrete evidence which shows that human cloning will provide the benefits promised, let alone dreamed of. The article titled ‘“It’s me prostate, doc!”—your weekend dose of embryonic snake-oil’, dated 10 September 2006, provides an expose of the false hope being promoted by a syndicate of clever but deceptive cloning lobbyists who play ‘endless tricks with rats’ which have ‘no prospect ever of moving to humans, and they know it’. The article goes on to say:

The cloning snake-oil salesman is therefore reduced to one dishonourable tactic: to showcase authentic breakthroughs in adult stem cell science, and then by a trick of language sneak in the impression—never quite direct enough to be a lie—that embryonic stem cells can do this too.

I will give just one example of this deception. An article in the Australian of 9-10 September asserts, falsely, on the issue of heart disease, that researchers believe they will soon be able to regrow healthy hearts. The article then cites cardiologist Joshua Hare on the issue of regenerative science, who extrapolates wildly from this promising research in adult stem cell research by saying:

In Australia, scientists are working on embryonic and adult stem cells that could rebuild heart muscle ...

The infusion of the embryonic into what is exclusively adult research is both false and misleading.

I put to this House tonight that the principle of double effect applies here—that is, even if human embryonic cloning does deliver on the promises it makes to long-suffering persons with diseases, the destruction of a human being is not outweighed by the benefits it might possibly bring. In any event, those purported benefits are based upon a false hope. I again turn to the rebuttal by Senator Patterson in her 7 November speech in which she says that concerns about women being exploited for ova will be overcome by obtaining their consent. I am not so convinced. There is still no apparent provision in this bill that will regulate the sale or donation of human eggs for cloning experimentation.

My eighth objection concerns some of the technical flaws in this bill—that is, the bill will still permit other forms of experimentation or make available the possibility of chimeric or hybrid experimentation. Far from Senator Patterson’s assurances that there is no slippery slope in this legislation, I put to this House that the 2002 legislation followed by this bill’s passage through the Senate recently is evidence enough that we are very much going down a slippery slope. What guarantees can Senator Patterson give us that there will not be chimeric or hybrid cloning with humans now or in the future? Senator Patterson cannot give us any, any more than when she was so certain of her opposition to cloning in 2002, from which she has chosen to depart.

It is clear that the cloning lobby used the human embryonic stem cell bill in 2002 as the thin edge of the wedge. This is nothing more than a slick selling cycle. The 2002 prohibition on cloning bill was only a decoy for a short period of time. Now, the cloning lobby is attempting to seduce a significant number of politicians to approve cloning. The next step in this atrocious string of bills could be human hybrid and chimeric experimentation. There may be no end to the amount of greed and evil stemming from this bill if we permit it to be passed.

Members are aware that only last year, in 2005, at the 59th plenary session of the United Nations General Assembly, Australia voted in support of the United Nations Declaration on Human Cloning. This international instrument prohibits all forms of human cloning—including SCNT—inasmuch as they are incompatible with human dignity and the protection of human life.

This bill permits cloning, which is incompatible with human dignity and the protection of human life. I repeat: the consequence of this bill will be to permit the cloning of human embryos for their destruction. Hence, this bill, if passed, could violate our position as a signatory to the 2005 UN declaration. Passing this bill would be a humiliating and hypocritical position for this legislature to take. I simply say what I said earlier: there is more than one way to create a human embryo. It is wrong to suggest that there is some difference between human embryos created by egg-sperm fusion, SCNT or parthenogenesis.

In my last few minutes, I turn to the manner in which this bill was introduced into the House and parliament. As members of this House are well aware, this bill was introduced via the Senate on 19 October 2006. The fact that this bill, a conscience vote bill, was moved first in the Senate is most irregular. In particular, I refer to pages 280 and 281 of the House of Representatives Practice, fifth edition, under the title of ‘Free Votes’ bills. Significantly, the House of Representatives Practice lists bills that are directly related to this bill before us today—that is, a bill that concerns the broad group of policy issues that may be called ‘life issues’. Successive Commonwealth parliaments have debated many such life issue bills, including the Medical Practice Clarification Bill 1973, the termination of pregnancy medical benefits motion No. 80/692 of 1973, the Euthanasia Laws Bill 1996 and the Research Involving Human Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002. It is most significant to note that all of these four life issue conscience vote bills were initiated in the House of Representatives. It is clear that the Senate has historically concerned itself with conscience votes on essentially matrimonial, family and sex discrimination bills. (Time expired)

Joanna Gash (Gilmore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It seems to me that, ironically, the debate about stem cell research surrounds the ethical question of the value of human life but from opposing ends of the spectrum. It is a debate in which the protagonists argue either from a moral-ethical perspective or from a pragmatic-humanitarian one. Each position has merit, and I recognise and respect the rationale behind each position. That is not to say that someone has to be entirely right and someone has to be entirely wrong. Each case has within it a degree of justification; it just depends on the perspective you choose to adopt. When the House debated the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill in 2002, many of the ethical versus humanitarian issues were broached, and it seems that we are revisiting the same question.

There can be no doubt that this research is receiving a growing acceptance throughout the world. It is worthwhile noting that in the United States neither the Clinton administration nor the Bush administration has ever prohibited the private funding of embryonic stem cell research. Adult stem cell research is comparatively well funded, both privately and publicly, in the United States—so it can be expected that the United States is better positioned to develop emerging discoveries in the field of stem cell technology. In Britain, a similar disposition has been reached, although the approaches have their unique distinctions. Adult stem cell research appears to have received acceptance but, on the question of embryonic stem cells, the debate remains wide open.

There is no disputing the scientific evidence that embryonic stem cells present the greater potential, but that means that cells have to be harvested from human embryos. Therein lies the conflict in the debate, which has collided with prevailing Christian-Judaic values and beliefs of our Western society. So it is not a matter of us debating stem cell research today as such; rather, it is a debate over the morality of harvesting stem cells from embryos and at what stage we view the embryo as a living human being. We can look at this in two ways: either from an emotional and spiritual point of view or dispassionately and pragmatically. The emotional and spiritual point of view respects the sanctity of life, a value that sets the human race above other species. But so too does the pragmatic approach, which says that living human beings whose quality of life has been compromised through injury or disease, or those facing imminent death, are entitled to every opportunity for a relatively normal life.

I am heartened by a newspaper report on August 24 that a United States company has announced that it has developed a way to make human embryonic stem cells without harming the embryo. Whether this comes to fruition or not remains to be seen, but it does illustrate the progression of science and offers a way out of the present ethical conflict. I can only reiterate my statement of 2002 in which I said:

As an individual with a Christian ethic, I have a deep respect for the sanctity of life and I believe that, as Christians, we have a duty to ease the suffering of humankind. If we are to hold true to that tenet then we are beholden to explore avenues as to how we can do that, which brings us back to the original, very valid first question: are the IVF embryos created in the test tube in the first place life or just a basis for the continuance of life? If we can reconcile that concept within ourselves, then the decision is an easy one. If we accept that these artificially created embryos are not life, as in the accepted sense, then this places the proposition in the same vein as the issue of organ donors—

something I firmly believe in. I continued:

The extraction of stem cells, therefore, becomes an obvious progression. In my mind, I am reconciled with the view that greater good can flow from this and that research should be allowed. I will also be supporting the splitting of the bill. We can mourn at what might have been but we should also rejoice at what can be.

I have not changed my views. In fact, the more people I come across with Parkinson’s disease, MS, spinal injuries, blindness, cancer and many other debilitating diseases, the more I am convinced that the time has come to modify the values that were instilled in us that were a product of a bygone era. I believe that there is a moral and societal obligation to pursue this research. But such a direction should only be taken within the strictest guidelines and in accordance with prevailing community standards.

In that respect, we are here today as advocates for our respective electorates to reflect the community attitude as a whole. I would hope that prior to coming here the question has been well canvassed and that we speak from a position that reflects the majority view rather than promoting our own personal views. On a question as important as this, I would have difficulty in advocating a view that was not widely held and held by significantly more than a simple majority. There has been much public conjecture over this issue. I sought the views of the people of Gilmore by way of extensive surveys in 2002 and now, which I distributed to a significant proportion of my electorate. It is through those responses that I make this statement, knowing that it reflects the majority view. To those persons who hold an opposing view, I can only say that I respect your views and appreciate why you have them. At one time, I may have held similar views but, with the march of time and through life’s experiences, I have changed those views. The reasons for my change of heart I described in my statement in 2002, and they are on the public record.

In closing can I say that this technology offers humanity great hope for overcoming some of the terrible conditions that blight people’s lives. It is certainly not the miracle cure some might hope for, but it does advance the march towards addressing those conditions that bring so much misery and sadness to individuals and their families. It is only right that we continue to pursue technologies that improve the quality of human life. To argue otherwise is a fatalistic acceptance that denies hope and aspiration, a very common human condition found in us all. I support the bill and commend Senator Patterson on her bill. I know that the work that she did was very intensive and from the heart.

Graham Edwards (Cowan, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary (Defence and Veterans' Affairs)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I compliment the previous speaker, the member for Gilmore, on her contribution in this debate on the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. I think she made some very good points and she made them very well. Like me, she has sought the views of many people—not just from within her electorate but also from within the community generally. I tend to respect all the views that are put to me on issues like this, but I have only one vote, and I will exercise that vote according to my conscience. Having said that, I respect all the views that have been put to me, and I thank all the people from my electorate who have contacted me with a view.

In listening to people on issues like this we tend to go beyond the electorate, and I certainly have done that. I received one letter which really moved me greatly, and I want to refer to part of it. It is from a bloke who lives in Victoria. As part of a long letter he said:

I participated in the recent Lockhart review down here in Melbourne, culminating in a forum at the Sofitel Hotel. I must say I was not prepared for the aggressive stand from certain opposing sectors. Whilst I agree that everyone is entitled to an opinion, I found some of the comments particularly towards disabled people from the church lobby and the Right to Life groups very insensitive, insulting and extremely Un-Christian like. One such Reverend’s comments were ‘I know quite a few disabled people and they cope quite adequately.’ It’s all very well to say I have spoken to disabled people and they cope quite adequately, that is because we have no choice. If you ask anyone who is disabled how are you going today, nine times out of 10 they will say I am fine, because no one wants to hear if you’re having a bad day. I found this a very offensive and narrow-minded attitude to have towards human suffering, so I asked him the question, had he ever suffered from a disability, there was no answer.

The point I tried to make to the Forum was that no one really understands suffering until they have lived it like I and others have to every day. They have no idea what it is like to feel paralysed, lose control of your bladder or bowels, and lose sexual function, independence, self-esteem, career, marriage breakdown and feel totally alone. I also put to the opposers that if they or any of their family had a severe disability maybe they would have a different point of view, again no response.

…     …         …

Speaking for people with all sorts of disabilities, the many scientists that I am in touch with around Australia and as an Honorary Director of Spinal Cure Australia, this is the only way forward for the future and for the good of human kind, anything less would be an absolute injustice to the many people suffering here in Australia and around the world.

To anyone who opposes this research, then maybe you could think about spending a day in my shoes. I am a quadriplegic!

The letter is signed by Gary Allsop, Honorary Director of SpinalCure Australia.

I am also aware of a press release that SpinalCure Australia put out on 11 August. It is headed, ‘Please get it right Health Minister Abbott in explaining the stem cell debate.’ The press release says:

Health Minister Tony Abbott is potentially misleading his colleagues and the public on stem cell research by claiming it’s a debate we have already had and by using terms like ‘cloning’ inappropriately.

Mr Abbott reportedly said “cloning” has been rejected in a parliamentary conscience debate in 2002 and that nothing had changed since the debate.

In fact in 2002, the conscience vote was about whether to allow research on spare IVF embryos under strict conditions.

What was banned in 2002, and would continue to be banned if the Lockhart Report is supported, is human reproductive cloning: the ethically insupportable idea of attempting to clone a human being. Everybody supporting embryonic stem cell research in Australia opposes reproductive cloning. Mr Abbott failed to make this crucial distinction.

What is being discussed this time around is “therapeutic cloning” or somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) which was not put to the vote in 2002. It has been put on the agenda now in 2006 because of recommendations by the government-commissioned Lockhart Review which ruled unanimously in favour of it being made legal in Australia.

This type of so called “cloning” is not about copying people, but copying their cells and replacing damaged cells thereby reducing the risk of infection or rejection. It involves taking the nucleus of a patient’s cell and injecting it into an unfertilised human egg to create stem cells.

…            …            …

SCNT is permitted in countries including the UK, USA, Sweden, New Zealand, Japan and Israel and offers hope to sufferers of spinal injury, motor neurone disease, Parkinson’s and a range of other debilitating and life threatening conditions.

SpinalCure Australia praises the Lockhart Report for its non-inflammatory unemotive language produced despite an emotional and often irrational public climate within which discussion of stem cell issues has taken place.

I read excerpts of the letter from Gary Allsop and most of the press release into the record because I believe they are very pertinent to the debate that we are having and to the conscience vote that we will take as individuals when the debate has concluded.

I have listened to a number of other contributions to this debate because, like other members here, I take this debate very seriously. I must say that I have been particularly influenced by Mal Washer, the Liberal member for Moore. Mal Washer used to be my mother’s doctor, and she always spoke very highly of him. He looked after her in a very caring and conscientious way, and he impressed me then. I certainly do not agree with him on issues of politics, but I have listened to Mal speak in this debate, and I think that he speaks from the heart and from experience, and he puts a very common-sense argument.

I have also listened to Jim Benson, who is a friend of mine in Perth. He is a member of my electorate and executive officer of the Motor Neurone Disease Association of Western Australia. Jim also speaks with a very balanced view and in a very passionate way. I have also listened closely to the arguments put by Dee O’Brien, a former staff officer in my electorate office. She has recently retired and gone off to have a baby, and I certainly wish her well. I have listened to the very reasoned arguments that she put to me. She certainly, above many others, has had an influence on the decision that I have taken to support this legislation. I will continue to listen to the debate with interest, and I certainly hope that this debate will continue in the very balanced, considered way in which it has been conducted. It think it reflects well on individual members of this parliament that they are able to deal with an issue such as this in a very mature and proper way. I support the legislation.

John Anderson (Gwydir, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I contribute to this debate with a somewhat heavy heart, because I am astounded that in just four years, on the basis of such extraordinarily little evidence of any scientific movement, we have gone from a position of very resoundingly rejecting cloning to one in which we are now seriously proposing that it be adopted. We have brushed aside all of those warnings that we really were on some sort of slippery slope, yet any objective analysis of how quickly we have moved on this issue would suggest that it has been an extremely well-oiled slippery slope. One wonders just what we might be asked to adopt or support next if we adopt this measure.

It is just over four years ago since this House voted—without dissent—to prohibit the creation of a human embryo by any means other than fertilisation, including cloning. We are now being asked to support technologies which are precisely the same as those that brought Dolly the sheep into being in relation to human genetic material. It ought to be remembered that the then Minister for Health and Ageing, who has now moved this private members bill that has brought the debate on, 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.

No-one questioned that then. But, just four years on, with no ethical basis whatsoever for a change in the position and, so far as I can tell, the absolutely thinnest of scientific justification for any change, we are being asked to turn that on its head.

We were assured back then that there were more than sufficient human embryos in frozen storage in IVF clinics, no longer required by the couple for whom they were made and therefore available for research, including the extraction of embryonic stem cell lines. They, or some, said: ‘That will be enough; we won’t need any more. We won’t come back for any more.’ The National Health and Medical Research Council has reported that there were 104,830 embryos in frozen storage in 2003. As at 31 March 2006, only 122 excess ART embryos had been used under the four licences issued to allow the derivation of human embryonic stem cells. So let us, at the outset, nail one thing: it is clearly not the case that the stockpile is exhausted.

As I touched on a moment ago, those of us who in 2002 cautioned that a vote for research on these so-called excess ART embryos would sooner or later lead to a demand for the production of human embryos by cloning were accused of scaremongering. We were urged very strongly to stop talking about the slippery slope. Yet, here we are, faced with a bill, the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006, that would allow the creation of human embryos by cloning with the intention that each embryo so created would be destroyed in the name of scientific research. As Cardinal George Pell has warned, this bill would allow the creation of two classes of human beings: those intended to live and those marked for death.

There are those who say, ‘We can’t quite understand why a collection of cells ought to be seen as a human being.’ The previous speaker, the member for Cowan, referred to having been influenced by someone on the other side of politics. I would like to do the same tonight. I am indebted to Dr Emerson, who I think spoke very eloquently and very convincingly in this place from, I think, an intellectually unassailable position. I will quote him, because I would like to read it back into the Hansard. He asked:

What significance are we to attach to the embryo so created?—

that is, by these cloning techniques—

Those who argue in favour of this legislation effectively answer ‘not much’; it is not ... 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—

and he then quoted from the Lockhart committee report:

... 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—

and we need to remember that such an embryo, if implanted in a woman’s womb, would have the potential to grow into a cloned human being—

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.

I find that so thin as to be contemptible, I am sorry to have to say—I genuinely do. I find it indefensible and I cannot believe that members of this parliament could accept that that is an adequate safeguard against the appalling potential for opportunism and for a shifting morass of values attached to different potential lives. Dr Emerson went on to say:

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 good doctor notes sarcastically, and I join him in his sarcasm—

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—

surely—my own word—

an absurd proposition.

I join with Dr Emerson in saying that I do not know where the boundary is once you decide on 14 days. I do not know where it stops, and that is why I believe that this is so dangerous.

This year is the 200th anniversary of the ending—in our civilisation, if we broadly define it in Western terms—of the slave trade. We ought to remember that the history of our civilisation is marked by the struggle to include others as acknowledged members of the human family. There was a time when, if you did not have relational or social significance because you were black, you were a ‘good and chattel’. That is the way you were described. The infamous Dred Scott decision by the US Supreme Court defined black American slaves as ‘chattel property’ rather than persons, under the United States Constitution. In the United States it took a civil war to overturn that proposition. In Britain, it was the persistence of parliamentarian William Wilberforce, backed by many others, over decades, which led to the abolition of the slave trade and the emancipation of all slaves throughout the British Empire.

We need to be very careful indeed about saying that some person has a value, some life has a value or some potential life has a value because it has relational significance and is wanted and another does not because it does not have the same significance. That is a territory from which we have freed ourselves, and the beneficiaries down through the ages can be numbered in the tens of millions. I suggest that we need to be very careful indeed not to forget our history. James Sherley, MIT professor and graduate of Harvard, a black American from Tennessee, wrote these words in response to the decision to allow the cloning of human embryos at Harvard:

People value foremost the lives they know and understand. The drive to protect the lives of those we know and love is instinctive for individuals and societies. Much of human ingenuity has been dedicated to preserving ... life. Thus, with caring, nursing, and technology, we hold and protect our living who cannot move, who cannot communicate, who cannot awaken, who cannot grow, whose hearts cannot beat unaided, and who cannot breathe.

We even fight to reclaim our living from the sudden death of heart attacks. A defining feature of our humanity is that we also have the capacity to do the same for others whom we do not know. If the hands of members of the Harvard review board were sensitive enough, they could come to know human embryos better. They could feel that the smallest such embryos, like us, are warm to the touch, that they move as they grow, and they breathe just as surely as we do.

This is the fundamental reason to oppose this bill. Rather than including others in our common humanity, it allows the creation of human embryos destined for destruction: human beings with no father, no mother and no family; human beings reduced to mere laboratory material.

Why are we really being asked to cross this line? If we do cross it, where will it lead next? One member of this House, on my side of the parliament, came to me and said, ‘Why do you oppose this?’ I said, ‘Have you considered how far we have moved, with such scant evidence and reason behind it, to get to this point? Where will we go next?’ He was struck by that and has indicated to me that he has gone away to think about it again. Those who want to support this bill all ought to do that.

The justification for allowing human cloning is a shifting proposition. When it suits proponents and when the audience does not include knowledgeable scientists, we are told that cloning is necessary to produce matched embryonic stem cells for therapies for Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, spinal cord injury, diabetes and so forth—and many people have had their hopes raised by this. I have seen it happen. To a more knowledgeable audience it is then conceded, however, that such therapies are unlikely, due to insurmountable practical problems like the tendency of embryonic stem cells to cause tumours. Indeed, Professor Loane Skene has conceded that this is only about research. She made no claims in her advocacy for this bill for the potential development of new tissues, replacement tissues or organs.

It is then claimed that cloning is necessary to produce patient-specific diseased stem cell lines to study the causes of diseases and to test drugs. However, when it is pointed out that Professor Mackay-Sim, at the National Adult Stem Cell Centre at Griffith University, is already conducting such study using patient-specific diseased stem cell lines derived from cells obtained from the patients’ noses, the ground suddenly shifts again. Now we are being told that cloning is necessary to identify the factors that can reprogram an adult cell to become an embryonic stem cell. And so it goes on.

In the course of these shifting claims it is said that—and, with great respect, we heard something like it from the previous speaker—we ‘should do anything necessary’ to cure a sick child and that we must not deny people hope. Those who oppose cloning, especially those with identifiable religious convictions, are accused of lacking compassion. I think it unlikely to be seriously the case that anyone in this place lacks compassion for others. To be fair to all members of this place and the Senate, a large part of their motivation for being here is because they care about other people. I would like to very clearly state, in defence of the churches and the Christians who are usually seen as being against this sort of legislation, that I do not think you can make the charge stick that they lack compassion or concern for other people. They have led the charge to expand an understanding of the importance and sanctity of each life.

Furthermore, I noted a very interesting article in the Guardian newspaper last year headed ‘Faith does breed charity’. It was written by Roy Hattersley, who is of your political persuasion, Mr Deputy Speaker McMullan. He is a pretty distinguished former Labour minister. He was not commenting on cloning or stem cell research, except by way of illustration, but, in his article, he spelled out very clearly that we need to concede that, while it is often Christians who are ridiculed for their beliefs in relation to things like stem cell research, sexual permissiveness and so forth, it is often those very people—in fact it is usually them—that you will find manning the soup kitchens, helping the destitute and the deserted and finding a place in hospital for AIDS sufferers, when they in fact disagree with a homosexual lifestyle. I commend that article to anyone who thinks that they can seriously mount an argument that there is a lack of compassion from those who, for Christian reasons, have an objection to this legislation. I think Hattersley’s honesty is refreshing.

In relation to Australians’ real views on this, the most reliable research carried out on this issue is that conducted by Christine Critchley from Swinburne University of Technology. Her comprehensive 2004 research found that a significant majority of Australians, about 64 per cent, were not comfortable with obtaining stem cells from cloned embryos. The research also found, interestingly, that religion was not the determining factor in this opposition to cloning. Her most recent research, conducted as the Senate was debating this bill, found that only 31.5 per cent of Australians were comfortable with therapeutic cloning.

I hope that registers in this place, because I think many of us are under the misapprehension that there is broad based support for this out in the community. I am not sure that they really understand that we are talking about cloning, the same technology used to create Dolly the sheep. Other speakers have confirmed that the majority of correspondence received from constituents on this bill urges them to oppose the bill. With the concurrence of those at the table, I seek to table an electronic document containing nearly 19,000 signatures collected by Make a Stand. The document states that the signatories ‘are opposed to human cloning, which includes therapeutic cloning’.

Leave granted.

Bob McMullan (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand the member for Gwydir did seek and receive agreement to table it, but just so that everyone knows: it cannot be accepted as a petition, but it is a tabled document.

John Anderson (Gwydir, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. Let me conclude by asking: where to next? This bill, like the legislation we passed in 2002, has a built-in review process. In my view, this review is designed to facilitate a further slide down the slippery slope. The review must consider any research which has been prevented as a result of legislative restrictions and recommend amendments to the legislation having regard to this matter. What more could scientists want? Anticipating the cheap accusation of scaremongering, let me mention two of the most likely proposals that will face this House in 2011. I will not be here, but others of you may be.

Firstly, there is likely to be a demand that women be paid for providing the thousands of human eggs that are likely to be needed if human cloning is ever going to produce any results. In Korea, the disgraced Professor Hwang Woo Suk used over 2,300 human eggs in his failed attempt to repeat his successful cloning of Snuppy the puppy in the human species. He could only get this number of eggs by a combination of coercion and bribery. In Britain, attempts at human cloning have not yet succeeded, despite the Newcastle facility using about 70 human eggs a month. They can only get these numbers by offering bribes, in the form of discounted IVF treatment, to poorer women. I believe that this is a real issue. I think we will next be presented with arguments justifying all sorts of payments as a simple market exchange. We will be told that it is patronising to deny women the right to choose to exchange their eggs, a valuable resource, for valuable consideration.

Secondly, we will be told that a real answer to the organ shortage and to the need for tissue for therapies is at hand. Scientists could transfer a human embryo clone to a woman’s body for a few weeks, certainly less than 20 weeks, which is the cut-off for legal abortion in some states, and the foetal clone would then be removed and dissected to obtain whole organs—liver or pancreas or whatever—or tissue such as brain tissue for treating the child or adult patient from which the foetus had been cloned.

People will say that that is just science fiction and the bill prevents it. Well, the bill presented just four years ago said no to cloning—never. But it is not just science fiction. A serious Professor of Practical Ethics at Oxford University and Head of the Melbourne-Oxford Stem Cell Collaboration, which is devoted to examining the ethical implications of cloning and embryonic stem cell research, in 1999 wrote:

… it is not merely morally permissible but morally required that we employ cloning to produce embryos or fetuses for the sake of providing cells, tissues or even organs for therapy, followed by abortion of the embryo or fetus.

We should reject this bill because it dehumanises a whole class of human beings and it represents a further decisive slide down the slippery slope into a scientific barbarism that will treat some human beings as raw material to be cannibalised at will for the benefit of other human beings. I seriously believe it should stop.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I acknowledge the contribution of the member for Gwydir. I do not come to the same conclusions as him in the position I have adopted on the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006, but I think he should be commended for the intelligent way in which he has approached the debate and the significant and weighty arguments—indeed, compelling arguments on many fronts—which he has put.

This debate is compelling all of us to take a decision on our own view about how this piece of legislation should be treated—not a party view but an individual view. From my own perspective it is another encouraging sign of the relevance of this chamber. Importantly, also, it shows the relevance of having these sorts of debates in this forum. We as politicians, as members of this parliament and representatives of the Australian people, can feel comfortable in representing our own personal views on such weighty matters as this within this chamber and having those views tested in a vote.

It is extremely important, in my view, that we understand what that means in a democracy, bearing in mind that there are many places in the world where even the semblance of resistance to the proposition which is being put would confront people with personal threats. In this case, we are talking about a very lively debate, an intellectual debate, a debate which sees people taking strong moral positions and expressing them in this chamber. So I am very pleased that we are having this conscience vote because of the nature of the issues which are being addressed.

Of course, the issues today are as complex now as they were when we first considered them in 2002. These are matters which are at the forefront of scientific understanding. But the decision that we make here is not uninformed. There have been many contributions to this debate outside this chamber, from scientists, theologians, ethicists and others—people from the community sector who have made themselves available and contributed to the discussion in many and varied ways.

I also want to say thank you to those people who took the trouble to write to me from within my electorate. Of course, there was blanket coverage of members of this parliament by people from all over Australia, but I particularly want to thank those people in my electorate who took the trouble to send me a message about what they thought of this piece of legislation. In coming to my own decision to support the legislation, I reviewed the decisions I took to support the bill in 2002. I believe that those decisions are still sound. I take support from the research and findings of the Lockhart report.

In 2002, you will recall, Mr Deputy Speaker McMullan, the parliament decided to prohibit human reproductive cloning to prohibit the creation of human embryos from those assisted reproductive technology programs for research programs but subject to strict regulation. Importantly, it directed that an independent review be conducted. That, of course, was the Lockhart review, which was handed down last December and which made 54 recommendations for the current regulatory system. In June of this year Mr Howard, the Prime Minister, responded and announced that no changes would be made as a result of the hearings and the recommendations of the Lockhart committee. What we are doing is responding to a stimulus from two private member’s bills—one by Senator Stott Despoja and another by Senator Webber—which ultimately led to the piece of amending legislation that we have today.

Of course, when we are discussing this issue of stem cell research, it is hard not to consider the many advances in medical treatment which have taken place in the last half-century. With such advances, the initial response is often one of apprehension—apprehension about interfering with the natural order or disrupting the moral fibre of our society. Such is evident in the response in the 1970s to genetic engineering. I am sure that, as an interested observer to those debates, Mr Deputy Speaker McMullan, you will recall those discussions—although it does give away our age. Concerns over human safety and morality led to a moratorium on all research in the area being proposed. This was ultimately rejected. However, were it accepted, it would have precluded the development of a vaccine for cervical cancer in the 1980s—a development which prevents half a million deaths each year worldwide. It is important to acknowledge that this example of history, whilst not answering the questions of morality at stake here, is, however, something which we need to contemplate.

During the course of the last couple of weeks I had cause to have a conversation with a friend of mine who is a philosopher. She was kind enough to send me a paper, which I circulated to members of the Labor Party caucus today, by Professor Jean Porter. Professor Porter teaches theology at the University of Notre Dame and is a specialist in the areas of foundational moral theology and the history of Christian moral thought. I was compelled to read this essay, which as I say I have circulated, because it compares the Catholic perspectives of today—and I say this as a Catholic—with the implications of what St Thomas Aquinas, that great Catholic theologian, said about ensoulment, which is when an embryo might be thought of as a person in the sense of having a rational soul.

Aquinas did not think that an early embryo possesses a rational soul. Rather, it has a vegetative soul initially, then a sensitive soul. These are subsumed within the rational soul later in the process of development. I am no theologian, but I was attracted by this discussion because, in exploring the state of the embryo from a contemporary Catholic perspective, Professor Porter raises significant questions. In this paper, which was in Commonweal on 8 February 2002 and is copyrighted to the Commonweal Foundation, she really does pose the important question as to when, in a theological or philosophical sense, life begins.

The contemporary Catholic position, as I understand it, is one in which an early-stage embryo is considered a living human organisation. This is a position of immediate hominisation. But St Thomas Aquinas, as I pointed out, had a different perspective. This perspective is termed ‘delayed hominisation’, where life is not seen to begin until the later stage of development that I described earlier. Of course, Aquinas will be disregarded by many for his lack of contemporary relevance—his perspective would have reflected an imperfect knowledge of biology. But Porter argues that such an out-of-hand dismissal is misguided and that it:

... can have the unfortunate effect of leading us to assume that our own arguments for immediate hominization are stronger and more persuasive than they actually are.

Of course, the idea of immediate hominisation, as she points out, has its basis in dubious scientific claims, such as the idea of preformation—that the human person is contained full formed in either the sperm or the ovum. What is needed, as she points out, is ‘a systematic argument’ based on the facts that we know today about the early-stage embryo—for example, about its genetic uniqueness and its capacity for growth and development.

I present this not because I am an expert or have any particular knowledge of the subject but simply to say that there are different views within the Catholic Church and that you can have a rational view about this discussion that can lead you to a conclusion that you are able to support stem cell research using embryos. That is a conclusion which I came to some time ago—previously without the benefit of Aquinas, I might say—through my own thought processes. I am encouraged that there are people who see the benefit of Aquinas’s thought, even in the contemporary age, given that there would be those who would argue that his knowledge of anatomy compared to how we view our knowledge of these matters would be vastly inferior. Yet that is not the point, because what there needs to be is a substantive argument to disprove what Aquinas has said. As Porter has pointed out, it appears that that substantive argument is not there. So I feel comfortable in my position as a Catholic in being able to support this legislation.

In any event, it seems to me that we take positions in this place based on our own understanding of what is right, and we take those positions even though they might be based on sometimes dubious assumptions—at least perceived by others as dubious assumptions. When we take those positions on our own reconciliation of the arguments, then it seems to me that we have a right to express them here and not be pilloried for doing so. Of course, we will be criticised. There will be people who say, ‘You are wrong,’ and I am prepared to accept that criticism.

I do value the opportunity to talk about these very important moral questions and argue, as I do, that we have an obligation as a community both here in Australia and indeed in the world community to seek ways of alleviating the suffering of others. If we are potentially able to provide cures for such diseases as cancer, Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s through the use of stem cell research, then we should encourage that research. I say that all humankind will benefit. It seems to me that we have an obligation to, if we can, alleviate the suffering of those who are so afflicted.

I appreciate that there are those who say, as the member for Gwydir has done, that the arguments that I have made do not cut the mustard with him. Fortunately, he is able to vote a different way. I am not going to compel him to support me, nor would I cajole him to support me. I respect his values and I respect his views just as I respect the views and moral values of others who are participating in this debate and those who will not support the legislation.

There have been many advances in adult and embryonic stem cell research and significant legislative changes overseas since the acts were introduced in 2002. According to Professor Bob Williamson from the Australian Academy of Science’s National Committee for Medicine:

New research shows the value of embryonic and adult stem cells and somatic cell nuclear transfer in informing work to improve the health of Australians.

Further, he says:

Retaining a total ban on somatic cell nuclear transfer in Australia rather than allowing it under strict, transparent regulation will disadvantage Australian researchers, the Australian economy—and ultimately, the people of Australia.

Of course we then confront the issue of the inevitable brain drain, because already, as he points out, the less restrictive regulatory environment overseas has led to a number of prominent stem cell scientists leaving Australia for the United States.

There are strong moral questions to be responded to, but I believe there are strong moral arguments to support this legislation. There are also strong scientific and medical reasons, and strong arguments in terms of our nation’s economy for supporting this legislation. As I say, I support the right of those who do not share my view to express them, but I would urge them to reconsider. I will take great pride in supporting this legislation.

Teresa Gambaro (Petrie, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to place on record my recognition of the contribution of the previous speaker, the member for Lingiari, and his powerful statements in support of the bill. I also would like to register my strong support today of the private member’s bill moved by Senator Patterson, the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. Before I go into the reasons for my support, I would like to acknowledge the work of Senator Patterson, Senator Webber and Senator Stott Despoja in bringing this bill, firstly, into the Senate and now into the House of Representatives.

I am speaking on this bill because my constituents deserve to know what position I have taken on the bill and I have an obligation, as their elected representative, to tell them. I wish to thank my many constituents from Petrie for the representations they made to me, as well as those made by churches, research doctors, advocacy groups, scientists and community organisations. All of the arguments have been delivered with conviction, particularly from those against the proposed changes, and I do appreciate and respect their points of view. These concerns included issues regarding when life begins and questioning the effectiveness of the science of embryonic stem cell research in providing cures for diseases. I always value input from my constituents, and I thank each and every one of them for the time they have taken to write to me, to email me or to phone my office.

I must say that I was not like many of my colleagues, who were crystal clear about voting either for or against the bill. It has led me on a journey of listening to scientific advice, seasoned arguments for and against, and I have taken into account the views and recommendations of the Lockhart committee, which was a committee made up of scientists and legal ethicists.

Some people have seen this issue as largely a moral one. As a Roman Catholic, I take my faith and the issues of human life very seriously. However, about 11 years ago my father was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease, a debilitating wasting disease for which currently there is no cure. I must say that I knew nothing of how such a disease affected families across Australia until my family experienced this incredible journey. I wish to place on the record my great appreciation of the work being done in Queensland by Professor Alan McKay-Sim and Professor Peter Silburn on adult stem cell research in my home state.

About four months ago my family was proud and honoured to have a fundraising night for adult stem cell research, during which we founded the Dominico Gambaro Research Foundation. To my colleagues in this House—the Hon. Joe Hockey, the Minister for Human Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Workplace Relations, and Kevin Rudd, the opposition leader—I thank them immensely for their support on the night.

Despite the great potential already seen in the adult stem cell field, I believe that scientists must be given the greatest opportunity to find remedies for many diseases that are currently incurable, including Parkinson’s. I know that embryonic stem cells are in the early stages of developmental research, but I feel that we should not close off this avenue. It is the current frontier of medical research, and Australia has the opportunity to be among the world leaders in developing these techniques. The cutting edge nature of the work was recognised by the diabetes unit at the Prince of Wales Hospital in Sydney, which named its recently developed stem cell line Endeavour 1, after Captain Cook’s ship. It is a fitting name. That is where I see us standing at this moment. There is a journey of exploration ahead of us; we are not exactly sure what we will find, but there will be no discovery unless there is an attempt. And there are indications of a great wealth of potential cures to be found.

Embryonic stem cell research has identified the potential for therapies for specific diseases and recent research includes the following. In the US, at Advanced Cell Technology, human retinal cells have grown from embryonic human stem cells. In a few years time, this may lead to treatments for muscular degeneration. In October 2005, cells that fight cancer were produced from human embryonic stem cells, for the first time, at a laboratory level. Down the track, this ability could hold some promise for treating leukaemias and lymphomas. In February 2006, it was reported that Martin Pera and a group of scientists from Monash University had found a way of removing abnormal stem cells. This promises to eliminate one of the concerns about prospective stem cell lines, mainly the risk of cancerous cells developing. In mice, embryonic stem cells have been used to treat sickle cell anaemia, an inherited disorder particularly prevalent in the tropics. And in November 2005, it was reported that British scientists had converted human embryonic stem cells into cartilage cells, giving the hope that one day cartilage could be grown for transplantation purposes.

Although tumour formation is nominated as a downside of embryonic stem cell therapies, none were formed. If Australia chooses not to proceed down this path, it will not stop the creation of embryos by fertilisation and nuclear transfer. This research currently exists in the United Kingdom, Belgium, China, Israel, Japan, Singapore, Spain, Sweden and South Korea. The outcome will invariably be that another generation of scientists will be lost overseas, part of the so-called brain drain.

Australia has some of the world’s best scientists and researchers and well-established and well-resourced laboratories. It would be a waste of potential for Australia not to keep pace with an evolving field of research. It was not long ago that blood transfusions, the development of a smallpox vaccine, penicillin and organ transplants were questioned. These procedures now form part of our everyday lives, yet there were many who put hurdles in front of the research.

The Lockhart review came up with a number of recommendations to the government. Then a Senate committee examined the review and had an inquiry into the bills put forward by Senator Patterson, Senator Stott Despoja and Senator Webber. I am confident of the prohibitions placed on this bill, and I am convinced that this will not lead to the ability of anyone to misuse this power to continue research in an unethical and dangerous way.

At times when I lean down to speak to my father, when he is having one of his not-so-great ‘Parkinson’s days’, he pleads with me to help him. I cannot look him in the eyes and say that I will not be supporting this bill—a bill that one day will find the cure for Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s diseases, multiple sclerosis and diabetes; a bill that one day will find the cure for cystic fibrosis, brain damage, muscular dystrophy and stroke; a bill that may not help my dad at this time but may leave a positive legacy so many others will not suffer as he has suffered. If I could do one thing in my role as a parliamentarian to stop one person from suffering from Parkinson’s, I would. And scientists should be given that chance because that ‘one day’ may be here sooner than we think. For me that one day is today, and I will be supporting the bill.

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. We hold conscience votes on bills such as this because they contain within them ethical and moral dilemmas. For some of us in this House, those ethical and moral dilemmas are about the contents of the bill itself. For others, the dilemma stems from our role as representatives of constituents who have conflicting and strongly held views. There are a number of people in my electorate for whom this bill is so profoundly repulsive that their relationship with this government will be quite significantly damaged if this bill is passed. They will be personally hurt by the idea that they live in a society which they believe would create an embryo in order to harvest it for someone else’s gain. I do not believe that this bill does that, but, in considering this bill, my ethical dilemma is how I, as a representative, find a path through these conflicting views of the need by some to find cures for appalling diseases and the revulsion that others have for some of the contents of this bill.

The supporters of the bill seek to allow advances in medical research and science which aim to cure diseases for which there are presently no cures. I have received representations from parents of children with illnesses, people with illnesses themselves and peak organisations representing people with illnesses—illnesses that may be cured thanks to the research allowed by this bill. They implore this parliament to follow a path that will allow the scientific research to continue. I have also been contacted by many individuals and representatives of churches who are opposed to this bill. They argue on ethical grounds for the sanctity of human life. Many of the letters and emails I have received are, I believe, ill informed, but some are not. The challenge for members of this House is to find paths that are acceptable to most. We will never find a path that is acceptable to people at both ends of the spectrum, but we must find a path that is acceptable to most. I believe that in drafting this legislation Senators Patterson, Webber and Stott Despoja have done an extraordinary job in finding middle ground and in building in safeguards that address most of the concerns that have been raised by my constituents.

Before I even saw this legislation, I started to consider what lines I would not cross in relation to stem cell research. There were three. The first is quite obvious: I would never support a bill that allowed the creation of an embryo specifically for it to be harvested. If I believed that this bill did that, I would not be supporting it. Secondly, I would not support a bill that allowed for the cloning of a human being. In fact, when I considered that, I was quite amazed how repulsed I was by the very idea that anybody might pursue that. Genes have one life; my genes have one life, so do yours, Mr Deputy Speaker, and so do the member for Macarthur’s—even though his genes are very fine indeed. It is also a repulsive idea that we would ever as a society do the experimentation that would be necessary for us to get the cloning of a human being right. It is a revolting idea and I would never support a bill that allowed it to happen. Thirdly, I would not be supporting this bill if I believed it would lead to a market in eggs or embryos in any way. But I do not believe that this bill does any of those three things. I believe that it will benefit many of the people who live with illnesses, particularly some of the worst illnesses, and if there were a way to allow that research without crossing those boundaries, I was looking for it. I believe that this bill delivers it.

The debate we are having today on the use of human embryos for research is an extension of the debate that first took place in this place back in 2002; that was also a conscience vote. When the parliament first considered the use of human embryos in research, parliament decided at that time to prohibit human cloning, to prohibit the creation of human embryos except for the purposes of assisted reproduction programs and to allow the use of excess human embryos from those assisted reproduction technology programs for research purposes. The legislation allowed research to be undertaken using embryonic stem cells derived from embryos that would have otherwise been discarded in the IVF program, but it made the use of those embryos subject to strict regulation. One of the safeguards built into the 2002 legislation was the requirement for a review after two years. That review was conducted by the Hon. John Lockhart and subsequently became known as the Lockhart report, which was delivered in December last year and has since then been extensively scrutinised by the Senate and members of the public.

In June this year, the Prime Minister responded to the report by saying that the government would not be putting forward changes to the legislative framework for research involving human embryos, so instead we have before us today the private member’s bill which we are now debating. The bill incorporates most of the recommendations of the Lockhart review and it does so without crossing the three lines that I referred to before. It prohibits the development of a human embryo specifically for harvesting. I am putting it that way because that is the language I found in the letters that I received from many of my constituents, who said, ‘Don’t let this happen; it’s morally wrong to create an embryo for harvesting.’ Of course it is. But this bill does not do that. Under this bill, a human embryo—that is, a human egg fertilised with a human sperm—can only be created for the specific purpose of achieving pregnancy in a woman. It prohibits the creation of a human embryo for any other purpose.

It goes further, because science has developed since 2002, and it also prohibits the creation of a human embryo by fertilisation of a human egg with a human sperm that contains genetic material provided by more than two persons. It is necessary to toughen the regulation here because science has progressed since 2002. Under the IVF programs already in place, more embryos are created than are implanted in the woman and so not all are used. The 2002 bill allowed for the use of excess embryos for research purposes where those embryos were about to be destroyed. I have to say that I am glad I was not voting on that bill; I think I would have found that one very difficult. But, having had that bill passed by the parliament, I respect the decision made by that parliament at the time.

This bill does not change that at all, but it adds two new activities, both of which were recommended by the Lockhart review. The first of these, which is not controversial, fixes an ambiguity in the 2002 law. In IVF programs embryos are often created that are unsuitable for transplantation because of, for example, genetic flaws, and these are usually disregarded. This bill allows those so-called ‘fresh’ embryos to be used for research purposes along with those that will be discarded at a later date.

The second new activity is more contentious and I believe it is also much more misunderstood. When people contact me about human cloning and creating embryos for harvesting, they are talking about somatic cell nuclear transfer and they are seeing it in a way which I do not. While I cover this area I will refer to some of the views that I have encountered and have had to consider in my decision to support this bill.

The 2002 bill put a moratorium on somatic cell nuclear transfer, which this bill lifts under the strictest of conditions. The ethical dilemmas surrounding the issue of embryonic stem cell research or somatic cell nuclear transfer are founded in individual definitions of when and how life is created. Somatic cell nuclear transfer, or SCNT, technology involves taking the nucleus of a somatic cell, such a skin or blood cell, and implanting it into an egg from which the nucleus has been removed. I have received letters concerned about the use of animal eggs, but that is specifically banned by this bill. We are talking in this bill about a human egg from which the nucleus has been removed and in which a human somatic cell, such as a skin or blood cell, has been implanted. Then the cell is forced to divide through chemical and physical stimulation.

Under a purely scientific definition, these dividing cells are embryos, but in my mind there is a great difference between a human embryo created through the fertilisation of a human egg by human sperm and a cell forced to divide by somatic cell nuclear transfer. Whether such a dividing cell would develop into a foetus and then a person is questionable. It is not known whether this cellular entity would develop into a baby if implanted in a womb, but it does have the theoretical potential to create a human life and it was the technology used to create Dolly the sheep.

But, under this legislation, this cellular entity cannot develop into a foetus or a baby. For a start, the bill only allows such entities to be created for the development of specific embryonic stem cell lines, such as is currently legal in Japan, Singapore, the United Kingdom and Sweden. I have had letters from constituents concerned that SCNT technology is a slippery slope that will lead to human cloning, but this bill specifically bans human cloning and introduces safeguards that do not allow technology to be developed that would lead to the cloning of humans. Such a thing would be abominable and is rightly banned. We do not know whether or not SCNT or a comparable process would result in the birth of a human clone. All around the world human cloning is banned, and this bill bans it in this country. Human cloning and the process that might—and I do stress ‘might’—give rise to this process are still outlawed in Australia and any breach faces heavy fines. And so it should.

For starters, the cellular entity created by SCNT must not be allowed to develop beyond 14 days. The period of 14 days is chosen because, after that period, a primitive streak might develop. At this stage the embryo is called a blastocyst and consists of about 100 cells. According to scientists, the primitive streak is the first sign within the dividing cells of a multicellular structure that signals life and, if the primitive streak is allowed to continue to develop, it may become the basis of a nervous system. By ensuring that the cellular entities are not allowed to develop beyond 14 days, we are ensuring that science cannot explore the possibility of cloning humans. It is simply out of the question. This bill will not give scientists free rein to experiment as they like. It introduces strict rules governing the use of these cells.

Secondly, a licence must be issued by the National Health and Medical Research Council licensing committee in accordance with strict legislated criteria. In making this decision about a licence, the council will consider what the intended use of the cells is. So far in Australia there are very few licences—only nine have been issued, all to highly reputable organisations with substantial track records in research. For example, one licence has been issued to IVF Australia and the Prince of Wales diabetes transplant unit to create stem cell lines from frozen embryos that will be used in a range of diabetes tests.

I have also received letters from constituents arguing that stem cell research is not necessary because of the existence of adult stem cell research. Reports from the science community give us a different story. There are two areas of research that are different, and one reason for using the technique of somatic cell nuclear transfer is to create an entity that is genetically identical to the donor of the adult cell to generate stem cells identical to the donor with the theoretical capacity to grow into tissue that the donor will not reject. Stem cell research is still in its early phases and I do not believe it is right to exclude it from consideration because in the first three or four years it has not achieved extraordinary results. In the field of medical research it can take 20 or 30 years to achieve the kinds of results that will bring real benefits.

You can tell from what I have said already that, with restrictions in place, both embryos from the IVF program and eggs will be relatively rare. I have received letters from constituents concerned that because they are rare women will be exploited for their eggs. Again, this cannot happen under this bill. The bill continues the current ban on the trade and commodification of human eggs, sperm and embryos. Again, because eggs and embryos will be extremely rare, the bill 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. The purpose of this is to make sure that researchers know what research is being done so that these rare gifts to the science community and to people suffering from appalling illnesses will be used in the best possible way.

On the whole, I am incredibly impressed by the work that Senators Patterson, Webber and Stott Despoja have done in putting this bill together. It is an extremely difficult area that attracts comment from a wide range of people with extremely diverse views. I believe this bill charts a very careful path. It also requires further review in the future. It assumes that, as science changes and develops, so too must we review when and how we deal with this quite complex and ethical dilemma of exploring solutions to health problems in an area which profoundly moves people to one position or another. In summing up, I think this bill charts a very careful path. It is very carefully thought through and a really good piece of legislation. I commend it to the House.

Bruce Baird (Cook, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in support of the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. I congratulate those in the other place, particularly Senators Patterson and Stott Despoja, for bringing forward this legislation. This bill is clearly consistent with the recommendations of the Lockhart review, which proposed that most of the current prohibitions on stem cell research should remain. While the previous legislative changes in this area have allowed, for research, the use of excess embryos created for IVF under licence, the Lockhart review recommended allowing research into the fertilisation of human eggs by human sperm up to the first cell division in order to improve IVF technology. It also recommended that fresh ART embryos—that is, embryos that are used for IVF—determined to be unsuitable for implantation should be permitted for use in research and for improvements in clinical practice. Most significantly, the Lockhart review recommended the creation and use of human embryo clones for research under licence, as long as they are not fertilised by human sperm and human egg and they are not implanted into the body of a woman. They must also not be allowed to develop for more than 14 days.

This bill would allow these key recommendations under strict licence. The recommendations of the review were sensible. They considered carefully the need to balance community values, both in terms of moral principles and community support, with continuing advancements in medical research and technology. There is no doubt that this bill deals with a deeply personal and highly emotive aspect of science and morality. There is no question though that the community largely sees the advancement of medical science to help to cure or to treat disease as a major priority.

This bill presents great hope for so many people. This kind of research has great potential to help improve treatment and even to cure diseases like diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, muscular dystrophy and motor neurone disease—and, of course, there are many more diseases. The potential is great, but it is important not to overstate or exaggerate. Stem cell research and therapeutic cloning are not the miraculous answer to all of mankind’s medical problems and advances will occur over many years. This type of research will not cure diseases overnight.

As Australian of the Year Ian Frazer has said, the fruits of this research may be enjoyed by those not yet afflicted by these diseases. Yet the potential is quite remarkable. Therapeutic cloning provides a unique opportunity to help understand the causes of diseases and, therefore, has the potential to improve treatment and the quality of life of sufferers. Then there is the potential even to cure illness entirely.

Embryonic stem cell research has advanced substantially since its first use in 1998. Researchers have coaxed human embryonic stem cells to produce mature cells, including cardiac, pancreatic and neuronal cells. There have been promising results from embryonic stem cells being transplanted into animal models of human ailments such as Parkinson’s, spinal cord injury and diabetes. Therapeutic cloning has also determined the ability to restore function to damaged tissues in animal models of Parkinson’s and immunodeficiency. There is no doubt that we should be encouraged by these developments. I believe that we must embrace these medical advances and do all we can to increase their profile and scope. There are many Australians whose lives could be changed for the better.

I am aware of the argument put forward by opponents of this legislation that therapeutic cloning represents the destruction of human life. I do not accept that. Compassion, not moral fundamentalism, should be our guiding principle. Somatic cell nuclear transfer is not creating human life in the way I understand human life to be defined. The injection of DNA into a female egg is not the same as human sperm and a human egg conceiving life. This much is clear to me. In fact, the High Court in the United Kingdom ruled in 2001 that an embryo created through the process of therapeutic cloning is not defined as human life. Using a human egg, a tissue cell, a skin cell or some other kind of cell is cloned. In my mind, this is different from a human sperm and a human egg. This cloned cell is not a fertilised egg. It will never be implanted in a woman or an animal. It will not develop for more than 14 days. I have no moral difficulty in accepting this practice, particularly as it offers the hope of easing human suffering.

There are many opponents to this bill and they are very noisy opponents. They, of course, invoke the right to life. Yet, when I consider the plight of many Australians at home and abroad, the plight of so many people around the world today and the immense suffering that is out there, I think those who speak of a right to life have a very narrow focus. There are much broader aspects to preserving life.

In the Darfur region of Africa, up to 450,000 people have been killed in acts of genocide and another four million are now relying solely on international aid to survive. Last year in China, conservative estimates are that 1,770 people were executed and another 3,900 were sentenced to death, even for non-violent crimes such as tax fraud, embezzlement and accepting a bribe. Meanwhile, Iran executed 94 people, Saudi Arabia executed 86 and the United States executed 60; 47 children have been executed in Iran and Saudi Arabia in the past 15 years. Around the world, about 30,000 children die each day, mainly of preventible causes. That is 11 million children a year—the greatest number in sub-Saharan Africa and an almost equal number in our region, the Asia-Pacific, where 40 million people do not have access to clean water and two million children under than the age of five are expected to die in the next 10 years. In Cambodia the infant mortality rate is 96 per 1,000 births. This is in our own region, home to 14 of the world’s least developed countries.

When we talk about a right to life, we have a responsibility to remember children in Sierra Leone and Somalia; or Sudanese people, who are subject to acts of genocide; and those who face execution in China, Iran and Saudi Arabia. We have a responsibility to those 4.7 million children who died this year in abject poverty throughout the Asia-Pacific region. These people all have a right to life and, in our relative comfort, they are too easy to forget.

As a society, we are certainly not doing enough to preserve life in these areas. Those of us who are concerned with preserving life need to focus on these types of issues—not just issues of gay marriage, abortion or therapeutic cloning—and to fight for the lives of the many millions of people around the world, and even in our own region, who cannot guarantee their own survival. As a developed, wealthy nation we have access to the very best and most advanced medical and scientific research and technology. With such remarkable progress being made in the area of stem cell research in such a short period of time, it would be remiss of us to close the door on the possibility of great advances in the treatment of disease.

There are a lot of unfounded claims about what this legislation will, in practice, allow. Let it be clear that this bill will retain existing prohibitions on placing a cloned human embryo in the body of a human or an animal. The bill will continue to prohibit the import or export of cloned cells. The bill will continue to prevent the creation of a human embryo by the fertilising of a human egg by human sperm for any purpose other than the pregnancy of a woman. The bill will not allow human embryos to be placed in an animal or vice versa. The bill also will not allow the creation of embryos from a human egg and a human sperm that contain genetic material of more than two people.

The bill contains strong and exhaustive safeguards. This legislation does not put us on a slippery slope to human cloning. There will be no Frankenstein-like creatures in our midst. Many opponents of the bill, both inside and outside the parliament, have made wild claims about the calamitous outcomes for humankind to be found in stem cell research and therapeutic cloning. In doing so, they have confused the real issue at hand and scared many people off a research technique that has great potential for the advancement of human life. This legislation is also about the right to life—the potential for a better quality of life. It represents an opportunity not just to preserve life but to enhance life as well. I commend this bill to the House.

Fran Bailey (McEwen, Liberal Party, Minister for Small Business and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I remember as if it was just yesterday the words of the medical specialists who informed me soon after the birth of my first daughter that her critical, life-threatening condition was due to something called long-segment Hirschsprung’s disease. Within the first few days of her life she underwent the first of many major operations, each designed to give her a better chance of survival throughout the early years of her life but none with the ability to cure her condition or to provide a positive prognosis. That was because Hirschsprung’s disease means that the ganglion cells that provide the nerves that enable both the large and small bowel to function by absorbing nutrients, and therefore to sustain life, are either not present or are nerveless and prevent the intestinal tract from functioning.

As a young mother I quickly learned to believe in the fighting spirit of my tiny daughter as time and time again she defied the predictions of the doctors and she survived. She taught me what hope really means. This was obviously a very distressing period for my family as we struggled daily to come to terms with not only the possibility of losing our daughter but also the sort of future she might have. Today that tiny little baby is a successful and inspiring young woman with a feisty and determined nature and a zest for life that few of us could ever hope to achieve. But life has not been easy for her and she will continue to face and overcome many challenges in the future.

My daughter was born into a world where man had already landed on the moon, where jets could fly at speeds that broke the sound barrier, where telecommunications had been developed and miniaturised to such an extent that the world was just one global village, where drugs had been developed to eradicate diseases like polio and tuberculosis and where antibiotics were commonplace. When I asked my daughter’s specialists why there was not a treatment that could help her, they patiently explained to me that one day science may discover how to treat damaged human tissue. That day is now not far off if we allow our scientists, as do scientists in the United Kingdom, Sweden, some states in the USA, Israel, China and Singapore, to continue their research and to use not just adult and embryonic stem cells but also somatic cell nuclear transfer, known as SCNT. And that, of course, is what this debate is about here in this chamber today—whether to allow our scientists, under the most strict scientific, legal and ethical protocols, to develop SCNT to produce cells for research and, ultimately, for therapy.

There has been much debate about cloning technology and I want to state for the record that I do not under any circumstance condone the cloning of human beings, which must be developed from a fertilised egg, but I do support applying this technology to enable scientists to develop cells from an unfertilised egg that can be used to treat damaged or diseased tissue in humans.

This legislation, the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006, provides for the development of SCNT by using an unfertilised egg as an incubator for up to 14 days under the strictest regulations. The legislation that this House passed in 2002 allowed for the creation of human embryonic stem cell lines from fertilised human eggs that were surplus to the needs of IVF implantation, and they could never be implanted in a woman’s uterus. This legislation would allow the creation of human embryonic stem cells derived from an unfertilised human egg using the SCNT process, which would also never be allowed to be implanted in a woman’s uterus.

This legislation would allow our scientists to understand the causes of disease and to provide for a better quality of life by developing treatments for disease. Most importantly, it has the potential to enable our scientists to develop cures for diseases such as Parkinson’s disease, diabetes, cystic fibrosis, heart disease, motor neurone disease and many others, including Hirschsprung’s disease.

All those years ago when I had my daughter I never dreamt that one day I would have the opportunity to stand in our national parliament and vote to give our scientists the means to improve not just my daughter’s life but the lives of so many of our Australian citizens. It is with great hope that I support this legislation.

Sharon Grierson (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. I support the bill and the hope it offers for many Australians. Firstly, I would like to commend Senator Patterson for her work in presenting this private member’s bill so that we can finally deal with the recommendations of the Lockhart review, which were released in December last year. I would also like to commend Senators Webber and Stott Despoja for their work in putting forward other proposals and all senators who contributed thoughtfully to improve this debate. Listening to the speakers so far in the debate in the House of Reps, I know that most members of the House are also approaching this legislation with careful consideration.

Although the public may not always appreciate it, given the theatre of question time shenanigans and personality based reporting on the nightly news, members of parliament do take their responsibilities seriously. They come to Canberra from all around this great nation to deliberate on issues and to make laws based on those deliberations, but absolutely none of us come to this place equipped with all the knowledge we are going to need on all of the issues that we are going to face. Our backgrounds are diverse. I was a principal, several here are lawyers, some are doctors and others are from diverse employer and employee backgrounds. Our professional and work backgrounds shape how we approach issues, as do some of our religious and ethical beliefs and perhaps our family history and personal experiences.

But as far as I know none of us here are biomedical scientists or experts on human cloning or embryo research. It is not our job to be scientists; it is our job to make sure that our scientists have the ethical and legal framework in which to responsibly and safely pursue vital medical research for the benefit of all the people of this nation. So on this issue, like on many of the issues that come before us, expert advice is correctly sought.

When the time came for the review of the act that the legislation before us today is to amend, we did call in the experts. The review was conducted by the late John Lockhart, a former justice of the Federal Court of Australia, and the review committee included a clinical ethicist, a specialist gastroenterologist, a clinical neurologist, a neuroscientist, a lawyer and an ethicist. Not only was this a committee of experts, but it also received over 1,000 submissions. It held public hearings in every state and territory, held facilitated consultations and undertook site visits. It was a comprehensive review to determine whether there had been developments in the technology, scientific research, potential therapeutic applications and community standards surrounding the issues covered by the original act. The committee unequivocally found that there had been. At the time of the review report’s release, Justice Lockhart said:

The Committee has concluded that, based on its wide consultations, there is a need for an augmentation of the current system to allow research, within a rigorous ethical framework, into emerging scientific practices that will assist in the understanding of disease and disability.

It made 54 recommendations, and most of these recommendations are reflected in the legislation we have before us today.

As Justice Lockhart’s statement suggests, a rigorous ethical framework is being maintained. The legislation will retain existing prohibitions on: placing a human embryo clone in the human body or the body of an animal; importing or exporting a human embryo clone; creating a human embryo by fertilisation of a human egg by human sperm for a purpose other than achieving pregnancy in women; creating or developing a human embryo by fertilisation of a human egg by human sperm 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; making heritable alterations to a human genome; collecting a viable human embryo from the body of a woman; creating or developing a chimeric embryo; developing a hybrid embryo beyond 14 days; placing a human embryo in an animal, a human embryo into the body of a human other than into the female reproductive tract or an animal embryo in a human; and importing, exporting or placing in the body of a woman a prohibited embryo. That is an extensive list of prohibitions.

But let us be clear: this bill specifically prohibits human cloning for reproductive purposes. We will not see cloned babies being born. This bill also prohibits hybrid embryos being developed beyond 14 days. We will not see unformed part-human creatures being born. So we have strong prohibitions and protections remaining in place. These prohibitions and protections will never satisfy some of those people who are running scare campaigns on this issue, trying to whip up fear in the community. But I do believe that these prohibitions and protections will satisfy those people who have rationally addressed this issue and raised those concerns.

As with the last time these issues came before the parliament, I have received a large number of representations from my constituents both for and against this legislation. While I do not agree with all of them, I respect the views of all the people of Newcastle, and I thank them for taking the trouble to contact me. However, I have to say straight up that, having considered the evidence, having considered the expert advice, having considered the opinions of my constituents and, indeed, having searched my own conscience, I do not believe the risks are so great that we have to abandon this worthwhile line of scientific research.

People have said that this line of research is unethical. I do not believe that it is. I believe that it is more unethical for us to abandon these lines of research. I believe it would be unethical to give up on potential cures for disease, to give up on the hope that many people living with disease and disability rightly have for a cure or reversal of their condition.

I recall that only last month many members in this place hosted children from their electorates who are living with juvenile diabetes. I met with a young ambassador from Newcastle, a young girl who was living with the disease. This brave young person faces a daily regime of insulin injections and blood glucose level monitoring while rigorously following a healthy diet and exercising regularly. The message from the kids who came to Parliament House that day was that they would rather have a cure for diabetes than a million dollars. It was a message of hope, and I guess it was a plea to us. We should not give up on that hope. Juvenile diabetes is one of those diseases and disabilities, along with others such as spinal cord injury, motor neurone disease, Rett syndrome and Parkinson’s disease, for which we should be looking for cures in every possible direction. This bill allows us to do that.

Under the new laws, scientists must apply for a licence from the National Health and Medical Research Council to: use excess assisted reproductive technology embryos; create human embryos other than by fertilisation of a human egg by a human sperm, and to use such embryos; create human embryos by a process other than fertilisation of a human egg by human sperm containing genetic material provided by more than two persons, and use such embryos; create human embryos using precursor cells from a human embryo or a human foetus, 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; and create hybrid embryos by the fertilisation of an animal egg by human sperm, and develop such embryos up to, but not including, the first mitotic division provided that the creation or use is for the purposes of testing sperm quality and will occur in an accredited ART centre. The uses of embryos under such licences may only be authorised for development up to 14 days. In no circumstances may any embryo be developed outside the body of a woman beyond 14 days.

So what we are putting in place is a regime that the experts have recommended is the best regime to ensure our scientists can investigate new techniques and possibilities in a strongly regulated framework. Our scientists will now be able to investigate cures for disease by using embryonic stem cells rather than just adult stem cells. This is one of the key changes being proposed in this legislation.

This parliament asked the Lockhart committee to recommend any changes we needed to make to keep up with technological advancements, and this is one of those areas. The Lockhart review concluded:

... based especially on the evidence of experts working directly in one or both fields of stem cell research ... that further research involving both adult and embryonic stem cells is required to improve knowledge and to develop effective disease treatments.

Well, bring it on. While acknowledging that some advances had been made using research into adult stem cells—and some of those have been at the University of Newcastle—the report found that those advances are going to be much more limited than the advances possible if we look at embryonic cells as well.

What the review is saying is that we should not be limiting our avenues of research. This is a position upon which patient advocacy groups agree. I am proud to be a co-convenor of the Parliamentary Friends of Dementia, and in that role I work closely with Alzheimer’s Australia. This is an advocacy group that works extremely hard in raising awareness of dementia. Alzheimer’s Australia regularly comes to Canberra to lobby for more research into how to combat this disease which will in the future greatly affect more and more of our ageing population. Alzheimer’s Australia has released a position paper in support of the Lockhart recommendations, particularly supporting the maintenance of the strong regulatory framework while allowing our scientists to use the most promising avenues of research.

Neurodegenerative disorders—Parkin-son’s disease, Huntington’s disease and motor neurone disease, all of which can result in dementia—are known to be among the most promising candidates for stem cell based therapies. Motor neurone disease is currently being studied with some success using therapeutic cloning techniques in the UK. Under this legislation our scientists will be able to pursue this therapeutic cloning, also known as somatic cell nuclear transfer. The process involves the transfer of the nucleus from an adult cell into an empty egg in order to generate embryonic cells.

The Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research Australia, CAMRA, another patient advocacy group, says that this research has enormous potential medical benefit in genetic diseases, diseases of old age and serious injuries. CAMRA therefore supports the ban on reproductive cloning but supports therapeutic cloning. So does the Australian Academy of Science, which represents Australia’s leading scientists. The academy says that while adult stem cells have the advantages of proven safety and the absence of immune rejection, embryonic stem cells have the advantage of being able to make every kind of cell in the body and to multiply indefinitely. It has therefore arrived at the conclusion that both forms of research need to proceed to maximise the chances of developing medical applications.

The academy also points out that a number of prominent stem cell scientists have left Australia, unfortunately, to work in less restrictive environments overseas. Australia should be encouraging our top scientists to stay here. It is in Australia’s national interest that our brightest minds are working on projects in Australia. The current ban on therapeutic cloning prohibits our scientists from being involved in some of the most cutting edge research on the globe, and is a perverse incentive for them to leave this country. This is a loss for our scientific community, our national interest and, most of all, the patients who are looking to these researchers in the hope of a cure.

It is not just the scientists who support the legislation before us today. In the course of its review, the Lockhart committee was asked to examine public attitudes to these issues and found a growth in acceptance of the use of human stem cells derived from embryos and from adults. Between 2002 and 2005, the percentage of Australians who approve or strongly approve of human stem cells being derived from embryos increased from 53 per cent to 65 per cent. For adult stem cells, the increase was from 70 per cent to 78 per cent. Support for human cloning remained at eight per cent over the same period.

This clearly shows that the public is aware of the difference between cloning for reproductive purposes and cloning for therapeutic purposes. They understand that the joys, heartache and responsibilities of parenting are a very different debate and that this bill in no way detracts from parenthood or the sanctity of human life. It also shows a majority in favour of research involving both embryonic and adult stem cells. A Research Australia poll released last month also shows majority support for both forms of research. The legislation before us, then, fairly reflects community attitudes on this issue; it reflects the opinion of the scientists in this field; it reflects the considered view of the Lockhart committee of experts; and it reflects the majority view of senators in that place.

Some have suggested the closeness of the Senate vote means that we should be wary of passing this legislation or that we should send it back to the Senate for further consideration. I cannot agree. In our democracy, one vote is all that is needed. We cannot claim that a close vote in the Senate means that the result is somehow invalid or that it does not reflect the will of that place. There have been plenty of close votes since the coalition gained its majority in the Senate. We did not send back the industrial relations laws, the Welfare to Work legislation or the Telstra sale just because the vote was close. I wish we could but we cannot, because that is the nature of our democracy. I wish we could have had another election back in 1998 when Labor won a majority of votes but not a majority of seats. We cannot. Everyone in this place is here as a result of our strong democratic processes. We all accept this process, as do the Australian people. Our democracy is strong, and a conscience vote such as this often brings out the best in our parliamentarians.

This conscience vote has also allowed many members to share their personal and often private experiences. This is right and necessary. This is the human way forward and always improves our decisions. After all, every decision we take here in some way impacts on this country and on every Australian. It is important that Australians know that, just like them, our friends or perhaps our families or we as individuals have experienced the hardships and tragedies that impact on human lives. In my own life, mental illness has run a dreadful course with some of my dearest family members. I have shared the pain of friends whose much adored children live with schizophrenia. I have felt the heartache of mothers-to-be in my close circle faced with the choice of termination on the knowledge that their much wanted baby will be born with a serious, life-affecting condition. As a principal, I have watched so many children and their families courageously deal with severe disabilities and afflictions. I have tried to aid many constituents who suffer the burden of caring for loved ones with dementia and all types of medical afflictions or those who need special support because of their own medical condition. In all conscience, I could not live with myself if I did not give my strongest support to advancing the medical research that may one day free them from this suffering and anguish.

Once again, I thank all my colleagues who have made thoughtful and sensible contributions. I would like to leave this debate with one simple message, and that is a message of hope. It is my great hope that we pass this legislation; it is my very great hope that, once we do, our best scientists will pursue those avenues of research that are currently not open to them; and it is my very great hope that, when they do, we will see breakthroughs and discoveries that will lead to cures for some of the most problematic diseases and disabilities that our people face—spinal cord injury, juvenile diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, motor neurone disease, muscular dystrophy, heart disease, osteoporosis, leukaemia, Rett syndrome and burns complications. The list is so long. Many people living with these diseases and disabilities have nothing else except hope, and that is what this is legislation is all about: hope. I commend this bill to the House.

Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party, Minister for Workforce Participation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to support the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006, following the very important contribution from the member for Newcastle. Parliament of course addressed these issues back in 2002, when we voted to allow excess embryos from in-vitro fertilisation to be used for research but to ban the creation of embryos for the sole purpose of scientific research. We also banned the cloning of humans or the creation of human hybrids. The Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 and the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002 each contain the provision that two years after royal assent an independent review of the acts’ operation would be undertaken. The acts were reviewed by six eminent Australians whose participation was with the agreement of each state. I spoke in support of the 2002 legislation and I speak with even more conviction in support of this new bill four years later.

In those four years my family has grown. I have watched over the birth of my seven grandchildren. Three of these beautiful babies needed intensive medical intervention to survive. I have met hundreds more of my constituents, sadly many of whom suffer daily from injury or disease. They have often cruel and unrelenting conditions that leave them in a state where life is a living hell. I hope what we do this week will help our scientists find cures. I will do anything in my power to ensure that our research scientists have a well-resourced environment in which to work and that our legislation surrounds that research with the proper conditions to ensure that there are no unexpected or untoward outcomes from trying to find ways to treat some of the most difficult and debilitating conditions known to mankind.

The debate that ensued following the release of the recommendations of the eminent persons committee—the Lockhart inquiry—ran along now familiar lines. Submissions against any form of embryonic stem cell research argued that such research was unethical, as it involves the destruction of the embryo, and they felt that that raised right to life issues. For those holding such beliefs, fully human life includes an embryo and as such it should never be manipulated or in other way used. Others were concerned that allowing embryos to be used for research purposes could lead to their commoditisation, with women pressured to sell embryos in a way similar to the sale of human organs in some developing countries. There was also concern that somatic cell nuclear transfer, or SCNT, could lead us irrevocably towards human reproductive cloning. Many argued that embryonic stem cell research was unnecessary as research on adult stem cells could achieve the same results. Finally, some argued that any anticipation of cures for diseases or injury recovery through embryonic stem cell research was misplaced, and so we should ban that research. Some probably said the same thing about a cure for smallpox or TB many years ago.

My strong support for this bill in the House comes from my satisfaction that we will continue to have in place proper and adequate protection to ensure that human clones do not occur. Human cloning is abhorrent to most Australians, and indeed our own Australian scientists making submissions to the inquiry made it patently clear that they have no interest in pursuing human reproductive cloning. Rather, their interest was in the medical benefits that could potentially be derived from the nuclear transfer process. Given that this bill continues to make human reproductive cloning illegal, I am satisfied that we have adequately and comprehensively dealt with this concern. In this great liberal democracy of ours, I believe that we should allow couples involved in assisted reproductive treatment procedures to choose what is done with their own excess or no longer needed genetic material. I believe that women are able to make informed decisions about the use of their own genetic material and their bodies.

The Lockhart review report concluded that the overwhelming human good that could flow from new therapies to treat some of the cruellest and now untreatable conditions of adults and children more than prevailed over the practical or ethical concerns of some others who do not wish to see such research occur. The committee concluded:

The social and moral value that some communities attach to the human embryo needs to be balanced against the social and moral value that other communities attach to the treatment of disease, and to helping people to have a family.

In conclusion, I support this bill because of the good it might do in relieving suffering and distress in human populations. All medical research has begun decades from its final outcomes. We cannot expect cures tomorrow, but we must persist in giving our scientists every assistance in pursuing what is for the human good. The egg donation will be voluntary. These eggs are not fertilised by sperm. The eggs may be excess ones, no longer needed eggs from a woman undergoing IVF treatment or derived from ovaries removed for medical reasons. The bill ensures that the current requirement of informed consent prevails and there will be a strict prohibition of the sale of eggs and embryos.

Obviously, those who oppose such research will always have the right to refuse treatments developed through such Australian or international research. That is their right. I also respect their values and their position on what are commonly called the right to life issues. But I believe that there is a stronger and more important imperative, and that is to relieve human suffering wherever we can. I believe in an individual’s right to a pain-free, dignified, good life.

We have an excellence in medical research in this country. May the passing of this bill lead to a diminution in human suffering and, in the meantime, an elevation of hope for those to whom fate has dealt a cruel blow. Whether it is their babies, their children, their elderly parents, their friends or their family who are suffering, may they understand with the passing of this bill that we in the Australian parliament care profoundly about the future of the human condition of Australians. At the same time, we will have strong guidelines and legislation ensuring that this research continues appropriately. I thank the House.

Lindsay Tanner (Melbourne, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the debate on the bill with respect to stem cell experimentation in 2002, I expressed concerns about the gradual extension of moral boundaries that was being undertaken in that piece of legislation. I have greater concerns with respect to the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 which is before us tonight. I will ultimately vote in favour of this bill and I hope that it passes. But I hold serious reservations about the path that we are heading down and therefore I—along, I suspect, with a number of others—would caution that it will take a lot of persuading to take us any further than this particular position.

Once we opened the door to scientific interference with the process of procreation through the inauguration of IVF, we opened up a range of possibilities. What we are seeing is the gradual extension of those possibilities. We saw that in the 2002 stem cell legislation and more recently in the debate about this legislation that is before the parliament this evening. In the debate in 2002 I pointed out the difficulty that we faced then and that inevitably we will always face when we are dealing with these kinds of matters: once you allow for scientific intervention in the creation of human life—as we did with the inauguration of in vitro fertilisation—that opens up new possibilities, which in turn create scope for controversy and debate as to whether or not those possibilities should be available to be used. That in turn leads to new anomalies, new difficulties and new controversies.

For example, in that speech—and I apologise for the indulgence of quoting my own words from Hansard but I think that it is important—I said:

... if we allow the creation of what are deemed surplus embryos, it seems to me that it is not morally repugnant to seek to use those embryos for a noble purpose—namely, experimentation with a view to improving human life—if the alternative use is that they are simply to be destroyed in any event.

The difficulty is, though, that once we allow that we then create a problem of distinguishing that from embryo farming and creating embryos for the purpose of scientific research rather than for the direct purpose of procreation. In order to distinguish one from the other, we end up in a position where we are making definitions based on intent so that it is acceptable to experiment on an embryo that is created for other purposes but it is not acceptable to experiment on an embryo that is created for the purpose of experimentation ... that is a fine distinction and one that, in the longer term—sadly, I think—will be difficult to maintain. Therein lies the challenge that we face with these issues: ensuring that we make rules and draw lines that are sustainable and logical.

Therefore I find it perhaps not surprising that we are here this evening debating this legislation. In effect, the perspective I adopted in 2002 about the difficulty that this legislation would create has been the driving element in the argument with respect to the legislation before us.

My concern is that although we may move beyond that particular anomalous distinction that that legislation created, we are opening up new and in some respects more difficult moral dilemmas. I must confess that I was troubled by the original legislation that was introduced into the Senate, but I am pleased with the amendments that were made in the Senate and therefore I feel that I can vote for the legislation. Frankly, I am not sure how I would have dealt with the original legislation had it not been amended in the way it has been. I am pleased that those amendments have occurred.

The crucial question here for this parliament is whether we adhere to a basic philosophical position that ultimately boils down to the proposition that the ends justify the means. Morality of whatever kind, of whatever description we choose to give to it, does have a crucial role in the decisions that we make in this parliament—no more so than with respect to matters associated with the creation or destruction of human life. That does not have to be morality as defined by particular religious adherents. Morality simply as an expression of a humanistic point of view—even a very strictly secular point of view—can be just as deeply held and just as philosophically based as a more strictly religious based notion of morality. But, one way or another, the key dynamic underneath the choices that we face with this legislation is ultimately between a more utilitarian perspective, which at its most extreme ends up in a position of the end justifying the means, and one that emphasises the moral or ethical dimension that has its basis in philosophical concepts of human nature and human dignity, with or without a particular religious dimension.

For example, there are certain things that the vast majority of people in this country and other countries find morally repugnant and therefore reject without actually asking the question: could we as a society benefit from those things? We recoil with repugnance from some of the medical experiments and the eugenics experiments under Nazism. There were infamous attempts to create pure Aryans with children that were the product of deliberate breeding of people of supposedly pure Aryan stock and medical experiments by some of the more infamous Nazi doctors. Quite rightly, we do not start our examination of those issues by asking: could we as a species or as a society gain something from this? We recoil morally, because that is repugnant.

I am not suggesting for a moment that the proposals that are before the House are in the same category as those, but I am using that to illustrate how it is an incorrect way of looking at things to start from a utilitarian perspective only and then worry about moral or ethical questions later. In my view, if there is a clear moral or ethical dimension to a matter, as there obviously is in this case, that has to be our starting point.

So in many respects the impassioned and entirely legitimate debate about the prospective benefits of stem cell research is a little bit beside that point, in the sense that if it is morally wrong to undertake particular activities then that is the pivotal question. That is the issue that we have to resolve. As a society, do we draw a line and say that we do not wish to undertake this particular kind of activity, irrespective of what we may materially gain from it? The debates about slavery in the 18th and 19th centuries were ultimately about morality, and the question of economic issues—which did actually figure in some debates about slavery—was always a subsidiary question. The first question that we must ask ourselves in this situation is: is this right or wrong? That is not an easy question to answer, but it is important that we do not simply rush headlong down the path of scientific experimentation on ourselves, no matter what the prospective benefits may be, without asking ourselves the question: is this morally right?

Equally, the argument that comes from sections of the opposition to this legislation and, indeed, to equivalent experimentation—that it is unnecessary and therefore it should be illegal—is clearly illogical. We do not ban things because they are unnecessary; we ban them because they are wrong. The notion that somehow everything that may be required or produced by experimentation on embryonic stem cells can equally be done by adult stem cells is neither here nor there. That is in my view an entirely irrelevant consideration. We do not ban things because there are alternative ways of achieving the same objective; we ban things because they are wrong. So the onus is on those who oppose the legislation to argue the case that this is wrong.

I mentioned that question of morality and the role of the churches. Once again I want to place on the record that even though some of the churches—and possibly most of them; I have not done a tally—have a different point of view from me on this particular legislation, I welcome their contribution to these debates. I think it is extremely important for legislators of whatever party that, when we are confronted with these challenging new issues and when new frontiers are being explored, religious organisations—whose job it is to puzzle over moral dilemmas, to think deeply about the future of humanity and to express a wider view about how we should deal with each other—bring perspectives to the debate. I do not particularly care that those perspectives will sometimes—perhaps often—be different from mine. So I welcome again the contribution that the various churches make to this discussion.

There is a wider issue that is the primary cause for my concern. It is why, although I do intend to vote for this legislation, it is going to take a lot of persuading in the future to get me to go any further down this path. That issue is that we are, as a society, gradually acquiring the ability to change the nature of what it means to be human. Because of scientific and technological advance, we are gradually getting into a position where we can recreate ourselves as a species. The implications of that are absolutely profound. At some point we may cross a moral boundary, where we will in effect re-engineer what human life is, or what it is to become, in ways that are entirely unpredictable and raise a whole lot of very fundamental questions about the nature of humanity. I fear we are getting close to that point. That is, finally, what this question is about for me: how far do we go down this path of scientific or direct technological interference with the creation of human life and manipulation of ourselves in order to achieve wider benefit for humanity, before we get to a point where we cease to be what we have been?

There are already serious moral dilemmas beginning to emerge. Embryos are now being screened for genetic defects. Babies with particular genetic material needed to save the life of an older brother or sister are being engineered—in other words, deliberately created for the purpose of saving human life. Some are even seeking to create babies with disabilities that match their own, such as deafness. Bioethicists such as Julian Savulescu of Oxford University are arguing quite seriously that parents have a moral obligation to create the best child possible. That sends a chill down my spine, but the person putting forward that point of view is a serious philosopher and a serious person in this debate. We should treat those words very seriously.

Philosophers are even debating things that might seem a little wacky, such as the implications of a society where sex is no longer necessary for reproduction. We may soon be able to permanently alter our personalities through drug therapies. We may even start to merge with machines or produce hybrid species that are only part human. That sounds ludicrous, I know, but I had the pleasure of meeting and listening to a world renowned scientist, Susan Greenfield, who is an English scientist from Oxford University recently working as a thinker in residence for the South Australian government. She talks of ‘the merging of carbon and silicon systems’—that is, inert and organic matter, such as us as human beings, capable of being merged.

Directly connecting our brain cells to computers through body implants could soon be a possibility. Advances in medical science already enable us to radically change our physical appearance. There is a very big question for us as to what society would be like if we were able to, at will, change our innate characteristics or those of our children. There are some pretty obvious concerns about this. We may reduce our genetic diversity, increase our vulnerability to diseases or create much greater intolerance or discrimination against people who for one reason or another are not able to access the technologies that can alter who and what they are. People who have been in some ways engineered may even seek to get rid of those who have not, on the basis that they are in some way defective. The underlying logic of eugenicism is never far below the surface when some of these issues are discussed.

It is understandable that we should seek to improve ourselves and, particularly when you listen to some of the impassioned speeches in these debates in this parliament, it is absolutely understandable that people want to support scientific research that may enable us to get rid of or modify some of the appalling diseases and genetic conditions that millions of humans around the world suffer from. But I think we need to be careful in order to ensure that, in doing so, we do not at the same time start to interfere with the unique complexity and diversity of what the human race is.

If you want one or two simple illustrations of this, why is it that we go to great lengths to keep drugs out of sport? We use artificial devices for all kinds of things. Why do we keep drugs out of sport—or try to? It is because we value the contest based on genetic chance and individual character more than a contest between scientifically created or engineered human beings. Why do we value extraordinary physical beauty so much? It is because it is scarce—because it is inaccessible. It is subjective but it is inaccessible. If all of us had the capacity to make ourselves beautiful in conventional terms very easily then beauty would cease to mean anything. Why don’t we allow computers to compete in the world chess championships or in art competitions? The answer is simple: because they would then become competitions between computer programs.

Scientific advance cannot be stopped, but it can be managed and it can be regulated. I have as much desire as anybody else in this parliament to see advances in cures for some of the appalling diseases and illnesses we suffer. I have three close relatives with Alzheimer’s. It would be of enormous benefit to a huge number of people around the world if research of this kind were to find a cure for that illness. There are many other illnesses that are equally or more serious for which a cure, if we could find it, would be of great benefit to the human race.

These are worthy objectives, but we need to be conscious of drawing lines. I, with some reservations, will be voting for this bill, but I do make it very clear that, with regard to anything further in this pattern of legislation that emerges in the future—which I suspect it inevitably will—I will require a great deal of convincing to go further. I am already worried about where this trend is heading and I am already worried about the outer limits of scientific ambit claims as to what should be permissible. Ultimately I believe that there is such a thing as human nature and human dignity and that there are certain things, however irrational it may seem in certain lights, that should be no-go zones for us as the human race. We as a parliament should stand clear in our position that we do not support unfettered scientific interference with the nature of ourselves.

David Fawcett (Wakefield, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise tonight to speak on the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. In the short time allotted for this bill tonight I cannot go into too much detail, so I will quickly cover some of the context to the bill, look at some of the arguments in the cases for and against therapeutic cloning, and then reach my conclusion, which will be that I do not support this bill.

Back in 1998 a number of scientific advances caused parliaments around the world to start considering the ramifications of this. The process has continued through the United Nations into the General Assembly to this day. Dr Michael Wooldridge, who was the Minister for Health and Aged Care, tasked the Australian Health and Ethics Committee to report on the scientific, ethical and regulatory considerations relevant to the cloning of human beings. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs reviewed the report and it ended up with the Council of Australian Governments in April 2002. The Prime Minister with all the premiers and chief ministers agreed that the Commonwealth, states and territories should introduce nationally consistent legislation to ban human cloning. This ended up in a couple of bills, which were split.

In 2005 the former Federal Court judge, the Hon. John Lockhart AO, was commissioned and made a report with some 54 recommendations. He reviewed what had happened in the whole area of cloning, making some recommendations that were not at all controversial, such as that the ban on reproductive cloning should continue. But there were some recommendations that were controversial, such as allowing under some circumstances things like the creation of hybrid embryos. The Lockhart report also specifically recommended the amendment of definitions of what an embryo was. There were a number of things in those 54 recommendations, some of which nobody has any problem with, but a number that people do. You will be aware that the government decided initially that there would be no action. Hence a private member’s bill was put forward for action and that is what we are now addressing.

In the case for cloning, what Senator Patterson’s bill is looking for is to reflect the Lockhart review recommendations in a legislative form. This will allow the things Lockhart has put forward. When people actually think them through, the words ‘somatic cell nuclear transfer’ are relatively scientific and nonconfronting. But essentially they are talking about therapeutic cloning. One of the outcomes of the bill would even allow some disturbing things, to my mind, such as the harvesting of eggs from aborted babies as a source of eggs for the gathering of embryonic stem cells.

Why do they want to do this? For very good and quite commendable reasons: the hope of a cure. We have heard many stories here of people who either have people in their own family or people they know with diseases that are currently considered to be incurable, and they are looking for a cure. It is not a false hope—science is often a process to develop a cure. But I note that Professor Ian Frazer, the Australian of the Year, said that the therapies could not be expected to be available for at least 75 years. So whilst it is a good desire, it is certainly not something that is going to be happening tomorrow.

The claim is there that somatic cell nuclear transfer is not cloning. But the deputy chair of the Lockhart review, Professor Skene, admitted to the Senate committee that the product of SCNT is in fact a cloned embryo, because, as the professor said, it is conceivable that that embryo could in fact develop into a foetus if it were implanted. So one of the reasons they say they can move forward is because SCNT does not produce an embryo as we know it. But I believe the Lockhart review has actually refuted that in its report.

Those arguing the case for are also claiming that science has advanced since 2002, when this House and this parliament solidly refuted and rejected the concept of therapeutic cloning. But I note that the only peer reviewed report quoted in the Lockhart review was by the Korean researcher, Professor Hwang, and that has been subsequently exposed as being fraudulent.

Another argument put forward is that there will be an exodus of minds—that, if we do not allow this in Australia, the best and brightest of our researchers will go overseas. But I note that there are currently some 104,000 human embryos in storage, with around three per cent of these available for research. Since 2002 some 1,750 licences have been issued for research, but only about 178 have been used so far and, of those, only one I believe was aimed at a specific treatment. This, to my mind, begs the question: if all of these embryos and licences are available, then it is hardly pushing the boundary to see a new supply created.

Probably one of the more compelling arguments that I have heard as to why we should be prepared to be involved in this if other countries are is the concept of the dilemma of future use. The argument is that, if another country develops a cure for one of these diseases through therapeutic cloning and we have banned the development of it here in Australia, how could we then ethically or morally allow people to have access to that treatment?

I do not believe this is a barrier that should determine our decision in this matter. The reason for that is it is not a new dilemma. Before coming into this place, I was an experimental test pilot working for the military, and I was surprised, indeed shocked, to find out that the basis for much of the design work and research surrounding the effects of high altitude on the human body have a basis in work conducted by the Nazis. Following World War II, leading Nazi doctors were brought to justice in the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, and some 20 doctors were charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity. These men had decided that the pursuit of science justified the destruction of what they considered to be inferior life forms.

In 1942 Dr Sigmund Rascher began a series of hazardous, high-altitude experiments at Dachau involving some 200 prisoners, of which 80 died. In the pursuit of science, he used a decompression chamber and dissected the brains of live prisoners as well as conducting freezing experiments to check how long downed aircrew could last in the sea. We would never conduct this work now—people are horrified by the concept—but I was surprised to note that, after a number of decades of debate around the ethics of it, this information is being used now and still informs the design and the construction of aircrew ensembles and aircraft equipment that many of us fly in to get to this place. So there have been precedents set where research that we would not conduct now has led to results which we are still happy, as a society, to use.

To the case against the bill: it is important to outline what people are not against. They are not against stem cell research, because they recognise the hope that it provides for people who have incurable diseases and who hope and desire to see a cure. What they are against is the creation of human life for the specific purpose of destruction in the name of research. Why are they against it? The basis of the case for change has not been established. We live and we operate in an evidence based society, but we do not see a clear chain of evidence showing that the scientific research has moved forward and that the outcomes will be there. The process has flaws. There has been much debate about the supply of eggs—the thousands of eggs that Professor Hwang required—and the risks of egg harvesting and the potential for exploitation.

They are against the ethics involved. Lockhart recommends a redefinition of what an embryo is. Where does this 14-day threshold come from? There is some science about cell division, but on what basis do we, as legislators or even scientists, have the right to say that a life form at 13 days has any less value than a life form at 15 days? It is an arbitrary threshold, and one that I do not believe our society has the right to make. Who are we to decide that one particular form of human life is of less value to the pursuit of science and potential benefit that may accrue to others in the future?

The implications of passing this bill are another reason to oppose it. To deliberately create human life in order to destroy it crosses an ethical boundary that, once crossed, makes further infringements more acceptable and more likely. As a professional military officer for over 22 years, I am a keen student of military history. Colin Powell is quoted as saying:

We should always be sceptical when so-called experts suggest that all a particular crisis calls for is a little surgical bombing or a limited attack. When that ‘surgery’ is over and the desired result is not obtained, a new set of experts then comes forward with talk of just a little escalation—more bombs, more men and women … History has not been kind to this approach to war-making.

We see in the General Assembly at the moment evidence of this in this very field. While all of the speakers in this place have said quite categorically that they oppose reproductive cloning, in the General Assembly, other countries—many of whom have quite a lot of respect in the world such as Ireland—voted for reproductive cloning. In fact, of the member nations, one-third voted against it, one-third voted for it and one-third abstained. So potentially the weight of world opinion could take us down the next step, which is looking at reproductive cloning throughout the world.

The events in Fiji today exemplify the fact that once you have crossed an ethical boundary—in this case a coup—it is hard to turn back. Sitiveni Rabuka, in 1987 and May 2000, undermined the democratic system there via his first coup, and it has become easier and a simpler way forward for them to repeat that. Rabuka wrote a book about that, saying that there was ‘No other way’ and that was why he did it.

In this debate the outcome is my main reason for opposing this bill, in that there is another way. Adult stem cells have proven to be pluripotent and to have fewer issues with rejection and are already being used in 72 research programs for specific treatments. In conclusion, I oppose this bill, firstly, because the case for change is not robust—it has not been well established; secondly, because it involves crossing an ethical boundary with uncertain, but likely and negative, consequences; and, lastly, because there is another way.

Gavan O'Connor (Corio, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I commend the honourable member for Wakefield for his contribution to the debate on the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. The quality of his speech is testament to the great heights that this House can rise to on occasions where members from all political persuasions are called upon to consider issues of great moment to their constituents and to the society in which they live.

I rise to oppose the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill. As I have stated on the floor of this House previously, there are moments in the life of any elected member when we are called on to reflect and consider issues of great moment to the constituents we represent and to the society in which we live. This legislation and this debate is another such occasion. I am grateful on this occasion that my party, the Australian Labor Party, has allowed a conscience vote on the bill, and I do commend members from all sides of the parliament and from right across the political spectrum for the sensitive and genuine way they have considered this momentous issue and debate.

In a previous debate some years ago, I lamented the fact that some members of parliament had attempted to politicise these sorts of issues, for what political gain I am still at a loss to discern. I objected to that position at the time, and I do so now because the issue transcends that cheap political point-scoring that too often occurs in considering legislation in this place.

I am surprised we are debating this matter again so soon after the previous debate some years ago on stem cells which saw the collective wisdom of the parliament at the time reject human cloning for embryonic stem cell research. At the time of the debate, I recall many members who opposed the second bill, which related to cloning, warning that commercial imperatives and scientific pressures would soon see this matter revisited and back on the political agenda even though the parliament had made a determination in the full expression of the concept of democracy. I am cognisant of the fact that circumstances in life, the sciences and the community change rapidly from time to time, but change without question is sometimes a recipe for grave error.

I do not intend to regurgitate for the purposes of this debate the arguments I advanced in the previous one for my opposition to taking the scientific and ethical step inherent in this bill. I think the essence of what I said then applies now. I simply do not see any great imperative to move down this path when the end point can be reached another way and without exciting the moral dilemmas inherent in cloning for stem cell research. I refer here to the successful work already occurring in adult stem cell research. Members might be interested in the excellent stem cell research being undertaken by the Douglas Hocking Research Institute at Barwon Health in the Corio electorate. According to the website of Barwon Health, the institute is:

... investigating the growth and use of cord blood derived stem cells, and particularly the capacity of cord blood derived cells to differentiate into other cell types such as muscle cells and nerve cells.

The current focus is examination of culture conditions required to grow primitive stem cells, and exploration of methods for reprogramming cord blood stem cells to display characteristics and growth potential of embryonic stem cells.

Researchers are also searching for genes expressed in stem cells and have discovered several novel genes with exciting potential.

I am informed that this particular research is very encouraging. It is the sort of research where I think current resources ought to be employed, as it does not raise the intense moral dilemmas that are inherent in the procedures that are at the core of this bill. I suppose the key ethical question for all members to contemplate is a very simple one: exactly where did we begin? It is a question one is able to ask because we all made it through, so to speak, to be able to grow to our adult potential and participate in the affairs of this parliament. I do not think if we were in our embryonic state that many of us here today would be too pleased with a decision made by whomever to curtail the growth of that potential either in the 13th day or the fifth day.

I am not insensitive to the suffering of those with chronic disabilities. I am somewhat at a loss to understand, when the evidence strongly favours the use of adult stem cells in such situations, why the stronger scientific push favours experimentation on human embryos. While it might be somewhat easier for proponents of this bill to attempt to paint those who might oppose it as out of step with community standards on the question, it is important for me to put on the public record that the weight of scientific evidence does not overwhelmingly favour the directions inherent in this legislation. There is a large body of doctors, scientists, medical researchers, ethicists and others who oppose the directions that are inherent in this bill. I note that Justice Kirby, the first chairman of the Australian Law Reform Commission, believes that a thorough review should be undertaken of the legal and ethical consequences of research being undertaken in this field.

I think it is valid to raise the question as to whether only the secular view of this issue has credence in the debate. Certainly the issue of the power of vested commercial and scientific interests has been raised by the manner in which the Lockhart review has been conducted and how this debate has proceeded since then. I refer members to a very interesting two-page article by John Martin on 25 July 2006 entitled ‘Putting the cart before the stem cell’. It is a very succinct challenge to a view in the scientific community that favours cloning for this type of research. John Martin states:

Since the licensing system came into place in 2002—

and he is talking there about the use of excess embryos from IVF programs—

there have been no discoveries through this work, either in Australia or elsewhere, that could support arguments that there is an urgent need for somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), also often called “therapeutic cloning”. Since this process involves the deliberate production of a human embryo to experiment on it, SCNT moves the ethical barrier to a much higher level.

I think John Martin sums it up pretty well in his concluding paragraph to this two-page article when he asks:

... “is there a compelling reason to undertake this work?”

His conclusion is:

On present evidence there is none.

He goes on to say:

If proof of concept can be provided through animal experimentation, perhaps a case for SCNT could be made more convincingly than it can be now, but only, of course, if we accept the questionable utilitarian principle that the end always justifies the means.

I think therein lies the crux of the philosophical dilemma that many in this place face in considering this issue.

It is not just a question of whether one has a religious disposition or a religious view of the world whereby one comes to question the extension of the barriers to the conduct of this sort of research, because, as I said before, there are many prominent scientists, ethicists and medical researchers who are not of a religious disposition yet can appreciate where this particular piece of legislation might eventually lead our society.

So, in summary, what has happened since we last debated this issue that merits a change in position? Is the case for change based on a new premise? No, I do not think so. The debate still revolves around the taking of a potential life for existing life. Our generation thinks it is the only one and is willing to rob future life to sustain present life. It is this kind of thinking that has led to all sorts of problems in all sorts of areas.

I think it is time for our society to accept the boundaries of life and work within them. In the meantime, we should be encouraging the sort of research that is taking place in Geelong and other places to find the ways and means to overcome some of those diseases that are debilitating for other members of our community.

This is a complex and difficult area for all members, but I am pleased with the way in which this debate has been conducted thus far because I think there is a mutual respect for the views that are taken on both sides of the debate relating to this bill. I make note of the fact that there are many people in this chamber who are not of a particular religious disposition yet who have grave reservations about the process by which the parliament has come yet again to consider these matters.

When one has been around this parliament for any length of time—in my case, I was elected in 1993—one does come to understand the power of vested commercial interests and the somewhat spurious reasons that are often advanced to achieve a legislative change that would give them a potential for some commercial advantage at some future date. I suspect that in this instance that unfortunately has been the case. This parliament is now debating a piece of legislation that many of us, in good faith at the time of the last debate some time ago, thought would not be considered yet again after such a short time.

This is a very important issue for many of my constituents who, on both sides of the debate, have expressed their views to me, strongly held and carefully thought through. If the views that I have expressed do not agree with those of some constituents, I hope that through the collective reading of the previous debate and the things that I have said in this one they come to understand that, at the end of the day, there is an end point that I want to get to in this stem cell research that might deliver the great benefits to those who suffer from the major diseases that have been mentioned. I think we can get there by resourcing an alternative way—a way that is already proving its worth in this field. I refer to adult stem cell research. I will be opposing the bill.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate the contribution made by the member for Corio. He and I both came into parliament in 1993 and both found ourselves voting together in 2002 on very similar bills. We will be voting together again on this bill. I was part of the debate in 2002 on the embryonic stem cell research bill and the ban on human cloning bill. I debated it very vigorously. I moved a number of amendments. I called a number of divisions. I think I spoke 14 times and failed to stop embryonic stem cell research but succeeded as part of the unanimous vote of this House to ban human cloning.

At that time I threw quite a lot of effort at trying to stop embryonic stem cell research, but we failed to do so. In fact, the vote was a paltry 40-something votes against embryonic stem cell research. So on this occasion I have decided to speak only once to put my view, so as to not take the House’s time at great length, and not to move any amendments. There have been a lot of people talking about moving amendments to this bill. There was feeling that an amendment should be moved that would stop the use of aborted female foetuses for the extraction of stem cells for research purposes, which I think would be a useful change to the bill.

But I feel that nothing can make this bill acceptable to me or to the House and, even if I voted in favour of such an amendment, I would still want to vote against this bill. I think this bill has many defects, not just of a technical nature but of a principled nature and a philosophical nature. We could argue about the science—many speakers have talked about the science—but this bill turns on one fundamental point, and that is when one believes human life is created and what one believes can become an embryo that will then become a human being. That is the fundamental point of this debate and to me nothing else matters.

In 2002, we were told by the scientists and the advocates that that was as far as they needed to go—that they would get from what was available at the time all the eggs that they possibly could need to create their stem cell lines. This has been whittled away one step at a time. A moratorium that was put in place eventually disappeared. The sunset clauses that had been put in place for the return of those issues to a select committee for discussion and decision about whether new embryos could be used were all whittled away—until today, in 2006, we are debating what essentially is the overturning of a unanimous vote on the banning on human cloning in this place. This is being done under the guise of the beautifully named Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006.

Make no mistake: this is about continuing to move the boundaries of what we as human beings regard as acceptable in the research and science area. In 2002, we were told that they had reached the threshold; we were told that, if they went any further, they would be moving into the boundaries of what was immoral and unethical. As the member for Corio said, only four short years later we are debating those boundaries yet again and being asked to push them further out. I believe that, for some people—those who see no moral or ethical boundaries in science regarding this debate and what is or is not acceptable in the world today—the boundaries are limitless and eventually the next boundary will need to be pushed out.

This bill potentially allows aborted human female foetuses to be used for the extraction of cells. I am a layman, but I would have thought that was a boundary we were not going to cross. But we have crossed it in this bill. I am not opposed to stem cell research per se. Like many other members who have spoken on this bill, I am in favour—in fact, enthusiastic—about adult stem cell research. It presents us with none of the moral or ethical dilemmas of embryonic stem cell research and certainly not those associated with therapeutic cloning. It is actually bringing about achievements as we speak. The University of Manchester has developed stem cells from adult bone marrow that are regenerating into spinal discs, potentially saving Great Britain $5 billion in health costs a year.

However, I agree with the member for Melbourne that this debate is not about whether there is an alternative for us to fall back on. This bill is not a debate about whether we prefer one form of scientific research to another. This bill is about whether we believe that an embryo should be created for human life or whether there should be two classes of embryo: one created for death and one created for human life. So, even though I am in favour of adult stem cell research and against embryonic stem cell research, to me the debate is not about that. It is not about alternatives, as the member for Melbourne correctly pointed out—although I disagree with his end conclusion, because he is supporting this bill. This debate is about whether somatic cell nucleic transfer is not possibly a human life. That is what the debate turns on and that is what most people are arguing about. I reject the notion that somatic cell nucleic transfer is not capable of human life. I reject the notion that, just because we call something by a different name, it is not the same, as we understand it.

I understand that this method of science creates an embryo. It has the potential for human life. It should not be allowed to be experimented upon and it should not be treated differently from other embryos. For the first time in our history, we are allowing scientists to create two types of human beings: one for destruction and death and the other earmarked for life. To me, respect for human life is the central component of a civilised society. It is the difference between civilisation and lack of civilisation. In 2002, I said that we were on the slippery slope. I do not believe that we are on the slippery slope any more; if we pass this bill, which I fear we will, we will be at the bottom of the abyss when in this House and as a society we talk about our respect for human life. The slippery slope will have been a paradise when compared with the abyss that we will allow ourselves to slide into by supporting therapeutic cloning or embryonic stem cell research as outlined in this bill.

I respect the fact that many of my colleagues do not agree with me and many of my constituents do not agree with me. However, my constituency elected me to make decisions based on what I thought was the best judgement, and for 14 years I have tried to bring that judgement to this House. All of my colleagues are making the same judgement. I disagree with those who will vote for this bill. I disagreed with those in the Senate who voted for it. I think it is too easy and too convenient to make the decision to vote yes to this bill; I think it is harder to make the decision to vote no to the bill. But I will be voting no to the bill. I humbly disagree with my colleagues who are voting yes to it. I hope that as many of my colleagues as possible will vote to support human life and not to create two different classes of embryos in this society—which would hardly be the slippery slope but would now be the abyss.

Duncan Kerr (Denison, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing, the member for Sturt, has used language that is extremely emotional, which reflects the fact that this debate on the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 is coloured by strong feelings. However, this parliament is the repository of the judgement of the Australian public. In a debate where people of goodwill and genuine conscience differ, it is I think unfortunate that we hear language such as ‘moral abyss’. Such language suggests that those who take views such as the ones I advocate and which are reflected perhaps by a majority of this House—or perhaps not; the vote will tell—are in some way morally less worthy or, indeed, unworthy or despicable because of the choices they make in what they believe to be the best interests of the Australian public and their constituencies.

I do not come into this debate with a religious background, and I do not denigrate those who do. Many of my closest friends have strong religious beliefs, as do probably a majority of constituents. However, as I do not, I cannot be moved by or affected by an argument that commences with a premise that a particular religious tenet prohibits this particular conduct. In saying that, I accept that I ought to give proper respect and to not cheaply denigrate any views held by a large number of my fellow Australians, but I do not believe I can close my judgement in respect of particular belief systems that are not shared universally by the community.

In this instance, irrespective of the fact that a number of groups which assert that they speak on behalf of church organisations have opposed the proposal put forward in this House by my friend and parliamentary colleague Dr Mal Washer—who comes from a different party but has come forward with a bill which he in his good conscience has seen fit to place before the House even though those church organisations have asserted that it defies religious tenets to support it—I recognise that a vast majority of Australians actually support the proposal. It is not possible to be confident about the scientific measurement of that opinion, but it would be in the order of 80 per cent of the Australian public supporting the Lockhart recommendations.

Another community which has had a very strong and polarised debate has responded recently to similar discussions regarding stem cell research. On behalf of the Australian parliament, the Hon. Bruce Baird and I have recently been to the United States. We were there for a large part of the run-up to the mid-term elections. In that election, it was overwhelmingly the case that public opinion supported those candidates who identified themselves in favour of permitting stem cell research rather than prohibiting it. That might seem a bit of a turn-up for the books; nonetheless, that was the case in that community. But, in the end, neither religion nor popularity ought to determine the outcome of the vote in this House.

As I said at the outset, I do not come to this debate holding religious views so I cannot allow that to determine my view, but I have a moral conscience irrespective of that fact. Secondly, I should not allow the fact that a majority of Australians support stem cell research to influence me if I believe it to be repugnant to the moral nature of our community. So neither the fact that it is popular nor what is asserted to be its position with respect to religious belief can condition ultimately the vote that I and many in this House will make. In the end, the question must be: what is the community benefit and what is the cost? In this instance, I believe the community benefit is potentially immense and the costs slight.

The technology we are talking about is not reproductive cloning. Australia already allows research on embryonic stem cells for infertility purposes, and this is not in conflict with the basic approach that this parliament has already approved. This does open the opportunity to address some of the problems that the member for Cowan so eloquently spoke of—for example, giving people who have suffered paralysing diseases the opportunity to contemplate a better life if the medical technologies prove efficacious. Maintaining a ban will only see our researchers fall further behind, with a loss of economic benefit to this community and a loss of scientific knowledge—where we ought to be in the forefront, we will become in the rear.

There are about half a million Australians who suffer debilitating diseases and conditions which may be the subject of advancements of medicine in this area. Every day one person dies from motor neurone disease and one person suffers a spinal cord injury. There are 140,000 children who have type 1 diabetes, and more than 100,000 Australians have Parkinson’s disease. In respect of each and every one of those conditions, stem cell research, whilst offering no guarantees, seems the most promising way forward to give hope for remedying those conditions.

We have in the past debated the use of stem cell technologies. I sat on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs which presented its report to this parliament before the previous legislation was passed. I believe that passage of the legislation proposed by my friend Dr Mal Washer in this House will reflect only credit on a mature debate. I say that without denigrating those who have alternative views. I respect those views. I have heard from many constituents on both sides of this debate, and I certainly do not wish to suggest in any way that I have not been moved by their contributions. Some of the most powerful advocacy that I have received in the parliament has come from my constituents in the course of preparation for this and previous debates on these technologies. Nonetheless, in the end we are alone in this House, making a judgement as we best see fit. In this instance, I propose to vote for the bill and to not support any amendments.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Denison mentioned that the member for Sturt might become emotional about this particular subject, and I dare say that could be the case. The very basis of the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 is a dubious premise. When you go out to the electorate and say, ‘There is an opportunity to cure motor neurone disease, Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease or even paraplegia or quadriplegia,’ the majority of Australians are going to say, ‘If you can do that, we would support that.’ But when you dig deeper and ask the scientists, ‘Can you give any guarantees that this is going to be the case?’ they say, ‘No, but the research may help in some way.’ So I think that the bill itself is based on emotion. It is putting a proposition to the Australian people, saying, ‘If you support this then we have the opportunity of curing all these diseases that are of great concern to the community at the present time.’ As I say, there is no guarantee that any of this research is going to give that result. I think that we have to look at that very clearly right from the start.

I do not come to this debate from a particularly religious background, but I am a Christian and I value quality of life and I value life. I come to this debate saying to myself, ‘If we are going to create an embryo’—and that is exactly what we are going to do—‘then that to my way of thinking can develop into life.’ This is not an embryo as usual. As we know, the nucleus is going to be destroyed and a cell is going to be implanted. We are going to create a clone; we are going to create a twin. If I have some research done, a twin of me is going to be created for 14 days in the name of research. I ask myself: ‘Just how far are we going to go with research in this country? Is this the gradualism that we are looking at at the present time that takes us further down this track?’ At my age I start to wonder about that.

I think I said this in the previous debate. I remember studying a book I think in my intermediate certificate by Aldous Huxley, Brave New World. That was considered science fiction in those days, but Aldous Huxley was talking in the 1930s about what we are talking about today. He was talking about test tube babies, about male and female being redundant and about us creating superbeings in test tubes. That was science fiction in the 1930s, but now we are talking about doing those types of things in the name of research. I start to worry about where we are going. I may be old-fashioned, but we have already gone a long way down this track. I accept that. In vitro fertilisation, for instance, is creating and implanting embryos, and not very successfully in a lot of cases. We are going down that area of interfering in the natural way of things by creating and implanting embryos. We have even gone down the track of surrogate mothers, and we are seeing all sorts of legal complications coming into play. We implant an embryo in another female to carry the progeny of two other people, and I start to wonder about that. All these things are coming into play, and where are we going in this debate?

In many ways we are being desensitised, because we are saying, ‘This is in the name of research and this is in the name of protracting or extending the life of a human being, therefore we should go down this track.’ Let us get one thing straight: I am not a Luddite. I think that gene technology has a lot to offer—there is no doubt about that—but how far do we go with gene technology? How far do we go without creating a Frankenstein? These are the things that we are playing at at the present time, and I am not convinced that adult stem cell research will not give us the same result. In fact, it may be even better, and the scientists are saying: ‘Adult stem cell research can give us results. We’re not sure, but we think that embryonic stem cell research might give us better results.’ I find it difficult to accept this bill. I find it difficult to say that we are going to create an embryo and in 14 days kill the embryo and use the cells for research. I do not think I can go down that track.

I think the bill is even further flawed, because the bill is saying that we are going to ask females to donate eggs. I am not convinced that we are going to get the number of eggs required from females wanting to donate to this research. We have had a lot of this in the past, you might recall, especially with artificial insemination. Male university students were paid for their sperm, and we now see the results of that. It may be only a few but we see the results of that, where children who were created by this AI research are now starting to come forward and say, ‘I want to know my natural parent.’ We create all sorts of problems when we start playing around in this particular area.

I am not convinced that we are going to get enough eggs donated by females for this particular research. Are we then going to go down the further step of saying, ‘Females can be paid for their eggs’? Are we going to go down that track? I think that is just taking that extra step, and how often do we take that extra step? How often are we desensitised? It is not a matter of morals; I think it is a matter of asking, ‘As human beings, are we prepared to take that particular step?’ Those are the issues that are in my mind and are worrying me in making a decision on this.

A few years ago we had the great announcement of Dolly the sheep. Here we had a sheep that had been cloned. It had been created from its mother from stem cell research, and all of a sudden we had this brand new technology that was going to allow us to recreate a particular individual. I do not hear scientists talking about that today, because, as far as I know, scientists have walked away from that. That particular cloning was not a success. In fact, from memory, Dolly the sheep aged as fast as its parent, so that particular cloning was not a success.

Are we going to go down this track again not knowing exactly what the results are going to be, all on the premise that this is going to deliver to us wonder cures for these particular diseases? If anyone should support that, it should be me. I had a father who died from Parkinson’s disease, I have an uncle who is terminally ill with Parkinson’s disease, I had an uncle who died from Alzheimer’s disease and I have had three friends who have had motor neurone disease. I understand how desperate the families of those people are to get a cure for those particular diseases. But there is no guarantee in this bill that, if we agree to this, we are going to be delivered a miracle cure for any of these diseases. As I said, I believe the bill is based on a false premise; it is based on the fact that the creators of this particular bill wanted to play on the emotions of people to get their way. Quite frankly, I think we are heading down the track of research for research’s sake, and I cannot support this bill.

Steve Gibbons (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to participate in this important debate on the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 to amend the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 and the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002. I will be speaking in support of the bill. I realise that will probably disappoint a lot of people in my electorate who have communicated their views to me. I certainly understand that. I thank them for passing on their views to my office but I am elected in this House to represent the region of central Victoria and it is my judgement to make on those particular bills, especially those involving a conscience vote. I make no apologies; I thank the people for passing those views on to me.

I spoke in support of both pieces of legislation when they were debated in this place in 2002. Both acts required that they be reviewed by an independent committee within three years, and it is as a result of that review process and the recommendations of the review committee that the amendments proposed by this bill have been developed.

Given that the matters before us for consideration are complex as well as controversial, I think it is worth noting the composition of the legislative committee known as the Lockhart committee. The committee comprised the chair, the late Justice John Lockhart AO QC, a former justice of the Federal Court of Australia; 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. The committee was appointed by this government with agreement from each of the states and territories. It was clearly composed of a group of eminent and highly qualified individuals whose recommendations should not be casually dismissed.

It is also evident from the Lockhart committee’s report that it engaged in an extensive public consultation process as well as reviewing the latest literature regarding the scientific and technological advances in human embryo research and related matters. One of the key objectives of the 2002 legislation was to ensure national regulation and oversight of assisted reproductive technology, ART, research and training. The Lockhart review found that an unintended consequence of the 2002 legislation has been that a number of areas of ART research have been impeded or stopped altogether. The legislation prevents any experimental fertilisation, egg activation or developmental embryo research. Unclear definitions within the legislation also create impediments that were not envisaged or intended.

The Lockhart review also found that while there was a range of strongly held views about embryonic research, including total opposition, there was agreement that the current system of legislation is valuable. The committee therefore recommended that national legislation prohibiting human reproductive cloning continue, along with strict control, monitoring and licensing of human embryo research.

In line with the recommendations of the Lockhart review, the bill before us proposes to: enable certain types of research involving embryos that are approved by the National Health and Medical Research Council’s licensing committee, and only in accordance with strict legislative criteria; clarify the definition of ‘human embryo’ in line with the definition developed by the NHMRC; repeal and replace sections of the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 to provide clarity and greater understanding; clearly define and describe the practices that are completely prohibited by the legislation, such as human cloning; and provide descriptions of the practices that are prohibited unless authorised by the NHMRC.

As we have heard in this place and the other place during debate on the bill before us, the subject of human embryo research evokes a range of strongly held, emotive and diametrically opposed views. These views reflect the different ideological, philosophical, ethical and religious beliefs held by our colleagues and are reflective of the communities and constituencies we represent. I appreciate and understand the wide range of views that have been expressed in relation to this bill and, more importantly, I respect the right to express them. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the House to appreciate and respect the right that I believe all Australians should enjoy: the right to be able to hold and express a view that is different to our own without being subject to personal attack or ridicule.

It is worth noting that Professor Ian Frazer, Australian of the Year, who has urged us to support this bill, has made an interesting observation about the current debate. Professor Frazer has suggested that during the 1970s the debate about genetic engineering, which was a precursor to his work in developing the cervical cancer vaccine, was complex, not easily understood and open to misrepresentation. He has made the point that we are in a similar position today, with a number of individuals and various interest groups attempting to discredit the science behind embryonic stem cell research.

There is currently a huge research effort occurring around the world involving some of the world’s best and brightest doctors and scientists working tirelessly because they, their governments, world renowned research institutes and universities believe that stem cell and embryonic stem cell research offers the potential for some extraordinary medical advances, with the possibility of making available genetically matched new body tissue and cells that could potentially cure a range of debilitating conditions.

I note that a number of opponents of this bill have, during debate both here and in the other place, accused proponents of the bill and its supporters of peddling false hope and of manipulation. Scientists are, I believe, realistic in their assessment of the potential lead times required for the development of the potential therapies and treatments and know that there are no guarantees in relation to the outcome of the research. The Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research Australia has said:

While no-one can claim with certainty what benefits may eventually result from allowing therapeutic cloning in Australia, it is the overwhelming opinion of the scientific and medical community that this research has tremendous potential to better human life.

I would like to read from a letter from a young girl from my electorate who was in Canberra recently with the Kids with Diabetes group. I held a meeting in my office with several of them. They came from all over Australia, as you will remember, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think this letter sums up my position on this bill:

Dear Mr Gibbons

I know there is a lot of exciting scientific breakthroughs in laboratories but our future is still very worrying, and I am scared of the potential complications of Type 1 diabetes. Not enough is being done to make the best of these breakthroughs useful to me soon.

Please promise to remember me when you are asked to support a JDRF initiated proposal to form a large pharmaceutical vaccine development fund. The success of this fund is my greatest hope for a cure for Type 1 diabetes and for children with other diseases like asthma, rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis as well as some cancers.

I really need your help please.

Love from

Kahlia Osborne

I think that sums up pretty well why I do not believe, even though I am an elected member of this parliament, that I have the right to use my vote to stop or block potential betterment by way of treatment—if not a cure—for children or, indeed, for other people from all over the country with ailments, illnesses and disabilities when there is a chance that this legislation will enable it. I have given significant consideration to this bill, and I believe there are stronger and more compelling arguments for supporting it than for opposing it. Therefore, I will exercise my vote accordingly. In conclusion, I ask my colleagues who would rather focus on fear than on hope to consider the wisdom of Morris Cohen, who said:

Science is a flickering light in our darkness, it is but the only one we have, and woe to him who would put it out.

Sophie Mirabella (Indi, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. I would like to begin by thanking my constituents and, indeed, those right across the country for contacting me, be it through a telephone call to my office, through an email or through visiting me personally to have a chat about this important issue. I have welcomed the advice I have received from many people. I must confess, though, to some surprise and disappointment that we are debating the issue of therapeutic cloning so soon after it was so roundly rejected as a scientific procedure in this very parliament in 2002. Senator Patterson’s bill puts into legislation the recommendations of Justice Lockhart’s review and radically redefines the existing landscape to permit therapeutic cloning, simultaneously going well beyond the safeguards and restrictions currently governing stem cell therapies and cloning.

As one of eight parliamentarians in Australia who wrote a submission to the Lockhart review, I have taken a very keen interest in this matter. The first point of entry into the current debate is to come to terms with the practice of so-called ‘therapeutic cloning’. It is a technique that produces cloned embryos with the sole intention of using them for research and destroying them. Despite its enticing and desirable sounding title, the practice of therapeutic cloning is anything but therapeutic for the cloned human in question. Only four years ago, the sponsor of this bill said that the vote in 2002:

… in no way heralds an increasingly liberal attitude to research involving human embryos.

How things change. When I looked back at the speech I gave in this place on the 2002 legislation, I saw that I had asked a few questions, namely:

Where will this debate take us once this line has been crossed? What will scientists demand once they have exhausted the current supply of unwanted IVF embryos? Will those lobbyists in favour of embryonic stem cell research come back to parliament in a year’s time arguing that millions of dollars have been invested in such research and that they need more embryos harvested?

With this in mind, I shudder to think what debates we will face in 2009, 2010 and beyond when perhaps even more unbending demands come from the scientific community.

As one of the younger members of this parliament, I will probably live to see the day of the inevitable consequences of the passing of this bill. Down the track will we be horrified to see those wealthy enough to do so pay to clone themselves and harvest the spare parts and skin? Some will immediately jump up in rage and call me an alarmist, as they did in 2002 when I said at that time that we had commenced the path to cloning.

Should this bill be passed, we will have entered the brave new world of the new utilitarianism—a moral and ethical minefield and a dark step into the unknown with potentially disastrous outcomes. Therapeutic cloning is a step in the wrong direction—a depraved practice reflecting nothing more than the turpitudes of modern scientific egos in their race to the bottom of the ethics ladder. The proponents of therapeutic cloning have such little faith in their craft that they now enter into a debate on semantics. For instance, the public hearings of the Lockhart review committee in Melbourne heard from witnesses who suggested that the public feared the term ‘cloning’ per se, so it was better to couch the notion of human cloning in more sympathetic language. That is why we have such terms as ‘therapeutic cloning’ and ‘somatic cell nuclear transfer’. These terms are misleading and highly deceptive, clearly designed to confuse and lull the public into a full-blown affirmation of this unethical practice.

The journal Nature raised this issue as well when its editorial team commented on the 2005 meeting of the International Society for Stem Cell Research in San Francisco. It said:

The scientists ...fear that the word ‘embryo’ is a lightning rod that attracts negative scrutiny. But the work is far from yielding any therapies, and scientists realised that the word ‘cloning’ was generating public concern. So they decided to adopt a more technical term less likely to stir up strong emotion.

We need to rid this debate of this type of confusion.

Since the passing of the 2002 legislation, those who promised so much have in fact delivered nothing. And since we stepped over the line with the 2002 legislation there has been no successful model of treatment success from embryonic stem cell research in animal models or any current clinical trials or treatments which offer any of the inflated hope that is peddled somewhat vaingloriously by the proponents of therapeutic cloning. In fact, after four years of having access to excess human embryos for research—and with significant taxpayer funded assistance—those clinging to the hope that embryonic stem cell research would be the new panacea for all sorts of complex ailments are entitled to exclaim at the scientists who promised so much: ‘We was robbed!’

What has changed so markedly since 2002 that would justify going down this path? Why are we so swiftly ditching the spirit of the unanimous opposition to cloning that we put in place in 2002? What will the vote in this chamber mean for women, for the biotech industry and for the ambitious scientists who promise so much but in reality can deliver so little? Some members of the House and the Senate have spoken of their great hope for this type of research and accused those opposing it of playing on fear. Let us not get carried away. The scientists and we politicians need to rein in our inflated expectations that these therapies will be the cure for all human suffering. Such an approach is intellectually and scientifically dishonest. Such an approach is holding out false hope to the vulnerable and the weak. Such an approach is peddling an unfortunate myth-making that miracle cures are just a few cloning procedures away—whilst at the same time ensuring the scientific community and the big biotech companies the self-satisfaction and complacency of a dramatically lessened scrutiny.

Lord Winston, the eminent British stem cell expert, succinctly wrote about the dangers of relying on the myth of miracle cures recently when he said:

One of the problems is that in order to persuade the public that we must do this work, we often go rather too far in promising what we might achieve. This is a real issue for the scientists. I am not entirely convinced that embryonic stem cells will, in my lifetime, and possibly anybody’s lifetime for that matter, be holding quite the promise that we desperately hope they will.

This bill raises a whole set of concerning scenarios—for instance, why are there not more concerns being raised about the inefficiencies of therapeutic cloning? What about the problems associated with abnormal genetic programming? Why should we ignore the moral and ethical difficulty of the creation of a new embryo as part of the process? What about the potential minefield of problems based on the fact that to clone embryos requires a significant number of human eggs—and where are they going to come from? Will women be forced to harvest eggs in aid of ambitious biotech companies? Will we see a trade in eggs from females in the years to come? How are we going to regulate this secretive and lucrative research to ensure it is carried out within the alleged safeguards of the legislation? Is it ethical to harvest eggs from destroyed female embryos? What further demands will we as legislators be asked to bow to in four years time? These are questions that go unanswered in this legislation.

One of the terms of reference of the Lockhart review was the reflection of community standards in any future enabling legislation. The prominent Jesuit Frank Brennan—not someone I would normally quote in this place—basically got it right when he said:

The science has not changed, the moral arguments have not changed, community standards have not changed. It should take more than a handful of scientists seeking out more value-free research environments for our politicians to change their conscience vote.

For my part, I will not support legislation that essentially places some lives in a different category to others; where one class of human life is more important than another; where human life is downgraded to an interchangeable commodity placed in the hands of ambitious scientists; where the powerful embryo experimentation and the cashed-up biotech lobby groups can operate free from the constraints that the rest of society operate under; and where we fall further down the slippery slope through allowing the wanton destruction of human embryos in the name of scientific extremism.

I support and will continue to support scientific research in its objective of alleviating human misery. That is why I support research using adult and cord stem cells, which is the type of cell research that actually has the runs on the board and has provided many positive outcomes, unlike the track record of experimentation with the cells from embryos, which is fraught with difficulty and has not produced any results that would give impetus to further liberalisation of the current restrictions. Even if such results existed, the end in itself should not justify—in the concise words of the member for Gwydir—this ‘further decisive slide down the slippery slope into a scientific barbarism that will treat some human beings as raw material to be cannibalised at will for the benefit of other human beings’.

Others in this debate have spoken of serious reservations about the implications of passing this bill and of concerns about where it could lead, yet they are still voting for the bill—something I do not understand, but it is a conscience vote and such is their choice. I for one do not believe that we can airbrush out of existence the immense moral and ethical concerns that arise through the deliberate creation of life only to be harvested for the so-called benefit of others. That is why I will be voting against this bill.

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Following the member for Indi, I can say that it is a pretty rare occurrence in this place that I would ever agree with her, but in this case I do and I commend her words—although I may not have put them in the same sentiment or manner. Nonetheless, I do agree with her final view. In fact, I want to take this opportunity to thank all members of the House who have contributed a view in this debate. Nearly all the members of this House have contributed a view and placed on the record how they will be voting in this debate. It is a very important debate, and I think we should be thankful that all members have taken the time to actually do that rather than just come in and vote.

I too rise to speak on the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. This bill has created a lot of interest from many people in the community and parliament alike. It deals with a subject matter that in one way or another affects us all very profoundly. From reading the bill and other research material, I and many other people in this place are more acutely aware of the subject matter and have a better understanding of the different scientific theories and the predictions of hope that in the future we can alleviate the pain and suffering of many who have afflictions such as CF, diabetes and Alzheimer’s disease. We have heard much in the debate about the pain and suffering of many people—and I sympathise very much with them and with their families for the pain and suffering they go through—and the hope that is being held out that new discoveries will be made soon that can alleviate this pain. I think we all agree that a lot of work ought to be done in that direction. We all need new cures to be found that give people hope that in the future no-one needs to suffer in these ways. Although it has been acknowledged by many that that may be many years away, I believe that we are doing all we can today and that we do have adequate legislation to allow that to occur.

At the same time, I am also conscious that research must have its limitations and boundaries and that we cannot allow research for research’s sake in areas of questionable ethics or morality. We must move cautiously and we must move for the right reasons. We must give hope and we must do all we can, but we must not give false hope. We must not give people the impression that by allowing this bill to pass the House miracle cures for diseases will be found overnight or afflictions that affect many people in the community will be resolved quickly. That is often not the case. In fact, when you talk to scientists and the medical fraternity you find that the research that is being done and the potential research that could be done offers hope, but in the very distant future.

While I have done quite a bit of reading on this matter, I do not profess to fully understand all the medical and technical complexities that are before us. But I do understand what this bill contains, what it does and what it is about. It is not necessary for me or any other member of this parliament to be an expert in this area to be able to make an informed and correct decision based on our own ethics, morals and beliefs on those things that we believe are in the best interests of our communities. So I do support extensive research and continued work on stem cells and I also believe that this will deliver cures in the future. I do not set a time frame on that. I believe that all that can be done medically should be done and that every step should be taken to save life and to prevent death. But I also understand that we are a long way away from any of those cures, and these debates will change as the science changes and the discovery of certain paths takes research into new fields and new areas.

The reality is that today we have barely scratched the surface of stem cell knowledge, and that is why we should continue the work that is being done today. But we should advance with caution. The world is not a perfect place, and decisions that we make must be made in accordance with our beliefs and our consciences, and with the view that we should not destroy a life to save another.

This bill has many implications, and I know that members of this House have taken this bill very seriously, I know they have researched the subject matter extensively; they have listened to the views of their constituents and sought opinions from professionals in the field, as I have done. I have done this because I believe it is important that I gain as wide a knowledge as possible to make an informed decision based not only on my conscience but also on the facts. I must say also that having a conscience vote is a special opportunity in this place, and one that all members of parliament should embrace when we are given that chance. We should all exercise that privilege according to our views and our own responsibilities, representing our constituents.

There is no question that there are many ethical, moral and scientific issues in relation to therapeutic cloning, cloning human embryos, the use of them and the manner in which they are used. There are many points and many questions. Some of them may be resolved in the future as new discoveries are made, which would mean that we do not have to cross those ethical boundaries and we do not have to go down particular paths.

I honestly believe that since the first debate in 2002—in which I voted, like every other member of this parliament, against the human cloning aspect of embryonic stem cell research—there has been no compelling evidence or further information that would change my view in favour of the amended bill before us today. The information, though, that has most been a source of interest has come from the tabling of the Lockhart report in late 2005 and, of course, from other research which outlines various alternative pathways for ethical stem cell research. I believe this may remove the need for therapeutic cloning research, as similar results will be delivered through alternative pathways. New discoveries are being made today. Research is currently being undertaken that is driving us down a particular path which may very soon provide us with a way out and a way to get the sorts of outcomes and results that scientists say we need to explore, but without having to cross the ethical boundaries which are a difficulty for so many people in the community and in the parliament.

So, for me, the most promising course of action is continued research, continued funding from government and a continued involvement by the Australian scientific community in these areas, but within the boundaries currently set by legislation in this country. For me, this bill is a question about not crossing that ethical boundary, that fragile ethical line between research and destruction of life which must not be crossed, no matter the so-called promises that are made. That continued pushing outwards of the line from researchers who will never be satisfied, and for whom anything less than unlimited and unchecked research is the new boundary, is an issue. I do not agree with those views. I do not agree that we should continually review and push out the lines of research. I think it is satisfactory that we set good, solid, tight legislative frameworks and boundaries which give guidance to researchers and set laws by which people can then carry out their research. But, as new discoveries are made, that is not a green light or an acceptance that we should then, in future years, continue to push that ethical boundary out further and further.

The most promising way forward is sometimes not the clearest. It is sometimes not even the easiest path. It is sometimes the path that is forced upon others through the setting of strict boundaries. It is sometimes those stricter guidelines and paths that deliver the innovation, that create the new discoveries that otherwise would not have been found if scientists had been given the most open, broadest and widest possible opportunities. Sometimes it is through legislative frameworks, the setting of strict boundaries, that science will actually dig deeper and dig further and perhaps find the answers to those questions that we are asking.

There are a number of alternatives which provide a more ethical plan of action than the potential of cloning human embryonic stem cells. I would like to note some of the alternatives for the House, such as: adult stem cells, which are unspecialised cells that can self-renew, repair tissue in their locality and divide to generate more-specialised mature cells; mesenchymal stem cells, which are a type of adult stem cells that can produce cartilage, bone, tendon, fat, teeth, muscle and nerve cells and which may be derived from bone marrow; and human neural stem cells, which can be isolated from brain tissue. While not readily accessible, they have the advantage of proliferating readily in vitro as well as differentiating into ecto-, endo- and mesenchymal germ layers. There is a whole world of potential in adult stem cell research which scientists and research tell me is delivering many great results.

These are just some of the alternatives that I believe we should be looking at more closely and in more detail before we go down other paths, before we spread too thinly the research and before we spread too thinly the available funding for research being undertaken. In fact, these are alternatives that fall within current legislative boundaries and are not ethically questionable.

It also needs to be noted that, while there is an understanding in the community of the issues we are discussing, there is much confusion around the terms and definitions and there is no real agreement in the community on what they mean, regardless of what some polls say. I want to use as support for my argument the view from the Eureka Strategic Research study, Public awareness research 2005: stem cells. The study said:

There is a very low level of understanding of the term ‘therapeutic cloning’ or ‘nuclear transfer’, which makes it difficult to explore attitudes without first taking an audience through an explanation of the science. Also, in the absence of understanding, people tend to make an ‘emotive’ judgement and for therapeutic cloning, the term ‘cloning’ is far more negatively weighted than the term ‘therapeutic’ is positively weighted.

I think what that statement in the report very simply outlines is that there is not a clear understanding in the community of what it is that we are doing and where that line is. But I think the community do understand the line itself; they do understand the ethical boundaries; they do have a deeper understanding of these issues, even if they do not perhaps understand the terms. Therefore it is our responsibility in this place to make sure that we tread very carefully in these areas.

Having legislation that allows for massive changes in areas of questionable ethics is not something that we should do lightly, and it is not something we should do without real understanding and broad acceptance by the community. I do not believe we have the broad acceptance by the community in this respect as yet, but we may do in years to come, as we gain further knowledge and make clearer the ethical lines that are currently set.

Of course, ethics is not the only point that should be raised in this debate. As with most things, there is a substantial element of cost. In a perfect world with unlimited funding there are many things we could do better and do properly. Unfortunately, we have a very limited pool of funds devoted to this type of research, which comes not only from government and the taxpayer but from a lot of different agencies within the community—the states, the private sector and others. We need to ensure that those limited funds follow the most efficient path and deliver the best results and outcomes. I do not believe that this legislation would do that.

If in this place we do not all have the same view or vote a certain way on this bill—and for different reasons—then we are no different from those who are actually the experts. I have had opportunity to speak with experts and scientists and they, like us, hold different views, for a variety of reasons. They do not all agree about the different directions and paths we should take. They do not agree about the amount of funding that should be given to different research areas. The do agree, of course, in the areas where they research. That is fine, but it is not their role to decide the legislative frameworks. That is our role. It is our job. I believe we should strive to achieve all we possibly can under the current—and I think very successful—legislation that we have and we should follow the current successful research paths, continue to develop further in those areas and continue to look for all the cures and all the answers that we seek. To me, that does not mean allowing unfettered, unchecked research.

A lot has been said on this debate. I will conclude with a few more thoughts. I do not believe that enough has changed in terms of the ethical boundaries, the arguments, the potential outcomes, the science or much else over the four years since 2002. Ultimately, I found myself not convinced by the prospects of what this bill will allow and the ethics contained within its contents. I believe, though, that over the next decade and further the need for this legislation will become obsolete as the moral and ethical issues that cloud this debate will have been resolved through continued research and discovery—those lines that we cross with this bill will not be crossed in the future. I believe that time is not very far away. There will be other methods to extract the information that we need.

In the end, I suppose I am a bit of a sceptic, a healthy sceptic, about the great promises made by experts that tell us all that all the mysteries of human frailty could be solved if only legislators—that is, us—would get out of their road, if only we would give them the open ethical chequebook to do whatever they feel is necessary. I do not agree with that view. I believe science should work within the moral and ethical boundaries of the day, and as those boundaries change with time so can science change with time. Perhaps this is what allows accepting today practices that were unacceptable in the past and rejecting some practices of the past that are clearly unacceptable today so that, as we discover more and open new doors of opportunities, we also make clearer the boundaries to the access which we allow ourselves. Perhaps that is the way that the human race keeps a check and balance on itself.

This bill does not guarantee any cure or particular new discovery. In fact, this bill merely allows an open-ended research journey that may lead to a path that leads to a discovery which helps us to learn more. For me, that is just not enough to support this bill. I believe this bill will pass the House. I respect the decision of the House and the decision of each and every member, according to their own values and experiences. I do not take away from, criticise or in any other way judge any other member of this House for the decision they make. I respect that decision as I hope they will respect mine. Like other members, I will exercise my vote based on my conscience and on what I believe is in the best interests of my community.

Warren Entsch (Leichhardt, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With the very limited amount of time I have left, I will start my contribution to the debate. I do not rise here tonight to give a scientific appraisal of stem cell research. I do not intend to give an exhaustive overview of the reams of technical information presented to me and my colleagues in the lead-up to this debate. I am certainly not an expert and I do not pretend to be. There are those eminently more qualified than I to provide such a critique. That is why in 2002 the government appointed the Lockhart committee to review the embryo research legislation. This committee of six leading ethicists, lawyers, scientists and doctors took written and oral evidence for six months from several hundred people. The review examined all aspects of legislation, in particular whether it was functional and meeting the research needs and public concerns. After its review, the Lockhart committee was satisfied that the existing legislation had achieved an appropriate balance between permitting medical research with spare embryos and embryonic stem cell lines while meeting community concerns by a strict ban on reproductive cloning.

However, the anomaly identified by Lockhart and addressed in this Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 is the fact that the 2002 legislation allows for the creation of embryonic stem cell lines from fertilised human eggs but not when derived from an unfertilised human egg through therapeutic cloning. In other words, they are both human eggs which would never be implanted into a woman’s uterus for the purpose of reproduction, but one can be utilised and the other cannot.

This bill will allow the use of unfertilised eggs as well as fertilised eggs for the creation of stem cell lines. To me the crux of this debate is about balance—balancing the need of our scientific research community in its quest to find better ways of understanding and treating debilitating disease and injury and the hope this gives to literally hundreds of thousands of victims and their families with the need to protect the sanctity of human life. Nowhere in this legislation is there a suggestion that we should be relaxing the total prohibition on reproductive cloning—nowhere at all. This parliament has ensured that this is not negotiable.

The emotive arguments that I have heard that this legislation is leading us down the slippery slope towards the frightening prospect of creating half-man, half-animal beings should be left to the Hollywood scriptwriters. Just like the movie The Island of Dr Moreau, it is an outlandish sci-fi plot intended to scare us senseless but has no place in reality. Although I do not accept it was a possibility under the original legislation, I note any concern has now been put well and truly beyond doubt with the amendment passed in the Senate banning the use of animal eggs. The reality is Australia has one of the best if not the best and most ethically and tightly regulated research communities in the world. I for one cannot stand by and deny our best and brightest the opportunity to be leaders in the field of embryonic research.

There is still much we do not know about stem cells. However, what we do know is that the potential of both embryonic and adult stem cells needs to be investigated further. We already know that human adult and embryonic stem cells, due to their ability to replace damaged cells in the body, could be used to treat a range of conditions, including heart failure, spinal injuries, diabetes, Parkinson’s disease or other diseases that involve cell damage or loss.

It is true more work needs to be done, particularly in the field of embryonic stem cells. It will take years; I have no doubt about that. It may be a decade or more before treatments can be tested in clinical trials. I find it astonishing that opponents of such research use the lack of medical breakthroughs to date as one of the key justifications for not proceeding with this legislation. Instead of that being bandied about in this place as a reason not to proceed, I think the sooner we get started the better.

If that means I stand condemned, as I have heard others condemned, for holding out false hope to the sufferers of debilitating diseases or severe injury, then so be it—I stand condemned. I will not stand in the way of medical research that could one day provide a way to generate new blood cells for leukaemia patients, regenerate nerve tissue damaged by spinal cord injury, replace brain cells destroyed in Parkinson’s disease or stroke, or produce insulin-producing islet cells that are destroyed in type 1 diabetes. If there is a prospect of any or all of these things being achieved, then surely we as a society need to promote and support all forms of scientifically and ethically reputable research available.

As Professor Skene said in summarising her submission on legislative responses to the Lockhart review, we basically have two choices. We can say to our scientists, ‘We are going to stop you trying to find out anything at all,’ or: ‘We will regulate you. We will watch what you are doing with a transparent process—with licensing and reporting to parliament—and then we will see what happens.’

It seems to me that the doomsayers in the debate are the same as those who were vehemently opposed to the IVF treatment and the use of animal tissues in organ transplants. At the time of introduction, these techniques were relatively new and unknown. Today they are widely accepted and have become a standard feature in our medical landscape. Indeed, literally hundreds of thousands of Australians owe their lives to these groundbreaking advances in medical science. I could not imagine what it would be like to stand in the shoes of someone who suffers from motor neurone disease or quadriplegia, or what it would be like for strong, independent people who are struck down in the prime of their life by chronic disease or devastating injury to have to rely on others for the most basic of functions. As parliamentarians we have no right to rob these people and their families of hope.

Debate (on motion by Ms Corcoran) adjourned.