Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I seek your indulgence to make a short statement.

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

The honourable member for Herbert may proceed.

Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I expect to be absent from the House when a vote is taken on the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. I would like the parliament to note that, were I present, I would vote for the bill.

Peter Costello (Higgins, Liberal Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 and the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002 were passed some four years ago. They prohibit human cloning, prohibit the creation of human embryos by any means other than to help a woman become pregnant, and allow the use for research—under strict regulation and licence—of human embryos created through assisted reproductive technology. These are embryos that would otherwise be left to die. I supported each of the related bills.

The bills required an independent review of their operation by December 2005. The review was conducted by John Lockhart, a man for whom I have enormous respect who served his country as a distinguished judge and whom I had the honour of appointing as a governor to the Asian Development Bank. His report recommended lifting the ban on creating human embryo clones for research, including the production of embryonic stem cells, provided the embryos are not implanted into the body of a woman or allowed to develop for more than 14 days. A cloned embryo so implanted could, if medical science develops sufficiently, become a fully-fledged human being. The 14-day limit arises from the fact that at day 15 the appearance of the primitive streak is the first developmental point at which a multicellular structure is formed.

I have received many calls and letters from constituents regarding the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006, and I thank them all for their input. I have considered all of them carefully. I want to mention in particular a visit I had from Cathy Manners, who is suffering from a degenerative disease and has become a powerful advocate for embryonic stem cell research. I also had a visit from Dr Stephen Livesey, from the Australian Stem Cell Centre, which is a pioneer centre of excellence for research in this area.

It is argued that embryonic stem cells are pluripotent, that they have much greater capacity than adult stem cells to yield cures to degenerative diseases, although no-one can rule out that adult stem cells have the potential to yield such results. Nobody argued that, if we went with embryonic stem cell research, we should not continue with adult stem cell research. Most of the proponents of embryonic stem cell research argue we should do both.

If it were not for the hope of medical breakthroughs and the ending of suffering and disability, this bill would not be here. The bill is put forward for the best of motives. It is because of the good that people believe this research can do that they are prepared to support the cloning of human embryos. The cloning of human embryos is not something we would support of and for itself. It is a matter that certainly gives me disquiet. The disquiet arises from the fact that, by cloning an embryo, we are producing a genetic replica of an existing person.

Proponents of the bill say that, because this embryo will only be allowed to exist for 14 days, we can be assuaged that the disquiet that we would otherwise have about cloning will not come about. But I find no great comfort in the fact that the embryo itself will be terminated after 14 days. The committee’s conclusion on an embryo created by somatic cell nuclear transfer states:

... if such an embryo were implanted in the uterus of a woman to achieve a pregnancy, the individual so formed would certainly have the same status and rights as any other human being. However, a human embryo clone created to extract stem cells is not intended to be implanted, but is created as a cellular extension of the original subject. The Committee therefore agreed with the many respondents who thought that the moral significance of such a cloned embryo is linked more closely to its potential for research to develop treatments for serious medical conditions, than to its potential as a human life.

According to this argument, the fact that an embryo is marked for death at the outset deprives it of moral significance. This appears to me to be a rather self-serving argument. The argument is that, because we have marked it for no significance, it has no such significance, and it dodges the underlying question: was it right to create the cloned embryo for this purpose in the first place? I find this a very troubling proposition.

The committee also saw inconsistency in experimenting on excess embryos created through assisted reproduction while not allowing the creation, through SCNT, of embryos for experimentation. It said that this attaches greater importance to the treatment of infertility than to the treatment of other diseases that might be cured by stem cell research. I do not see such an inconsistency. SCNT embryos would not exist but for experimentation and destruction; fertilized embryos are created for the purpose of living. One set of embryos is created for the purpose of human life, even if we know only a minority will fulfil that potential; the other would be created for the purpose of experimentation and certain—indeed, legally mandated—destruction. I see that as a big differentiation.

Some contributors to this debate question the importance of the purpose in assessing this question. Yet our entire criminal law is based upon the need to prove purpose—actus rea and mens rea: the criminal act and the criminal state of mind in the criminal law, intent and purpose feature strongly in moral reasoning. Indeed, the strongest argument for this research is its purpose—the hope of finding medical cures. The reason that we are here discussing this proposal now, four years after our last debate, is that medical science is developing all the time, and developing for good. We are being asked now to approve something all of us voted to ban four years ago. We are told that we can draw a line on what is ethically permissible and what is not, and that the line lies at 14 days. But let us suppose that in four years time we were told that scientists were on the brink of a medical breakthrough and that it could only be done if embryos were allowed to develop another 14 days. Can anyone imagine the parliament, having approved cloned embryos for research for 14 days, letting go the possibility of medical breakthrough rather than extending the time limit for another 14 days, or indeed another 28 days? I do not find this time limit of 14 days a convincing one. In fact, I suspect it will prove to be shifting, and a shifting line is not one that I would anchor legislation upon.

I respect the motives of those who have brought on this legislation. I believe that they have done it according to their own good conscience and for the best of reasons. This was not something I supported in 2002 and I have not been persuaded to change my mind in the interim. I do not find these issues simple, nor believe it is an occasion to label those of a different opinion as morally inferior or lacking moral clarity. This is a difficult debate, but it is one that has been conducted with a civility that reflects well on the parliament. I believe this is what a parliament exists for—to represent the nation, to speak on the great questions where there is division of opinion, and to resolve them according to policy and good conscience. For the reasons that I have set out, I will not be supporting this legislation.

Laurie Ferguson (Reid, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Consumer Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a matter with deep resonance in my electorate. My office has been contacted by a number of constituents seeking to influence the direction of my vote on this matter, which intersects faith and claims for possible scientific progress. I am aware that the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 raises issues which are traumatic to some of my constituents. To this end I am deeply respectful of their sincere feelings and attitudes on this matter. Whilst not in accord with their belief about the starting point of life, I still appreciate the intensity of the feelings of those people.

This is why I have always been liberal about the need for a conscience vote within my party on such matters. Nevertheless, the UK High Court in 2001 determined that an embryo that is created through the mechanism of therapeutic cloning is not a human life. This is a view that is distinctly at variance with the stance of these constituents. This bill raises profoundly complex issues which require significant scientific knowledge and understanding. Having forsaken science in fourth year high school, it has been a steep learning curve for me. My support for this bill is based on a general commitment and desire to see medical solutions for a range of diseases and injuries. These are presently very debilitating, painful conditions that cannot be treated. Each has attracted varied speculation about possible progress on cures.

This bill seeks to subject clinical practice and scientific research involving assisted reproductive technology and the creation and use of human embryos to specific national legislation. Indeed, this regulatory move is critical if our science community is to be able to work along with their colleagues in Europe and the United States. To this end, the bill is not just about stem cells and cloning. I note a letter from the Americans for Stem Cell Therapies and Cures of 14 November this year, which, in having talked about the $3 billion 2002 initiative in that state for funding, further commented:

Modern scientific research exists across international boundaries and global collaboration is essential to accelerate opportunities to make stem cell therapy a reality for a broad range of debilitating diseases. The Australian Stem Cell Centre and the scientists they represent are a vital component of a competitive and ethical international stem cell research community, most evident in their involvement in international collaborative initiatives and organisations such as the International Consortium of Stem Cell Networks. The state of California recognises that Australia is a leader in stem cell research and many Californian institutes presently collaborate with some of Australia’s leading scientists. By adopting the recommendation of the Lockhart report, Australian legislation will become a leading global partner to that of the state of California, allowing our best researchers to extend existing collaboration and form a global partnership in alliance to accelerate the progress of stem cell research towards a greater understanding of disease and injury and to make available new therapies for a broad range of debilitating diseases and injuries.

That letter covers the heavy expenditure in California after a popular vote there and lays down Australia’s situation if it is not involved in this area: there is currently a large degree of collaboration, research being organised between that state and this country, and it will be somewhat endangered if this legislation does not go ahead.

There has been much public comment that the current ban on the trade and commodification of human eggs, sperm and embryos will be watered down. No such thing will happen. This bill addresses the Lockhart review finding that the 2002 legislation allowing research on excess assisted reproductive embryos had inadvertently impeded research into improved methods for achieving pregnancy. Key provisions in the bill are intended to improve current licensing arrangements. In reality, licences would only be given through the NHMRC on the basis of tight legislated standards. The provisions are intended to ensure that vacancies on the National Health and Medical Research Council Licensing Committee are promptly filled. They provide for the inspection of non-licensed facilities, impose significant criminal penalties for breaking the law and compel the minister to report to parliament on the establishment of a national stem cell bank and a national register of donated ART embryos.

It is important to note what this bill does not do. It does not license the creation of embryos for harvesting alone. It does not facilitate the cloning of humans. It certainly does not herald a market in embryos and eggs. Under stringent licensing, the bill allows for two new activities recommended by the expert and respected Lockhart review. The first is the use of so-called fresh embryos. These are embryos generated in the IVF process which have been deemed to be unsuitable due to genetic defects. Current legislation requires that these embryos be discarded. The bill redresses this aspect and enables their use in scientific research.

The Lockhart review also forms the basis for the recommendation of the second activity, regarding the use of human embryos created by somatic cell nuclear transfer and other techniques that do not involve the fertilisation of a human egg with a human sperm and not implanted into the body of a woman. They are prohibited from developing for more than 14 days. My colleague the member for Lalor points out that such embryos are to be created only for the development of specific embryonic stem cell lines, as is currently legally permitted in the United Kingdom, Sweden, Japan and Singapore. Indeed, it is this second point which has been the focal point for public discussion and debate.

In the Sydney Morning Herald, Ian Kerridge, Peter Schofield and Loane Skene point out that in the debate surrounding stem cells:

... the distinction between morality, faith, science and politics is less clear. Unfortunately, many of the arguments against legislative reform to allow therapeutic cloning rely on a series of myths.

They describe as a myth the claim that there is no scientific or medical rationale for allowing embryonic stem cell research or therapeutic cloning. They note that this claim is not accurate, that research is ongoing and that initial research on animals has yielded positive outcomes. They say:

The House of Lords, a majority of the US Senate, the American and Canadian medical associations, 80 Nobel laureates, the Australian Academy of Science and past and present Australians of the year have all supported the potential of embryonic stem-cell research and therapeutic cloning.

These are respectable sources of information that demand attention. They are not characterised by narrow bigotry or commercial self-interest. The article continues:

Myth 2: That the law does not need to be changed because scientists can already use adult stem cells and excess embryos from assisted reproductive technology.

The authors counter that the current law enables researchers to use adult stem cells but that this differs from embryonic stem cell research. Indeed, these two research areas are complementary; they are not competing. The article continues:

Myth 3: That the risks of egg donation and the possibility of women being exploited demands that therapeutic cloning be banned.

In contrast, the authors feel that safeguards against abuse are necessary but that this does not require a ban on therapeutic cloning. Women and men need to be fully informed before making the decision to donate organs or tissue. Further:

Myth 4: That allowing therapeutic cloning will ultimately lead to reproductive cloning.

A strong and transparent regulatory and licensing system is the best safeguard against any abuse. Indeed, the existing law has enabled a number of inadvertent harms in the area of reproductive technology. Regulation will provide a comprehensive framework which will enable regulatory authorities to maintain oversight over research and development. Finally:

Myth 5: That respect for human life demands cloning be banned.

The authors counter that the prevailing community attitude regarding the status of human embryos is not clear. However, there is little doubt as to the level of respect afforded to human life. The question of how much respect we afford embryos does not logically facilitate a ban on this scientific endeavour. In recent correspondence to members of this House, the Australian Academy of Science wrote:

The Academy agrees, on the basis of the expert advice of its fellows that both adult and embryonic stem cell research offer great potential in medical research. Adult stem cells from a patient have the great advantages of proven safety and the absence of immune rejection. Embryonic stem cells and their relatives made by somatic nuclear transfer (therapeutic cloning), have the great advantages of being able to make every kind of cell in the body and to multiply indefinitely. The recommendations of the Lockhart Committee will allow both adult and embryonic stem cell research to proceed in parallel to maximise the opportunity of developing medical applications from this research.

I also received correspondence from Motor Neurone Disease Australia, which asked that I support this bill. MND Australia argues that to create stem cells of a person diagnosed with MND offers the potential for advances in research that are not available through stem cells derived from other sources. We should have some recognisance of the views of people who suffer from this condition. They obviously have some focus on the matter, they obviously are very committed and they obviously see great personal advantage in these changes. MND Australia further commented:

Lifting the current ban on embryonic stem cell research will bring Australia in line with most other countries—

and they cite those I mentioned previously. The letter continues:

It will also ensure that Australian scientists and researchers have the opportunity to make future contributions to advances in this area.

In speaking to this bill, the member for Blair made the obvious point that this is a highly complex matter for which we are highly reliant on the advice of others. I was impressed by his contribution, knowing the direction from which he historically comes on these matters.

He spoke of his engagement with the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation and of their support for the bill. He pointed out that embryonic cloning may hold the key to finding a cure for type 1 diabetes. In defending the scientific community, the member for Blair stated:

So I hear what they—

that is, the advocates—

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

This is not a free-for-all, as there are sentences of up to 15 years. I, for one, do not assume that scientists undertake experimentation to play God. I ascribe to a belief that there is a genuine pursuit of improvements for the health of humanity.

I turn to comments in the American medical journal Frontline by Vijay Swaminath. He inquires as to what embryonic stem cell research can do. He argues that the supply of donated tissues and organs to replace ailing or destroyed tissue is much too limited and that the demand is skyrocketing. If embryonic stem cells can be successfully directed into forming cells of specific tissues, they offer a source of replacement cells and tissues to treat diseases such as Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, spinal cord injury, stroke, heart disease and diabetes.

Again I stress that I am sensitive to the perspectives expressed by people opposed to embryonic cloning. Nevertheless, I endorse this bill as I am convinced that the legislation will enable Australian scientists to work towards finding cures to diseases such as type 1 diabetes and motor neurone disease. It is not my wont to be unquestioning of prophets, but I believe that there are strong pointers to genuine progress in these matters. I am convinced that the legislation provides the proper safeguards against improper use of embryonic cells, and it is for these reasons that I support the bill.

In closing, yesterday I read an article in a Financial Review from some time ago. The article concluded that, because of the stance of the Prime Minister, this type of debate would not occur. From whichever side we are on with regard to this matter, we have to put on the record our respect for the activities of Senators Webber, Stott Despoja and Patterson and the member for Moore, who have obviously overcome a degree of reticence from the government to having the debate. Regardless of where one stands, it is good to see this kind of process happening in the parliamentary system, whereby a group of people who have a commitment to a particular issue can overcome the rigidities of parties in this House. By any international standard, political rigidities and loyalties are more intense in this parliament than we see in the United States and the United Kingdom, for instance. So I do put on the record my appreciation of the efforts of those individuals over the past few months.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To many beyond this parliament, and perhaps to some within, scruples over human cloning and the creation of embryos for research must seem like a contemporary version of the argument over how many angels can sit on the head of a pin. Why should we bother over what is done in test tubes to a few cells when there is the potential to cure horrible diseases? We had an example of that thinking from the member for Reid a few moments ago. Indeed, listening to some of the more enthusiastic proponents of the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006, it is as if no cures were ever found before embryonic stem cell research and no cures ever will be found without it. But the bill is important because every single one of us began as a group of cells similar to those whose fates we now decide.

I want to make it clear that, as far as I am concerned, this debate is not about the importance of research. Everyone supports medical research and the government has demonstrated its support by pledging nearly $1 billion more for medical research in the last budget. This bill and this debate are not about finding cures because no-one in his right mind would discourage the search for new and better ways to ease suffering and prolong healthy life. Certainly this debate is not about religion; there are people who take religion seriously on both sides of the argument. This bill and this debate are about the ethical boundaries, if any, within which research should take place. I imagine that every single member of this parliament would recoil with indignation at the suggestion that he or she supported human experimentation and the use of humans as guinea pigs for science. I regret to say that the only difference between full-blown human experimentation and what is permitted in this bill is time.

The embryos and the clones that this bill permits for research are, in all material respects, indistinguishable from and every bit as human as the embryos created by assisted reproductive technology, from which some 7,000 babies are born every year in Australia. Some of these ART embryos are implanted and some are not, but they are all human embryos. The proponents of this bill claim that there is a difference between embryos created by human eggs and human sperm on the one hand and those created by somatic cell nuclear transfer on the other. Lest anyone say that this is scaremongering, let me stress that what I am about to quote comes from the official documentation of the National Health and Medical Research Council. The document says:

... somatic cell nuclear transfer, or SCNT … was the technique used to create the first cloned mammal, ‘Dolly’ the sheep.

The NHMRC goes on to say that SCNT is controversial because:

The resulting embryo could, in theory, lead to cloned human beings. If a cloned embryo is placed into a woman’s uterus, and it implants and develops to birth, a new human being will be created whose nuclear DNA will be identical to the person who donated the original body cell.

This is not the scaremongering of the church and its more zealous supporters. This is the National Health and Medical Research Council pointing out the dismal prospect created by this bill and the slippery slope which we are now on. The proponents of this bill say that clones will never be allowed to develop beyond 14 days, but just four years ago Senator Patterson solemnly denied the slightest intention to create clones at all, so no-one can be confident that today’s absolute prohibition will not succumb to the report of yet another expert committee in four years time. The proponents of this bill claim that there is a difference between embryos created for research and embryos created for reproduction. There is a difference all right: one is created for life and the other is created for death—one is an end in itself and the other is part of what is intended to become a burgeoning human spare parts industry.

Members of this House are preparing to cross a moral Rubicon. They are preparing to jettison the axiom of Western moral thinking that the end does not justify the means because, as we have heard so often in the course of this debate, you cannot say no to people in need. Who could not be moved by the personal stories that many members have brought to this debate, but I want to point out that supporters of this bill are not the only members of this House who have experienced human suffering and they are not the only members of this House who are sensitive to it. I say that we owe it to the beloved dead to base our policy on our principles and not on our grief. I cannot say what I might want if a child of mine could be saved by cutting ethical corners. I cannot guarantee that self-preservation or the desire to protect loved ones would not get the better of my principles. That is why the actions of people under extreme pressure have never been regarded as the litmus test of what is morally right. I know the pressure that people in this House are under. I know that the unborn cannot lobby their MPs like those who are sick and their relatives. Still, as Edmund Burke said to the Electors of Bristol, ‘I owe you my judgement, not my obedience.’

I am pleased that the member for Bass has proposed an amendment to remove one of the ugliest features of this bill, and I very much hope that the proponents of this bill will consider that amendment carefully. I want to state that, for myself, this bill can be improved but it can never be made acceptable. Like the Treasurer, who preceded me, I respect the motives of those who have brought this bill forward, but I utterly reject the conclusions that they have come to. On this topic, I look forward to a future parliament with no less good will but much better judgement. This bill represents the triumph of hope over judgement and it should certainly be rejected by the parliament.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to oppose the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. The arguments that lead me to this conclusion are in many ways different from a lot of the arguments of other people who have reached this conclusion. I also feel that a lot of the arguments from those supporting the bill do not go to the core issues as I see them in this piece of legislation.

The key argument that I have often heard from people who, like me, are opposed to this legislation is that adult stem cell research is better. I find that as an argument for opposing this bill utterly unconvincing, for one simple reason: the question of whether or not another form of research is better does not give you any justification for banning an area of research. Even if adult stem cell research were not better, that would not cause me to say, ‘Oh well, therefore we do need this one.’ I think we are in an ethical debate. That is where we are at. I think we should all be up-front that that is the debate we are in and either make the ethical case or not make the ethical case.

In the same way, I reject the argument that has been put by a lot of the proponents of this bill that under no circumstances should we stand in the way of something that might bring about a cure. The reason I reject that argument is that I do not think anyone believes it. I think there are occasions when every member of this parliament and every member of the community in Australia will say, ‘Even if that does give rise to a cure, I don’t think that sort of research should be conducted,’ or, ‘I don’t think that medical practice should be condoned.’

We have dealt with this issue through a sideways method where people have been asking where the ova will come from and whether women will be in a situation where they are being asked to sell bodily tissue. We already have, through state legislation throughout the country, a situation where under the human tissue acts of the different states it is illegal to sell your own bodily tissue. It is a principle throughout Australia and a principle that does not exist in many other countries. In the United States, for example, people get paid to give blood. In Australia we do not do that. There are no doubt situations where somebody needing a kidney transplant will die while waiting for a suitable donor to be found. I have no doubt whatsoever that there would be circumstances where, if we were allowed to sell our bodily organs, people would not die because there would be suitable donors willing to come forward. It would not happen that often but there would be such circumstances. No-one in this parliament is saying that therefore we should change our principle in Australia and make it reasonable to sell our own bodily organs. No-one is arguing that. That is an area where we say that, even if we are standing in the way of a cure, it is a public policy path we do not think we should go down.

The logic of that leads me to say that the question is not the science that is being argued back and forth. We are not the experts on the science. That is not our job. It never has been and never will be. Whatever the best course of action for science, I am quite happy for the scientists to do that bit. Our job is to determine where the boundaries ought to be drawn. To draw a boundary for the scientists is a big step to take and it is a step you do not take lightly. But, no matter what the rhetoric in this chamber has been, it is uncontested that there are times when we draw ethical lines and it is appropriate for the parliament to do that. That has been the case in statute law in this country for more than 50 years—that if we have a situation where the ethical principle is big enough, even if it stands in the way of a cure, we will say no. That does not mean people are imposing their religious faith on each other. I do not understand for a minute where the religious principle is on the question of whether or not you are allowed to sell your blood. There is none. It is a public policy stance and it is an ethical line. We look at the consequences and think it is an inappropriate path to go down.

There are two areas in which this bill crosses an ethical line that I do not believe it is appropriate for us to cross. For those reasons alone I am opposed to this bill. The first reason is that I am opposed to cloning—simple as that. I am opposed to cloning even at the earliest stages. Some people have spoken about ‘science fiction’, as though cloning is making a new human being who is absolutely identical. Essentially what we are talking about is creating an embryo with the DNA of an identical twin of an adult. Not all the genetic material precisely matches—the ovum is going to be different—but you are talking about that concept of creating an identical twin for somebody at that earliest stage of life. There is a contestable argument, which we have had in the parliament, about how much dignity life at that early stage ought to be given, but I think everybody in the debate has acknowledged, even if they do not believe you are dealing with a full person at that stage, that you are dealing with something pretty special.

The second line this bill crosses, which I do not believe it should cross, is where it is so very different to the bill that this parliament dealt with three years ago and the parallel legislation that I voted on in the New South Wales parliament three years ago. Last time around, we were dealing with the issue of whether embryos that had already been created should be allowed to be used in scientific experimentation. I was opposed even to that, but many people got to the line on that issue and argued in the parliaments around Australia—and every parliament in Australia had to deal with the legislation—that the critical issue was: these embryos have already been created anyway; they are going to die anyway; therefore it might not be inappropriate.

This time around we are saying that this embryo is only created for this purpose of experimentation. That is a really big ethical difference. It is not my argument, but some people will reach a measured conclusion that crossing that line, which is something new, is outweighed by the prospect of the blank canvas we have for scientific research. We all have to be honest: what we are faced with on embryonic stem cell research is a blank canvas. It might deliver unbelievable cures; it might deliver very little—we do not know and the scientists are not sure. For us to be engaging in this debate as to whether or not it will, I really do not think takes public policy that far. There is an ethical debate to be had, and that is where the guts of this issue really does lie.

No matter what level of dignity people want to give an embryo at that blastocyst stage, most people agree you are dealing with something more than just ordinary body tissue. The question is: at what point does it becomes special enough that you are willing to say, ‘I’m going to draw a line and not allow science to cross it.’ I believe we are at that limit—I really do. It might be the case that this is standing in the way of possible cures. It might be; neither side of the debate knows. When we prevent somebody from selling their kidney to somebody who desperately needs a matching kidney and it is completely consensual, why is it any business of ours? Because public policy is our business—that is what we do; that is what we are charged to do—and sometimes that means drawing an ethical line.

I do not believe that, even at the earliest stages, we should allow a process of cloning. I do not believe that we should allow an embryo to be created for the specific purpose of destruction. I expect we will be back debating the next stage of this in the next term of the parliament. I do not argue that from a slippery slope perspective; I argue that from two other perspectives. There are two areas where I do not understand, having taken this step, what the next logical argument of limitation is. We have the argument here that there is an absolute ban on reproductive cloning and that, once these embryos are created, it is illegal for them to be implanted in the womb and brought to term. If a woman has donated her ova and we have what people regard as either a human life or a potential human life, I do not know what argument will be used to tell the woman who is the mother—or potential mother, depending on where you sit in the debate—that, ‘Even if you want to have that embryo implanted, we’re not going to let you.’

Logically, I am not sure at what point she ceases to be the mother. I am not sure at what point she loses those rights. It is unlikely that that request is going to be made, but I am not sure, and I am yet to hear, what the logical argument is that says she has no right to make that request. Under this bill she does have no right, and I am not quite sure how that next line gets drawn when this step is taken.

The other thing that appears inevitable, because of an amendment in the Senate and a similar one in the House that say you cannot use an animal egg—and I support both of those amendments—is the problem of where the eggs are going to come from. If we end up with long lines of women volunteering to assist with this research, that will be their decision, but I would be surprised if they did. We are inevitably heading to a very specific call from scientists in three years saying: ‘You allowed us to do this. Actually, we weren’t able to do the research because we weren’t able to get the eggs to begin research with, so therefore we need to revisit the hybrid issue.’ Once again, we will be back here debating whether or not we are standing in the way of cures.

The principle that I start with will remain the same. It will still be cloning; it will still be the creation of an embryo with the purpose of destruction. We will still be in the middle not of a scientific debate but of an ethical debate. Scientists should normally be allowed pretty free rein, and I am very relaxed about that. It is not my job to be a scientist. It is not my job to decide this is the better area of scientific research, and therefore I am going to demand that other areas are shut down. That is why I do not enter this from the perspective of the adult stem cell versus embryonic stem cell debate. I can only see an ethical debate here. I think anybody who says, ‘If you want to impose ethics on science, that’s you imposing your religion on others,’ has not thought through the logic of where they stand on a whole range of other areas where we do draw lines. From my perspective we have one question and one question only in this debate: should the line be drawn? My answer is yes, which leaves me with no choice but to oppose this bill.

Margaret May (McPherson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today in support of the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 and hope my comments as a legislator will be understood as coming from a member who has spent many hours researching this bill and its implications. My position has not been taken lightly. I am neither a scientist nor a doctor, and the matters we as legislators have been asked to consider within this bill are complex. But the bill is important and the recommendations of the Lockhart committee’s report, a committee chaired by the late John Lockhart AO, QC, who was supported by an eminent group of people, deserve a careful and considered response.

It is my belief that the Lockhart committee’s report was comprehensive, measured and balanced. In fact, overall, it was a well-considered report. The committee reported to the minister in December 2005, noting that it had:

... consulted the community extensively through a review website, written submissions, face-to-face meetings with key stakeholders, public hearings and some private meetings (at stakeholders’ requests), facilitated stakeholder discussion forums, and selected site visits.

There was also public opinion sought through focus groups and telephone surveys, and a literature review of recent scientific and technological advances in human cloning, human embryo research and related matters, including stem cell technologies. The final report contained 54 recommendations.

Since the release of the report and the recommendations I have talked to my family, friends, constituents and those more learned than I on this issue. I have listened to varying points of view. Australia is a diverse country, and people in our country hold different values and beliefs—and none more different than those that are held with regard to this bill.

There is not the time today to canvass all those differing views. The bill we are debating today is a bill drafted by Senator Patterson. I would like to say to Senator Patterson that she has done a wonderful job in drafting a difficult piece of legislation that in essence represents the recommendations of the Lockhart review—that is, I believe it is a conservative and appropriate response to a complex medical and ethical issue.

There is one person I thought of often when I was considering this bill and my position. His name is Colin Bambrick and his body is suffering the effects of an insidious disease, a disease that is slowly destroying Col’s quality of life—motor neurone disease. Motor neurone disease is an incurable, inevitably fatal condition. I have known Col and his beautiful wife Lori for a number of years, and over those years I have watched Col deteriorate to the point where he is now in a wheelchair. His brain and intellect are fine, his sense of humour is wonderful, but his body is wasting. The disease progressively paralyses the body—the arms and legs, and swallowing and speaking muscles. Eventually you end up with a mind and a consciousness inside a body capable only of blinking before the breathing muscles give way and you die.

Col’s day-to-day needs are met by his wife, Lori, and his family. They are supported by some wonderful friends, including John and Heather Stevens—two people who I know love and respect this brave man but feel powerless to help. Col still socialises and gets out. He recently attended my niece’s 21st birthday. But socialising is difficult and tiring for Col. He is only 57 years of age and he knows there is no cure for MND. At least there is no cure at this time. But he also understands that the bill before the House today just might find that cure for sufferers in the future. He asked me recently what stage the bill had reached. I told him it had just passed in the Senate and we were waiting for it to come into the House. Col will be listening to the debate with interest, and I know I have his full support for my position with regard to the bill.

Passing this bill will not mean that embryonic stem cell research will find the cures that people like Col would benefit from. Medical research can take years, even decades, to find cures or therapies to assist. Embryonic stem cell research has, however, immense potential for understanding the cause or causes of, and eventually finding a cure or cures for, motor neurone disease and many other life-threatening diseases.

We need to promote and support all forms of scientifically and ethically reputable research. And therein lies the controversy surrounding this bill. The Lockhart review has recommended the use of human embryos created by somatic cell nuclear transfer and other techniques that do not involve the fertilisation of a human egg with a human sperm. Somatic cell nuclear transfer, or SCNT, also known as therapeutic cloning, is an essential research tool for developing disease specific stem cells. SCNT involves creating a stem cell from a patient’s cell. Such a stem cell line would be a copy of the patient’s disease cells and would enable scientists to understand more thoroughly the triggers and process of that specific disease. It does not—I repeat, does not—involve the union of an egg and sperm and the generation of a new individual. This legislation prohibits the embryo ever being implanted. Under this bill, embryos, whether they are surplus IVF embryos or embryos created without sperm, must not be allowed to develop beyond 14 days. The Australian scientific community does not support reproductive cloning. The use of SCNT to clone a human must continue to be prohibited and be a criminal offence. This bill supports that view, and so do I—very strongly.

There have been many myths perpetrated through the media regarding therapeutic cloning, and it has been difficult to cut through the rhetoric and, indeed, the moral high ground that some have taken with regard to this bill. There is no doubt some of us in this place will be criticised and targeted for our positions. But as community leaders and legislators we have a responsibility to make the tough decisions. Each of us in this conscience vote must weigh up and measure the facts against our own beliefs and values and the needs of the communities we represent.

The mix of arguments against the legislation has in part been built on myths. Of course views pertaining to morality, science, faith and politics have been thrown into the mix. So what of those myths? What of the claim that the legislation does not need to change because scientists already have access to adult stem cells and excess embryos from assisted reproductive technology for their research? That is true. However, that does not reduce the potential for scientific and medical advances from research involving embryonic stem cells. These are complementary and not competing fields of research.

Existing law allows research on excess normal embryos but does not allow the study of diseases through research into abnormal embryos or the creation of disease models for research or, potentially, for the development of patient specific therapies that may repair or regenerate diseased tissue. These require therapeutic cloning.

Concerns have been raised about the risks of egg donation and the possibility of women being exploited, and, of course, there is the claim that allowing therapeutic cloning will ultimately lead to reproductive cloning. As I said earlier, the scientific community does not support this assertion, nor does this House.

Scientific research is, at best, just amazing for a lay person like me. I think about organ donation—open-heart surgery was pioneered by Christian Barnard back in the late fifties—and measure that against what is happening in the medical sphere today. I think about young Chris Wills, a constituent of mine who underwent a heart-lung transplant last year. He is now living a normal life—even playing cricket for Australia at the recent Transplant Games in England. There is our IVF program. My own daughter is carrying my third grandchild through the miracle of IVF.

We have had many historical medical breakthroughs in my lifetime that in my view are miracles, such as the discovery of insulin by two Canadians, which has given a quality of life to all those who suffer from diabetes. Are we not to give the same sort of hope to others suffering like Col or young Perry Cross, a ventilated quadriplegic? Perry was hurt in a football accident and suffered the same injuries as Christopher Reeve. Perry is only young—in his late twenties—but has been confined to a wheelchair since he was 19. Perry has hopes that one day through medical research he will walk again, that his spine will be regenerated—and why should he not hope for that breakthrough?

We need to ensure that the recommendations of the Lockhart review are adopted and implemented. Australia has been a leader in stem cell research. The vast majority of the scientific and medical community in Australia and overseas believe that SCNT has tremendous potential to reduce human suffering. We do not want to fall behind international researchers in this area of science. As a country we need to be sharing in the international collaborations, research knowledge and intellectual property that will accompany this science.

Through this bill we can be sure that we have progressive legislation with tight regulation and a clear and well-articulated ethical framework to enable Australia to sustain our position as a world leader in biotechnology research. To Col, Perry and all those other Australians condemned to a life of suffering through their diseases or afflictions, you have my support and I hope the support of this parliament to ensure that this bill is passed.

Carmen Lawrence (Fremantle, Australian Labor 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. We are often confronted in this parliament with the challenge of having to make decisions about the ethical dilemmas that surround the beginning and end of human life. In many ways, we are no better prepared than the average citizen to make these judgements, and, in a sense, that is as it should be—we represent the community. But, in that case, the responsibility in some senses is all the more onerous. We shoulder here the responsibility of deliberating on how to deal with issues that inevitably produce disparate responses in the community, in part because of differing judgements, many influenced by religious teachings, about when life can be said to begin. That is the issue which is at the crux of this debate.

There is, as far as I can discern, no real disagreement amongst us that life is inherently valuable and deserving of our diligent protection—although sometimes our actions belie that stated position. For instance, some excuse the taking of lives in war and others justify capital punishment in certain circumstances, but, generally speaking, there is consensus that each of us is unique and entitled to live our life to the fullest extent compatible with respecting the lives of others.

The reach of this recognition may not, of course, in practice extend to everyone on the planet, as is evident in the apparent indifference of some—you see images on television every night—to the deaths in, for example, Iraq and Afghanistan, to the deaths from civil strife or to the deaths from the lethal impact of poverty related diseases. We often do little in these circumstances to protect lives. But generally it is fair to say we strive energetically to preserve and protect human beings—at least those nearest to us, those we can see, those to whom we believe we owe a debt—against illness, injury and death. Of course, we sentence those who breach the injunction against injuring or taking life to condemnation, to separation from society and to extended terms of imprisonment. Where we tend to part company with one another in these debates is when questions arise, as they inevitably do in the biomedical sciences today, about the point at which life begins—the point at which our energetic defence of human life should be engaged—and, indeed, whether it is possible to identify with any precision the point when we are really dealing with an individual human being, a person, rather than a collection of cells.

I think it is worth pointing out that in these discussions there are at least two meanings of the word ‘life’ at play. In a general sense, life is the characteristic state of organisms and individual cells. The word is meant to signify the animating principle of all plants and animals. In this sense, all our cells are alive—as are viruses and fungi—both before and after conception in the case of human beings. Used in a more individual sense, life encompasses the idea that there is a point at which the developing human organism—the result of the fertilisation of an egg by a sperm—becomes more than its component cells and can justifiably be judged a human being, with all the rights to protection that a human being can expect, including the prohibition against destruction.

Those who oppose therapeutic cloning, the key subject of the legislation—and I know there are quite a number in this parliament—tend to do so because they believe that a human embryo, from its earliest stage of development, and indeed for some even from the moment of fertilisation, is an entity that deserves full protection. It is in some sense fully human, entitled to the same consideration as those of us who are already treading this earth. Such people logically oppose the termination of pregnancy at any stage. They further propose that it is morally wrong to create such an entity for any purpose other than for assisted reproductive treatment—so-called ART—of a woman, although I have to say they are strangely silent on one of the known consequences of ART: the production of surplus embryos which must, eventually, be destroyed or simply decline. Apparently the creation of excess embryos for the treatment of infertility is unique among medical treatments and the otherwise implacable opposition to the destruction of an embryo is overwhelmed in their view. I have never understood that argument. Others argue that, until the developing organism is implanted in a woman’s uterus and/or is capable of at least a degree of independent existence, it should not invoke such protection—that is, the protection accorded to human beings. There are proponents for almost every point from conception to birth for the beginning of life—and to some extent I think we all need to recognise that these judgements are somewhat arbitrary.

The proponents of therapeutic cloning argue that, given the research and therapeutic potential of the creation or use of embryos, it would actually be immoral and unethical to deny these benefits to the many people who would benefit from such technologies, particularly when such research is conducted under strict scrutiny and where cells may not be permitted to propagate beyond 14 days or be implanted in a woman’s uterus lest severe penalties apply, as is the case with this legislation.

As the Lockhart review’s authors pointed out, Australian society is made up of diverse communities with different perspectives, interests and values—much as this parliament is—which include broad support for medical research aimed at understanding, preventing or treating disease and for research and clinical practice aimed at assisting people to have children. The community generally accepts that these things can be undertaken as long as there are strong ethical frameworks and guidelines. As the Lockhart review suggests, and I agree:

... the higher the potential benefits of an activity, the greater the need for ethical objections to be of a high level and widely accepted in order to prevent that activity.

Where it can be demonstrated that substantial benefits will accrue—because of either improvements in understanding or treatment of prevalent diseases—then the scales are weighed in favour of regulated and circumscribed use of excess embryos from ART or methods of fertilising an egg other than by a sperm, by so-called somatic cell nuclear transfer, which is also the subject of this legislation, especially when, as I have indicated, such processes are closely monitored and regulated as this bill proposes.

In my view, there are no absolutes here to excuse us from having to make a judgement. It does not do, in my view, to rely on divine guidance, since some of us in any case do not share those beliefs. There is no doubt that stem cell research, whether it is based on embryos or adult cells, offers considerable promise for science and the treatment of many diseases. The Australian Academy of Science, for example—the peak body representing Australia’s most eminent scientists—strongly supports the passage of this bill because they judge that embryonic stem cell research will ultimately improve the health of all Australians. They point out that adult stem cells from a patient have the great advantage of proven safety and the absence of immune rejection—important characteristics. They also stress:

Embryonic stem cells and their relatives made by somatic cell nuclear transfer—therapeutic cloning—have the great advantages of being able to make every kind of cell in the body and to multiply indefinitely.

Advances in stem cell research in both humans and animals are likely to continue to improve our understanding of how organisms develop from a single cell and how healthy cells replace adult cells in adult organisms. Such research, for example, will improve our understanding of how cell proliferation is regulated during normal embryonic development or during abnormal cell division that leads to cancer—important insights.

For example, recent research in the US, where such research is being undertaken, has discovered that colon cancer originates from rare colon cancer stem cells, a discovery that may provide the key for developing new targeted therapies which prevent the recurrence of this debilitating disease. Using mice rather than humans, researchers have discovered that vaccinating mice with embryonic stem cells can prevent lung cancer, while other scientists have successfully grown large numbers of stem cells taken from adult pigs’ healthy heart tissue and used them to repair tissue damage done by induced heart attacks. The applications to humans are obvious. Promising clinical investigations have developed a process that efficiently converts human embryonic stem cells into insulin-producing endocrine cells, a process that could provide the means of producing sufficient numbers of insulin-producing cells for transplantation into patients with type 1 diabetes—again, a significant breakthrough.

I think it is clear if you read the literature that stem cell research is already contributing to greater knowledge of how unspecialised stem cells actually give rise to specialised cells such as muscle, blood and nerve cells. What, for example, causes some cells to remain unspecialised until they are needed for repair of a specific tissue? The answers to these questions are significant, both for our understanding and for therapy. What signals, internal and external to the cell, trigger cell differentiation? Stem cell research is vital to answering these questions. And, of course, as we have heard from many speakers, it offers hope for those many people who have suffered degenerative diseases such as motor neurone disease and the like.

It is unreasonable, I think, to insist that just because some people think an activity is unethical—particularly from a belief standpoint—that activity should be rendered illegal, especially when the basis for that assertion is in a religious belief which not everybody shares. While I respect those people’s views, they are not universally compelling. Indeed, Research Australia recently surveyed public opinion—there are many such surveys, and they all pretty much find the same thing—using carefully worded questions about stem cell research, finding that 74 per cent supported the use of excess donated embryos from IVF treatment for stem cell research and 58 per cent supported therapeutic cloning for health and medical research. Only 18 per cent were opposed. As I say, I have studied the construction of such surveys, and these seem to me to be questions that were responsible in the way they were put forward. They did allow for a negative response.

Having indicated my broad support for this legislation and for the scientific benefits that should flow from it, I want to restate something I said in the debate on the earlier legislation—that is, I am not some dewy-eyed supporter of the idea of the ineluctability of scientific progress. There are enough examples of the misuse of scientific knowledge to give cause for scepticism. Generally speaking, I think we are not, as a community, sufficiently humble or sceptical about what we know. We have seen a lot of accidental outcomes from scientific process, unlooked-for consequences, so we do need to be wary. I think everyone understands the need for such regulation, and this legislation provides strong ethical guidelines and severe sanctions for anyone who breaches those standards. This is not a free-for-all that we are agreeing to here, and the research needs to be carefully monitored and regulated for the benefit of all living human beings.

I conclude by saying that I do not think there is a reason to accept that the possession of a sense of right and wrong and the capacity to make ethical judgements about these matters have any connection at all with the belief in the existence of a supernatural deity. I have always found Einstein’s views on this more compelling. He speaks in terms of ‘man’, which I think we can forgive him for, given the time at which he spoke. He said:

A man’s ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death.

Our sense of goodness, our ethical framework, would be the way it is with a God or without a God.

Alan Cadman (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Six years ago, I, with a small number of other people in this parliament, took part in an examination of the issue of human cellular research. It had become obvious to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs that this was going to be a national issue and that there was a requirement for the Commonwealth to become involved in providing an overarching approach to all the aspects of human cellular research. That committee began its inquiry into what has been an issue for the parliament ever since.

One thing that occurs to me in following the debate on therapeutic cloning is the inconsistency in the scientific argument. In the early days of 2000, it was claimed that four or five stem cell lines were all that were needed for scientists to be able to do their work and to carry it through to fruition. The stem cell lines were ‘immortal’, it was said, and so the scientists had plenty of scope even if they were allowed only four or five cell lines with which to conduct their work. That claim was changed within a couple of years to one of a need to use the so-called spare embryos from the IVF program. This would give plenty of scope for Australian scientists to make world-shattering discoveries. From those spare embryos cures for all sorts of diseases could be established. That was the evidence given to the committee, and those were the statements made by some scientists during the debate on this issue in 2002.

Nine licences have been issued for the use of surplus or spare embryos, and 178 embryos have been used. There are 104,830 available embryos that have not been used. It seems to me that the scientific claim of requiring only a narrow access to embryos was not a realistic assessment. Two years later the claim changed again to a requirement of an even greater number of embryos. For some reason or another, the availability of 104,000 spare embryos is now no longer adequate for the technology of therapeutic cloning and something else needs to be tackled.

I point out to the House as we debate the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 that in this place in 2002 there were only a couple of speakers on the earlier human embryo and research bills who said that they would consider therapeutic cloning. Today the House is changing its mind and is endorsing therapeutic cloning. One must wonder where the next step will be, because the ground rules are changing and the parliament is changing with them. Now there are not enough embryos, and cloned embryos are needed because they are better, are patient specific and are therefore more likely to produce good results. Dr Washer said:

This tissue, being patient specific, does not require immunosuppressive drugs that may cause a much higher risk.

That would be true if a cell were taken from a woman and transferred into her own ova. But what about males? It does not apply for males. I am sure that Dr Washer would not want to mislead the House. I listened with care as Professor Sherley, the wonderful scientist from the United States who was in Australia recently, said that any thought that this implant process is free of contaminants and that it will make the need for immunosuppressant drugs unnecessary is not accurate. It ignores the mitochondria in the cellular plasma, and so the contamination of the fluid surrounding the nucleus is about five per cent foreign DNA in every instance. There is a 95 per cent accurate reflection, but five per cent is not. There are problems with this process, and they will come to the surface in four or five years time when we will be asked to make further changes.

So I think this process is not going to lead to therapy. It is said to be therapeutic cloning; I do not believe that it is. The inaccuracies of science are illustrated by the claims made in 2002 by Professor Trounson when he said that he felt there could be a prospect of research finding solutions for the euthanasia debate and being able to assist people such as sufferers of degenerative diseases. He said:

Maybe we can take away the absolute pain and the total loss of wanting to live on in some of these people ...

That was in 2002. One needs to have a look at what results have been achieved for the investment by the Australian taxpayer of $120 million into this research. I have carefully tried to track the process and the results from $120 million. I asked the Parliamentary Library to look for reports. The Parliamentary Library said that they came up against a barrier. Commercial-in-confidence was the barrier: ‘Go away. This is private. You don’t need to know the results.’ It is of deep concern to me that this parliament cannot find out the results of the investment in research funds because it is claimed that it is commercial-in-confidence. How do we know what is happening? How do we as a parliament know whether or not there are results being achieved?

I asked an Australian scientist to have a look at some of the publications that were put out by those who claimed to be doing this research. The ones that we were able to find amounted to reviews of other people’s work. There was no instance that I could find of original work or work of a nature that is producing advances to science. Surprisingly, in this instance, for the therapeutic cloning provision that the House is discussing today, one of the scientists who cloned Dolly the sheep opposes this change. A British scientist, Dr Alan Colman, who is now working in Singapore, said that procuring the eggs needed for therapeutic cloning poses ethical problems for him. ‘I’m not one,’ he said, ‘to slow down research, but you have to ask: is it worth pursuing with current techniques or better to wait for other techniques? Stem cell cloning is a technique that could be useful, but I think it is a bit crude and inefficient at the moment. The balance of probability of the process working against the aspect of human donors giving eggs is just not good enough.’ He was quoted in the Australian of 3 August and the Age of 7 August this year.

So there we are: one of the leading scientists in this technology saying that it is crude and that the prospect of success is just not good enough. And we have people here saying: ‘Give us the money, but we won’t tell you what the results of our research will be.’ I think that purely on science alone—forget the ethics, which I feel strongly about—we are going into this with our eyes closed, and people are asking us to take it on trust.

One only has to look at the results of the efforts in Korea, where claims of all sorts were made. The Korea cloning experience was marked by falsification to hide failure and the shocking manipulation and coercion of female researchers to produce oocytes. I think that process in Korea puts a dampener right across the whole thing, particularly in the light of the information that I have been giving the House about the lack of transparency.

The government was not prepared to back Lockhart. You can say, ‘Well, that showed the prejudice of the minister.’ I do not believe that is the case. It has come in here on a private member’s assessment of what it is. The advice to the government was doubtful, but the House is going to move ahead on its own judgement. I regret that the House has chosen to set aside previous decisions and move in this direction.

I have mentioned what happened when I tried to investigate this matter. I know that Professor John Martin tried to discover what was going on. So did the Parliamentary Library. There was no disclosure. GeneWatch in the UK had a press release in November this year titled ‘New controls needed to maintain independence of science’. What are GeneWatch saying? They say:

Research conducted by GeneWatch UK, and published this week in the Journal of Medical Ethics ... shows that scientists are failing to disclose their financial interests in the form of patents.

That needs to happen. We need to know who in Australia has a financial interest in the results of this research and whether or not the Commonwealth is backing some small group of people who hope to gain for themselves exclusive rights to Commonwealth backed research.

I mentioned the ethics of this. I know that for some members of the House, some of the proponents of this bill, the concept of a chimera does not worry them. The concept of mixing animal and human cells does not worry them. I suggest that the scientists will be back here shortly proposing that there be a relaxation in regard to animal-human mixing and that there be an extension of the 14-day period that people so fervently say they will never move on. With respect to the comments by Alan Trounson when he said in August 2002 that there would be ‘no impediment’ to the commercial use of aborted human foetuses under this legislation, a bar on that is being proposed by one of my colleagues. I hope the House accepts that bar on the use of female aborted foetuses and will accept his amendment. I believe that this legislation is dramatically flawed, but that is one area that the House surely can agree to take out.

I think that in 2006 we are making a judgement on very little evidence of advance. From what I can see, the claim of totipotency for embryonic stem cell research has not been realised. The filtering of cancer has not been realised, even though that statement has been made by people in this place—and I heard Dr Washer make the statement that Alan Trounson claims that it is possible to filter out cancerous cells from this process. Sherley said, ‘Show me the evidence.’ I have not seen a single thing printed anywhere in the world that indicates that that is the case. We are talking about a senior research scientist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology whose specific task is to work in these areas, and he has not been able to identify some of the claims that are being made—and I believe wrongly made—for the processes and the discoveries that we claim we have made in Australia.

I appeal to the House to exercise a great degree of caution in this area. I think there are things which need greater transparency and greater opportunity for this parliament to examine. On an ethical basis, at the end of the day I would oppose this anyway, but purely on the science I think there is good reason to reject this legislation.

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

I rise to support the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. As indicated in earlier debate, this bill amends the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 and Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002 and is consistent with the recommendations made by the 2005 Lockhart legislative review committee, which followed those two pieces of legislation.

In a debate like this, where one has been given the privilege of a conscience vote, one should indicate to the House, and through the House to the community, those things which have led one to a conclusion about whether or not one supports a bill of this nature. We all bring with us different experiences. That is one of the great strengths of the Australian parliamentary system. Each of us uses those strengths from our background, our training, our life, to make considered judgements about the way in which we should act as legislators.

One of the aspects in my background which has led me to have an interest in the subject matter of this bill is that I am a science graduate. I have never used that in professional life, except as a legislator. I ended up in management positions in the Public Service, such was the want of the Public Service Board when they made appointments. Mr Deputy Speaker McMullan, as the member for Fraser you would know of the great institution the Australian National University, of which I am a science graduate. Even more interesting in my background is a short time when I was a student at Monash University in a different faculty. Over 30 years ago, I managed to pass the second year subject anatomy at Monash. I did so with great difficulty, but one of the more interesting units in anatomy for me was embryology.

When I listen to some of my colleagues who have not had the benefit of the department of anatomy at Monash teaching them about these matters, I regret that they have not had that exposure. If you set out the science involved here, it explains why there is a limitation of 14 days. That is very much about the development and the way in which cells come together. If you look at the literature—and we use terminology such as ‘totipotent cells’ and ‘pluripotent cells’—you see that at day 15 the embryo has developed its primitive streak and, because of the alignment of cells, the different body parts start to develop. One of the more fascinating aspects of that development is that that is the basis of a lot of referred pain, where you get pain in a different, distinct area from an organ that is undergoing difficulty because the associated skin cells may have been from the same area of the primitive streak—but I digress a little.

I say this not because of my interest in these matters but because I understand that we all have to make an ethical judgement about whether we think what is proposed to be made legal by this piece of legislation is not just worthwhile but is proper. Earlier this morning, the member for Watson, who has come to a different conclusion from me, made some opening remarks which I thought were pertinent in that they show the way in which opposing views in this debate can overlap. This is not an argument about whether adult stem cell lines are sufficient or better. It is not about whether some scientists, as the member for Mitchell has talked about, have been caught out for having poor ethics in their practices. They are decisions for the profession to handle, to make sure that members of their profession act in an appropriate way. This bill gives the legislative framework that dictates what can be done with the stem cell lines that are extracted from the embryos that will be created by means of therapeutic cloning.

I am not going to go further into the technology. We have heard many people describe the elements of somatic cell nuclear transfer, and I think it is for the scientists to decide whether or not that is a successful technique. The Lockhart review indicates that, beyond the surplus embryos created for the purposes of in-vitro fertilisation, there really is a need to continue and to widen the potential for the creation of stem cell lines because the therapeutic benefits might include the ‘treatment of serious and currently untreatable conditions, studying disease states, and screening new drugs’. It is not surprising that since the 2002 legislation there have been only eight or nine instances where requests for approval for the use of surplus IVF embryos have been made and that now, after a thorough discussion of these issues by the Lockhart committee, we should be going to this step of creating embryos for the purposes of further study. There is the potential for studying so-called patient-matched cells for specific patient cell therapies but also for more certainty about studying known genotypes for disease modelling and other research.

One aspect of my background that I have tried not to dwell on in coming to the position that I have in this debate is that my late father suffered from motor neurone disease. Regrettably, or fortunately, he had a slower degenerative version of that disease and had been diagnosed for over 25 years. In that time span you can see the effect of a disease that is all about the motor neurones dying because they cannot be regenerated, leading to the wasting of muscle and mobility problems. But it is not because I witnessed that degenerative disease that I come to the conclusion that this gives hope and might lead to a cure; I think we have to be a little dispassionate.

This morning, even worse for me—and a subject that is much closer to home and more recent—the member for Fremantle mentioned the possibility of this type of technology being used to find remedies for bowel cancer. Again, this is something that is of moment for the Jenkins family. But I think we have to step aside from that and say—as the Minister for Health and Ageing quite rightly said—that it is not just for the people who have decided they can support this bill. Many of those who are actively in opposition will have experienced through relatives or friends the types of diseases about which claims have been made this type of technology may eventually assist. It is very much ‘may’; there is nothing definite.

Whilst we talk about the great changes in science—and we are trying to react to those great changes through this legislation—nothing can be guaranteed. Some have mentioned in debate the discussion that happens in the scientific world about whether or not one particular person’s view is correct, but that is the nature of science and has been throughout history. That is why, if we as legislators are concerned, we have to set out the parameters through legislation like this to ensure that it is done in a way in which we think the community will sufficiently allow.

When debating the 2002 bill, because it was correct of the 2002 legislation, I made the comment that that bill did not allow for the creation of embryos solely for the purposes of embryonic stem cell research and the development of embryonic stem cell lines. That was the position at that point in time. I believe that what we have seen through the Lockhart committee’s review and recommendations is a logical step based on sound scientific principles but not, I think, stretching the boundaries of what the parliament decided with the 2002 bill.

One thing is clear—and I think I can talk for both houses of this parliament: the members and senators of this parliament are unanimously opposed to any notion of the development of a full adult human through cloning. To suggest that this is the thin edge of the wedge, the slippery slope, does not take into account that those who are supporting the bill do so in the knowledge that this legislation is very specific about the use of those embryos created by somatic cell nuclear transfer, that the regulations dictate the hurdles that are required for researchers who want to use this method and that there are very severe penalties for those who would want to do other things.

The ethics of science has been paramount throughout civilisation. For every scientific step forward, consideration has to be given to the ethical value of that step. Mention has been made of the splitting of the atom, its use in the manufacture of nuclear weapons and things like that and the dilemmas it has raised. In the middle of last century the knowledge that had been developed by the science of genetics was abused by fascist states in attempting to foster the development of a super race, but the scientists who were involved in that are not the sort of people this legislation is developing opportunities for; they would be outside the legislation. People with those types of morals are well outside the intent of this legislation.

So on balance, after consideration of the views put to me by a wide range of people from within and without my electorate, I have come to the view that this legislation would allow another item in the toolkit of researchers that may lead to solutions to medical problems. It may not. Science may move on, and these types of mechanisms may not have to be used. The notion that stem cells could be extracted from an embryo without damaging the embryo, which could then go to full term, would make aspects of this legislation redundant. But the use of SCNT technology may still require a known genotype through a stem cell line.

I want to speak—but not in a patronising way—about the quality of this debate. This debate is one instance where the parliament as an institution has worked well. The executive, in response to the Lockhart review—this is not a dig at them—decided that they would not pursue this matter. But the press statement, in announcing that, indicated that the government parties would allow a discussion to take place. That opened the door for members of the government parties to explore this issue. Then we saw senators from across the board—from the opposition parties and from other third parties—come together to assist Senator Patterson in the sponsorship of this bill. It then came before this House with a conscience vote. That is in its purest form one of the best ways we can see the parliament in action. It not only allows those non-executive members of the government parties an opportunity to pursue things that are important to them but allows the parliament as a whole to do so.

I support this bill. I know that those who oppose it do so for heartfelt reasons. I believe that when we put in place the mirror state legislation which will control the uses of this technology, it will be done in an appropriate manner.

Brendan Nelson (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Amidst all else that is clamouring for media attention this week is this bill, which presents to the parliament a watershed decision. The Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 represents a significant milestone in the delivery of confidence and hope and indeed uncertainty for the future. The question before us is: should Australia allow its researchers to undertake somatic cell nuclear transfer, known commonly as therapeutic cloning? Embryonic stem cells are created from fertilised eggs that are surplus to those needed after IVF treatment. This is currently allowed, the eggs being donated by the couples who produce them, and those that are not so used are discarded. In effect, in discarding them, they are destroyed. This is considered to be morally repugnant by many.

Removing the nucleus from an unfertilised egg and replacing it with the nucleus from another tissue cell can also produce embryonic stem cells. The advantage of producing embryonic master stem cells in this way is that they have identical genetic material to the person who donated the cell, and tissue ultimately produced by such research is not likely to be rejected when it is subsequently transplanted. We will not know until the research is conducted and it is evaluated. The potential to produce disease-specific stem cells tailored for an individual offers significant opportunities for the treatment of a range of diseases.

In the course of the debate a number of those who oppose the bill have argued that, if we accept the embryos to exist for up to 14 days now, subsequently we would be on a slippery slope, as it is described, and the parliament may choose to lengthen the period of time for which an embryo could be produced and then exist and have harvested from it embryonic stem cells. Others have gone further to suggest that an embryo produced in such a way could subsequently be implanted into a uterus and produce a human being.

To go back to some of the remarks made by the member for Scullin, if anything, the science in this area is moving in the direction of reducing the period of 14 days. It will be a judgement for any parliament to decide on any matter at any time whether it extends or shortens that period. There is no scientific argument, nor indeed any moral or ethical argument that I can foresee, for extending it beyond the 14 days, although at this stage that period of time is necessary. The fact is that it is also illegal and will remain illegal to subsequently implant an embryo produced in this way.

There has also been some talk about cloning people and animal-human hybrids, about so-called Frankenstein science. Apart from the appalling ethics of such research, it is illegal to do it and it will remain so. Others have brought exaggerated claims about the potential of embryonic stem cell research and adult stem cell research to the debate. It is important that we appreciate that adult stem cell research does offer hope and potential, but it is complementary to embryonic stem cell research. Opposition to therapeutic cloning on the grounds of religious conviction is to be both respected and admired. Others oppose this research on the basis that ‘no cure has yet come from therapeutic cloning’. It is also said by some that it offers false hope.

When insulin was introduced into Australia, one critic reported in the Medical Journal of Australia:

Public propaganda had been used to build false expectations and no doubt hundreds of diabetics would be hastened to their graves.

It is a matter of record that, today, 130,000 Australian juvenile diabetics owe their lives to insulin. Smallpox vaccination, blood transfusion, organ transplantation, analgesics and oral medicines have all, at various times, evoked religious and moral opposition. I note that some of those who have been most strident in their opposition to the introduction of a number of those things have been amongst the early recipients of the benefits of such medical technology and medical change.

Hope is the most fragile yet powerful of human emotions—there is no such thing as false hope; there is only hope. My mother lost one of her two sons to a chronic disease a little over a decade ago. He lived the last two years of his life inspired and energised by what would ultimately be the quixotic search for a cure. Two of my constituents, Carol and Ray Langsford, watched their young, beautiful daughter die in a Wahroonga nursing home from multiple sclerosis. I visited her on a number of occasions in that small nursing home room. She was in her mid-20s. The hope that others may one day not similarly suffer sustains Ray and Carol Langsford in a campaign which has subsequently raised more than $1 million for research into the prevention and treatment of multiple sclerosis. My grandfather died earlier this year at the age of 91. After almost a century of life, he still carried the photograph of a much loved daughter taken from him at the age of 3½. Today, that cancer’s treatment is routine. We are all haunted by these sorts of experiences in the knowledge that such diseases are now treatable and preventable.

I think some of those who are a little overenthusiastic to support this legislation need to listen very carefully to those who are opposed to it, because the science is hard—in fact, the science is very hard. But what is much more difficult and much more important is how we as human beings come to terms with living with that science in vast ignorance of the long-term consequences of the decisions that we make. The real challenge is how we as human beings adjust to new knowledge and how we ensure that our ethical and moral considerations of the impact of new science does not undermine the very principles for which a civilised society actually stands.

I consider myself a Catholic, albeit a far from perfect one. But, as with Edmund Burke, I am here to be a representative, not a delegate, whether it is of my electorate or indeed of my own religious conviction. I recall my grandmother dying over a two-month period when I was a young boy. There was a priest at her bedside almost every day of that 60-day period. She derived enormous comfort from his presence and from the prayers, the rosary beads and all of the symbols which are convictions of the faith she passed on to me through her daughter, who is my mother. But throughout my life I have often thought that through that quiet introspection—the deep, silent, secret pursuit of understanding and wisdom through prayer—we ultimately have a responsibility to translate that prayer that inspires hope into something which may be practical.

In a climate of moral diversity—one in which we live in vast ignorance of the consequences of the decisions that we make—I will support this bill. My generation—I think at times a selfish generation—has benefited enormously from the sacrifices, scientific endurance and judgement of those who pioneered not only difficult research but also legislative frontiers. We owe it to the next generation no less to show the same wisdom and indeed the same courage.

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Public Accountability and Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have had the privilege to listen to very good contributions on both sides of this debate. It has been a very impressive, quality debate with people making strong, powerful and compelling arguments on both sides of this issue. This has led to people talking about the significance of conscience votes and the role of political parties. For my own part, I have no fear about conscience votes—I think there are certainly occasions when they are appropriate and they add value to the parliament and to the broader community. You can seek to run a parliament on the basis of conscience votes for legislation; however, you cannot run a government without political parties. Governments need to be able to govern and to be confident about their legislative framework and the operation of their legislative mandate.

Let me commence by saying that I think the less intrusion we have of religious convictions into our political and legal systems the better. One of the greatest challenges we face in our time is the challenge of religious fundamentalism. But the fact that I do not believe that our law should be shaped by people’s religious views does not mean that there are no moral or ethical issues at stake here or that without religion it is open slather and scientists can do whatever they like.

Today we are debating the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. This is an amendment bill to legislation that we passed just four years ago, which is very recently indeed in the grand sweep of history. Back then, the House said that we would allow stem cell research in relation to embryos which were going to be destroyed anyway, but the House was adamant that we would not allow cloning. Members lined up to denounce this idea. Now we say that we are going to allow cloning for research purposes though not for reproduction. So what has changed in four years to warrant the parliament moving so quickly to overturn a position arrived at unanimously so recently? In my view, not enough. It is said that the research world is moving quickly, and it is, but it is not moving so quickly that the research carried out has actually given us any cures. Precisely because it is moving quickly, no-one is able to stand up in this place and say that adult stem cell research will not prove efficacious in the years ahead. We simply do not know what is around the corner.

If you look at the Patterson bill before us, it says that under no circumstances can a human embryo or a human embryo clone be kept outside the body of a woman for ART or research purposes beyond 14 days. The period of 14 days is counted from the first mitotic division but does not include any time that the embryo’s development is suspended while frozen in storage. This has compromise written all over it. Why stop at 14 days? Why have any stopping point at all? The only reason there can be for a stopping point is that the proposers know that there is something unsatisfactory about the process. What other reason can there be? If there is nothing wrong with it, why stop at 14 days and why does it matter whether the embryo is frozen at the time or not?

I have been around for some time. I remember the IVF debate. The advocates at the time said, ‘IVF, yes; cloning, no.’ I accepted that argument. I also remember the embryo stem cell research debate four years ago. The advocates of embryo stem cell research said at that time, ‘Excess embryos, yes; cloning, no.’ I also accepted this argument. Now they show up saying: ‘We’ve changed our mind about cloning. We want to finesse that ban we put in place to allay your concerns before. We don’t want a ban any more.’ From my point of view, I am not convinced. The protections which were put in place against abuse before were very important and very basic protections. It may be that the time will come when they should be removed, but, in my view, we are not there yet.

There is something known as the precautionary principle which operates in science. It is my view that we are crossing a line here. It is a very big call to make and I personally am not prepared to make it. No-one knows whether adult stem cell research or embryo stem cell research will ultimately prove effective or which will work better. The member for Calare suggested that hopes of cures have been deliberately talked up. I also noted the comments of the member for Prospect that four years is a very short time for us to propose such a dramatic change. This is an on-balance judgement about an extraordinarily complex issue, but it seems clear enough to me that some violence is being done to some entity here. The sponsors of the bill effectively concede as much. Why else would we have the 14-day rule?

They might respond that the violence is justified in the name of research and the search for cures, and so we have the talk of therapeutic cloning as opposed to cloning for reproduction, but is the violence justified in the name of seeking a cure? The evidence is far from clear that it does work or that adult stem cell research does not work. We live in a fast-moving research world and therefore I think the precautionary principle is appropriate here. I did not oppose IVF. I did not oppose the embryo stem cell research on spare or excess embryos. I recall that the Prime Minister said in that debate:

... I could not find a sufficiently compelling moral difference between allowing a surplus embryo to succumb by exposure to room temperature, on the one hand, and the use of those embryos for potentially therapeutic research, on the other.

That is the view which I adopted at that time. I do not say that there are no circumstances in which I would support embryo stem cell research, but I will not support this bill at this time.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 before us today is a personal challenge surrounded by strong feelings and, some would say, even controversy. No matter what we finally decide, we need to reflect on our conscience and our motives when we make these decisions on behalf of our community and reflect the best we have to offer in ourselves. It is on that basis that, on balance, I will be supporting this bill.

I support this bill for a range of reasons, many of which stem from the statements I made in 2002 when this matter first came before the parliament. At that time, I had just been on quite a journey with my friend and colleague Kevin Andrews. We were on the House of Representatives Standing Committee for Legal and Constitutional Affairs and we travelled far and wide across the country canvassing these themes and looking at the moral, ethical, regulatory, health and human aspiration virtues and arguments surrounding this whole area of medical research. We travelled far and wide and we heard many points of view and at times the arguments put forward were quite irreconcilable. The basis on which they had been developed was for some drawn from their faith or strong convictions and for others more of a utilitarian view of the good that could come out of this work if it was supported and regulated properly to guard against excesses.

My strong support for the earlier legislation is clear, and the reasons for it I will not go over other than to say that at times in some of my work I was partnered by Con Sciacca. We were not quite the odd couple but an unexpected alliance. We moved the measures to split the legislation. At that time my strong view was that there was almost a contradiction of conscience embedded in the one bill and that people should be given an opportunity not only to vote against the notion of human cloning but to vote equally thoughtfully on the other element, which was stem cell research. That was achieved, we had the passage of the bill and then it was reassembled and became the legislation that we are seeking to amend today.

I do not see this debate as a contest between the virtues and the possibilities of different forms of research. I am optimistic every day that new insights will be gained from a whole range of human endeavour and enterprise, whether it be adult stem cell research, embryonic stem cell research or the other kinds of medical research that go on every day in this country and in other parts of the world. I am interested in what it is trying to achieve and whether there are safeguards against excesses or a rampant enterprise in research which loses focus and which moves away from healing and life giving into something else. This is why I am supportive of Senator Patterson’s amendments, and I commend her for her work.

Many of the debates that we have had in this place reflect on the earlier discussion, but for me the safeguards embedded in the bill we are discussing mean that it is within our reach to carry out embryonic stem cell research in a safe and thoughtful way. The insights that it may offer, the remedies and therapies that it may produce and the benefit that it offers to all humankind deserve the possibility and the opportunity, and we should, within certain boundaries and certain constraints, support that work.

There have been discussions around the time limit of 14 days, there have been discussions around the use of an egg, there have been discussions around somatic stem cells and there have been discussions around inputs or steps along the way to conception and the creation of a new being. Some of the arguments have centred on a view that if you have elements of that process then that amounts to the total outcome: a conscious, functioning being with a whole world of possibilities ahead of them. That discussion often misses or leaves to one side the many steps that are required to get to that point. I am thinking about the efforts of many families around the country to have children and their frustration that their best endeavours do not always produce the results. It is a complex process and there are many things that need to go well and right to produce the foundations for a viable human life with all of the consciousness and personality and possibility. At some point in that process, well before all those preconditions have been met, there is scope for us to carry out some research. The benefits of that are health giving and life sustaining for people. You could argue that it is a life-giving enterprise. The safeguards against the misuse of that technology are embedded in the bill. I am particularly interested in the steps, which I was strongly supportive of, to guard against commercialisation and the prospect of women being offered financial inducement to provide eggs to support this research. I am pleased that there are safeguards in place against that.

I am encouraged by the work the Lockhart review committee has brought forward. I think their thoughtful review gives us confidence in supporting Senator Patterson’s bill. This is not to say that tomorrow there will be cures for horrendous illnesses that represent an enormous challenge for the people who carry those illnesses. This is not to say that tomorrow there will be relief for the selfless carers who stand by supporting those people. That is not what we are discussing. This bill is about providing an opportunity down the track for new insights produced with the best of all goodwill and the best enterprise that minds can bring and research can offer. It is the same opportunity that advocates of adult stem cell research offer. It is not a fait accompli that we will have the benefits tomorrow, but it is not appropriate to shut off that possibility when the safeguards and the thought that has gone into this bill are in place. I am persuaded by the Lockhart review committee and their work. They are an eminent panel of people and their eminence has not been in question. Their expertise was aggregated into an outstanding group of individuals, motivated by the best intentions, carrying out important work to help shape our decision making.

I do not for one minute discount the strength of feeling people have about this subject. I have taken that on board and welcomed the input from many in my electorate. It has helped shape and influence my views. But there are two things that I want to talk about. When I travel around the electorate I often talk about what a member of parliament does, Mr Deputy Speaker Kerr, and at times I reflect on some of the work that you and I have done together on standing committees. I talk about the work that the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs did when looking at this issue of cloning, the regulatory framework and the prospects for embryonic stem cell research, and how the parliament came together to carry out that work through a parliamentary committee. I use that example to illustrate how we all come together to do good for this country.

When I visit schools I illustrate the complexity of our work by reflecting on that time. It was a demanding time of great searching, and I was almost overwhelmed by the goodwill and effort that people put into informing our work and by the quality of the final product. Even though our views were slightly different, it was an example of the parliament functioning at its best. I illustrate the potential for the parliament to function by reflecting on the topic we are debating today.

Occasionally amongst the school groups there is a young person with diabetes. We talk about the condition of their pancreas and we hope that one day we could cure that. There is a strong view that that is an appropriate thing to do. We then pick out a normally raucous and boisterous and terrific young person and say, ‘We all love and admired Duncan for who he is,’ and everyone nods their heads, ‘but would we want another one of him?’ Pretty quickly they all go, ‘No, we’re pretty fond of him, but we don’t want him again.’

You talk that through and the kids can see these challenges where the scientific processes are close to each other but the outcomes are distinctly different. There is clarity about our work to help and heal those people where we have the scope to do that and that research is an important part of that, but we are not aiming to replicate Duncan, as fond as we may be of him. The kids see that quite clearly, and so do I. I look at my own kids and hope that, as they venture into this world and pursue the delicious possibilities that are out there, we can do what we can to help them if, heaven forbid, illness may intercept them. This is what I am on about. I got elected to public life to try to improve the lives of the people that I represent. I am in the hope business—hope that we can offer better prospects for the future, more opportunities and better potential for the best possible quality of life. That is what gets me out of bed each day, and that is why I am supporting this bill.

I have also been moved by correspondence from Phyllis Woodger, who talked about her dear husband, Ken. Phyllis might not realise it, but I worked with Ken. He was a mentor when I had my first job after leaving school. While I was out emptying parking meters in the rain in Frankston, Ken was a respected engineer at Frankston City Council. He spent a lot of time developing my understanding of engineering and of where that fit within functioning communities. Ken was very ill, and passed away not so long ago. I would like to share with the House Phyllis’s thoughts. She asked me to consider them as I formed my view on the debate today, and I will read her letter. She says:

I have been following the current debate on stem cell research closely, and I am very anxious to see the Lockhart Report implemented so that Australian researchers and scientist are allowed to participate in the new beneficial work in this field.

Just 12 months ago my husband Ken (aged 65 years) died from Motor Neurone Disease—the years prior to this death were a nightmare for Ken and our whole extended family.

The hope for people suffering from many incurable terminal conditions is stem cell therapy and I feel it is imperative that every effort be made here and overseas to give relief to families and sufferers.

I hope that in the forthcoming conscience vote you will think of people like Ken and vote accordingly.

Phyllis, I do think of Ken. I think of all of those who have benefited from medical and scientific research to help our wellness as a people, and this is part of that picture with the appropriate safeguards. I also know that if this research, whether or not it is carried out here under our supervision and on our watch, produces insights that help with curing illnesses and improving our wellbeing, I would like to have access to it and I hope my kids do. If those insights are gained overseas, I would still like to have access to them. Australia has never been a passenger in life or in international affairs. We should play our part in the search for those remedies and therapies because I know the people I represent will want to benefit from them. It is for that reason that I, on balance, support the bill. I congratulate Senator Patterson for her work, and I congratulate the parliament too for the way it has discussed and deliberated views on this matter.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very amused listening to the people who are advocating the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006, such as the last speaker, the member for Dunkley. There is a wonderful quote at the end of the movie Young Einstein, where Young Einstein says: ‘This is very scary, this e=mc². We’ll have to give it to the government, because only the government could be trusted not to use it for evil purposes.’ There are scenes in the background of hydrogen explosions taking place, which are seen by the audience. That was the image that leapt to my mind when I heard the cant hypocrisy and extreme intellectual featherweight material we have heard continuously today.

We have had a lot of people acting very pious, and in the rough country where I come from there is a great saying that when your neighbour starts preaching religion, that is when you start reaching for your branding iron. That is what I was thinking about today when we had them all telling us we are really safe with this embryonic research and saying, ‘I’m doing it because I believe in my country and because it’ll save the world.’

It is very interesting to look at the English language from some 25 years ago and to look at it today. The generation that I belong to, those who thought about things and read about things, read two books—Nineteen Eighty-Four and Brave New World. They represented the great fear syndrome that a thinking person could clearly see arising. If you cast your mind back, in Nineteen Eighty-Four the world was divided up into Oceania, Eastasia and Eurasia, and it has actually taken place today with NAFTA and the European Union. Those things are all reality.

In Nineteen Eighty-Four, the government is all-powerful—Alexis de Tocqueville and John Stuart Mill had an awful lot to say about excessive government and the tyranny of the majority and just how excessive government would be in a democracy—and in taking the story to its conclusion, a lot of words from the book have become part of the English language. ‘Orwellian spectre’ is a term you often hear used and you will often read, and it refers to George Orwell’s book Nineteen Eighty-Four.

In Nineteen Eighty-Four we had the word ‘doublethink’—you actually had to believe what the government was telling you—and we had ‘doublespeak’, which meant that the word actually meant the opposite of what it was supposed to mean or in fact we just simply created a new meaning for the word. Here, what was ‘embryonic cloning’ is now ‘somatic cell nuclear transfer’. To quote from an article I have here from Nature magazine:

The word ‘embryonic cloning’ has negative connotations and therefore we should change the name.

The word ‘homosexual’ was deleted—and that is fair enough—but they took the word ‘gay’. I remember getting an A for senior English. They said language creates an image. One of the best images in the English language was in the famous poem, Rape of the Lock, where:

Belinda smiled, and all the World was gay.

It conjured up a very graphic and wonderful image that leapt to your mind—and a very clear image. But, of course, that word was taken by homosexual people to describe themselves—they were to rebadge themselves: ‘We’re all gay people. That is really wonderful.’ As I say, they are free to change their name, but they should not be free to take a wonderful word from the English language and pervert it to their own selfish ends.

I still use the terms ‘madam chairman’ or ‘chairman’, whatever the case may be, but now of course it is ‘chairperson’. I am just wondering how long before a ‘person’ becomes a ‘perdaughter’! Clearly this must be where this ridiculousness ends up. No-one ever thought because you were a chairman you were automatically a man.

I have dealt lightly about these things, but movies, some of them described as horror movies—Brave New World, Blade Runner, Frankensteinreflect a fear element in our psyche that has been tapped by Hollywood on many occasions. We are frightened of the mad doctor syndrome—Jekyll and Hyde, if you like, or Frankenstein’s monster, which is more pertinent to this debate. We are scared of it and quite rightly scared as human beings of the sort of ‘brave new world’ where clones are created as servants to the powerful classes and we have various strata of society cloned to meet the needs of the marketplace.

I do not mind people in this debate stretching the truth, but I really do get a little bit upset in this place sometimes. The only occasion when my honourable colleague, the member for New England, asked me to leave was an occasion when the debate was going fine and the other side were having their say about something we disagreed violently with. But when they started telling lies I got very angry.

Today, speaker after speaker has told us that this embryo, which they choose to call a ‘somatic cell nuclear transfer product’ will not become a human being. That is what they have said. There is not one single scientific resource that I have been able to access that does not say that that will happen, albeit many will fall by the wayside. But if you put A with B you will end up with a human being, so long as something does not destroy it along the way. When you say, ‘This will not create a human being,’ the substance of what you are saying is a flagrant lie. Dolly was created from this technology. They set out to create a sheep and they created a sheep. It just so happened in this case that the sheep died soon afterwards because of the imperfections that were involved in what was being done.

If you put A and B together here you will get a human being, albeit that a lot of these embryonic stem cells might die along the way. But all of us start life as little human beings and very few of us reach 95, because we die along the way. But when we start off as a human being we still hope that we end up as a human being. Everybody knows that we will end up as a human being. Similarly, here, this embryo starts as an embryonic human being and it will end up as a human being. It may be that there are a lot of things that kill it along the way, but similarly with the human as it emerges from its mother. They are telling lies when they say, ‘This is not creating a human being.’

The second lie that they have constantly perpetrated in this parliament is that there is no other option. If you use an embryonic stem cell it is pluripotent—it does not have a very definitive DNA template stamp upon it. It may become anything. It may become rogue cells or cancer. It is on its way to being a human being, but we do not know what side track it may take, because of the way that it has been formed. We do not know that. That is why they say to us; ‘We want to have embryonic stem cells, because it is not DNA definitive.’ If that is the case, why can’t you use animal stem cells? If that is your argument—that it is not distinctively delineating and DNA templating—then why can’t you use animal cells that are also not distinctively DNA templating and delineating? So it is a lie to say they have no other alternatives.

If the DNA determination and delineation or templating—or nonpluripotent or whatever expression you want to use—is the reality then you can use adult stem cells. So to say that there is no other option is nothing more than a lie.

But I thought what was extremely distasteful was speakers in this place getting up and using heartbreak arguments about some person dying from a terrible disease. In other words, all the people opposing this bill are dastardly people who want to see these poor people continue to die these terrible deaths and somehow we have some spiritual belief system that obviates scientific objectivity.

Those of us who do have some spiritual beliefs are getting a little sick and tired of this sort of rubbish coming from people. Every time we assert a non-personal, non-self belief—or whatever term you want to use—we are accused of being antiscience and off in fairytale land. I would have thought the idea of an ‘uncaused cause-god’, if you like, is a hell of a lot more logical than saying, ‘All of this descended from a firecracker going off some time in the past.’ And that is the proposition that is put forward continuously by our opponents in this area.

For those that like to read a little bit of history, I have this to say. When I was down and out for three months I did a lot of reading. There were three books that categorised what they termed the most important people in human history, and there were two other books that defined the greatest breakthroughs in science and the greatest scientists. But on each of those lists, whether it was the greatest person, greatest scientific breakthroughs or greatest scientist, were Voltaire, the father of electricity; Galileo, the father of science; Mendel, the father of genetics and biology; Einstein, the father of nuclear science; and Pasteur, often referred to as the greatest man in history. I think Pasteur came in fourth on the register of whom they consider to be the greatest man in history, but he will often come in at the top of the list of the greatest scientists in human history.

Each of these men is defined as having made the modern scientific world, and each of them unashamedly asserted spiritual beliefs—beliefs beyond what our opponents would call the scientific realm. These were the world’s greatest scientists. In comparison, Robyn Williams, a champion of our opponents, is an intellectual and scientific pygmy of enormous proportions. You would need a microscope to find him if you were doing a scientific analysis and putting him beside these giants.

Voltaire said that if there was no god then you would have to invent one. Galileo, of course, was tortured by the Christianity of the day. There were no different religions then; there was only the Christian religion in those days. He was tortured by certain people undoubtedly associated with the Christian church of the day. But he only existed as a scientist because the de Medici family had financed him; they were his patrons. In fact, they had been his mentors, and he only existed as a scientist because of the de Medici family, who were the papacy in Rome for those same 50 years. So I would hardly use Galileo as part of the argument.

Einstein said: ‘I want to know God’s thought. The rest is detail.’ Mendel, of course, was a monk. He lived in a monastery. He was a religious. After Pasteur made his discovery and saved many lives—probably one in four of us would not be here now if it was not for Pasteur, his inoculations and his breakthroughs—people asked, ‘What mountains do you have left to climb?’ and he said, ‘My greatest ambition has not yet been achieved, and that is to achieve the simple Christian faith of a Breton fisherwoman.’ So here were the giants of science, and the other side of this argument continuously disparage us with their nonspecific but continuous attack that we somehow have emotional and spiritual attachments that are not logical or objective. So listen to what the great scientists of history say.

In conclusion, there are beliefs that have sanctions. The Hindu religion says that you cannot kill a cow, and there are very good reasons for a society to ban the killing of the cow. The cow is your tractor in a poor country. The cow is source of calves in a poor country. So the tractor factory is the cow. The tractor factory is also the food factory, the source of milk and meat—food. The killing of the cow was the original sanction. Our own first Australian people had debil-debil country. Let us have a look at that debil-debil country. Black Mountain, out the back of Cooktown, is alive with poisonous snakes. The reason it was debil-debil country was that if you went up there you had a very good chance of dying. The Quinkans that come out of Mount Fox and spear you are obviously a reference to the volcanic era of about 8,000 to 10,000 years ago. These sanctions were there to prevent people from going into a situation which was extremely dangerous for the survival of the race. At Ingham, they have the water from mountain to mountain from double floods in the upper and lower Herbert. The entire coastal plain would go under water, so it was a debil-debil area as well.

So what I am saying is that, in human history, we have built our belief systems around certain survival elements that we need—certain beliefs which are relevant to the survival of us as a race of people. One of those things built in is that mad scientists cannot go running around creating humans for their own nefarious purposes. Let there be no doubt in anyone’s mind that the motivation for so many things is money. As my worthy colleague the member for Calare said in this place concerning the debate on this previously, the appeal of creating humans for the sake of meeting market demands does not appeal to me. I think those are the reasons intelligent people would shy very much away from the proposal that is being put forward to the House.

There are those that say the protections that are built into this act are going to protect it. But you will see incremental change. We will be back in this place saying that the 14 days should be extended to a month, then to two months and then to six months. You can absolutely count on that incremental change taking place there. Every time, the arguments that will be put up will be exactly the same as the arguments that have been put up to date. They would have some veracity—except that underlying each of the major arguments here is a lie: (1) that these embryos will not become human beings, and (2) that there are no other options. Of course there are other options in carrying out this research. I will most be certainly opposing the bill.

Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Moral courage is an integral part of leadership. You cannot have one without the other. You cannot hope to exercise any form of leadership or authority if you are not prepared to stand by your convictions. We have been in this very position before. This parliament debated, in 2002, the Research Involving Embryos Bill and the Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill. Note the words ‘prohibition of human cloning’. In fact, at the time the Minister for Health and Ageing, who moved this private member’s bill, 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.

In 2002 the House voted overwhelmingly along that very line. Yet the bill before us today seeks to overturn the result of that vote, and I will have no part of it. The Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 implements the recommendation of last year’s Lockhart review, which found that research using cloned human embryos may offer the possibility of cures for a number of debilitating conditions. Let me say from the outset that I have tremendous sympathy and compassion for those who live with incapacitating illnesses and those who see this legislation as a possible salvation from such diseases and conditions. But I urge those people to consider the grand scheme of things, look beyond the immediate suffering and think about the door we are about to unlock. This amendment will be giving scientists the go-ahead to clone human embryos on the pretext that stem cells from these embryos will offer scientific advances that would not otherwise occur.

It is interesting that the United Nations Declaration on Human Cloning, which is barely 18 months old and to which Australia is a signatory, calls in part for ‘all measures necessary to prohibit all forms of human cloning’. I am surprised that many members of this House who are such devotees of the United Nations and its declarations are supporting this amendment. Of them I ask: where is your consistency?

Of course, if we open this Pandora’s box, I am sure we will rue the day we ever opened it because it will permit, in a de facto sense, the establishment of a slippery slope. The member for Kennedy made that very point. This bill provides that embryos may only be used in the first 14 days. How long before it is 28 days, or 42 days, or a number of months? Then what next? I remind honourable members that this bill already permits hybrid embryos. Sure, it is for the testing of sperm—it allows an animal egg and a human sperm. It is for testing the quality of sperm. But what happens next? What else can you do? Or do we keep going down this path until we get to Professor Singer’s ultimate aim? He is a so-called ethicist who would virtually approve the removal of children in their earliest form.

I appreciate the difficulty in grappling with an issue like cloning of embryonic stem cells but I also have an unshakeable view on the sanctity of human life and the heavy responsibility upon us as legislators to get this right. In extending my compassion to those who are suffering today, I ask: what sort of legacy are we handing to future generations? The Lockhart report contained one particular line which I feel undermines our position as federal representatives:

... the wider the range of ethical views on a particular activity, the weaker becomes the case for declaring that activity to be illegal, with all the attendant consequences of criminal conduct.

What an extraordinary statement to put in a report like that. In recent years, the parliament has been asked to be open-minded on the matter of stem cell research, cloning and RU486, so now to be told that a diversity of opinion weakens the justification for saying no is hypocrisy in its clearest form. Our job as MPs is to distil the views of the diverse interests of the electorate that we represent and then to vote in their best interests. Each one of us has between 80,000 and 90,000 constituents and, at the end of the day, we have to consider many opinions. In doing so, are we then weakening our position as elected representatives? I think not. The fact that the bill has passed the Senate by only one vote is a clear indication of the level of unease in the wider community over this legislation.

Other members of parliament have also raised serious questions about the medicinal and scientific benefits which apparently would flow from this bill. Senator Alan Eggleston was particularly erudite in his comments, arguing that the parliament should not be pressured into passing this bill to suit the biotechnology industry and scientific researchers. The same interest group has promised us that the research which would be allowed under this legislation could provide miraculous medical advances. I ask the promoters of that point of view whether they are not creating a false expectation. Where are the results from this form of cloned research so far?

We went through the excitement of the so-called breakthrough in cloning technology undertaken by the Koreans, only to find out that it was a fraud. Those of us who were here in 2002 will remember the rat that a number of scientists, including Professor Trounson, were taking around this building and showing how its broken back was healed. We found out after the event that it was actually healed by using adult stem cells. So there is a bit of woolly science around here. What are we offering people other than the expectation of miraculous cures?

On the other hand, we have heard of instances where cancer formation in stem cell implants is a real problem, with up to 25 per cent of implants forming highly malignant tumours. We have also heard that, since the current regulatory regime was enacted, only one licence has been granted for research into treating a scientific medical condition—in other words, the rest of the science is very much at a primary stage.

I also ask why we are passing this bill with such uncommon haste and so soon after the Lockhart report. As an MP and, more importantly, as a father and grandfather I would welcome therapeutic treatments which could eradicate degenerative diseases, but I want to see that occur, initially at least, through adult stem cells. We know there have been breakthroughs with adult stem cells. I applaud the granting in the last budget of $22 million to Griffith University and to Dr Silburn and his cohorts to look into the effects of adult stem cells on neurological diseases. To me, that is starting at the right point. There are many cases now of advancement through adult stem cells. I would have thought that, before we moved on to the next sector, we would want to get that right. That has with it none of the implications of this embryonic stem cell and cloning technology.

As I said before, once you start down the slippery slope, how long will it be until some mad scientist somewhere clones a human being? If you start to allow hybrid embryos, as I said before, there will always be someone who unlocks Pandora’s box and lets an embryo develop further. This is really stuff of the Dr Mengele variety; if anything, it is even worse.

Like the member for Kennedy, I take exception to those who have said that those opposing this bill are being driven by some religious direction or by an extreme religious view. I find that insulting. I find that there are a lot of people in this parliament who are driven by ethics. Certainly the way we were brought up in our religious belief is part of the formation of our conscience but, in the end, these sorts of issues are clear cut. They get down to conscience. They get down to being able to say whether you are justified in creating human life or even cloned human life for the specific purpose of killing that life in the expectation that you might be able to do something with it.

As I have said before, I have no argument with adult stem cell technology, and I am heartened by the fact that there have been early successes in this field. But this clone technology frightens me from both an ethical and a personal conviction point of view. I think a lot of our colleagues in this debate have been driven by a false excitement that somehow this is going to create the new nirvana for science. There is so little to justify that point of view. People who have had many years of conviction on this matter are really stepping back, and even those who voted against it two years ago are now prepared to embrace it. I have to ask my colleagues: are you really being true to your private conscience?

I will end on this note. It is something that I quote very often, and I am quite happy for it to go on the record again and again. It is Robert Bolt’s interpretation of St Thomas More. He says:

When statesmen forsake their private conscience for the sake of their public duties they lead their country by a short route to chaos.

That can be true of many types of government decisions, but it will be indelibly true of something as important as the sanctity of life.

Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I listened with interest to the member for Hinkler in his contribution. I thought he made some pertinent points, but none more pertinent than the point he was making about why we are in this building. We are in this building to represent constituents from our electorates. The member for Hinkler mentioned that we all have roughly 88,000 constituents that we are here to represent. I have been listening to the debate on this particular issue with some degree of interest over recent days, and very few people have actually referred to what their constituents are saying.

I will be treating the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 no differently to any other legislation. I tend to be a little bit amused at particularly the members of the parties who have this great feeling of freedom when there is a free vote issue—or, as some prefer to call it, a conscience vote. I am not here to represent my conscience; I am here to represent the conscience of the people who elect me. I think that point that the member for Hinkler made really does need to be held in the minds of many of us. Just because the Prime Minister says that members of parliament can do as they theoretically, at least, were elected to do—that is, represent their constituents—this seems to be an extraordinary set of circumstances, in that all of a sudden people start to think about the issues. But most of the people who have spoken have spoken about their own views on this issue—about the sanctity of life, about cloning, about the 14-day period, about the 28-day period, maybe, and about the adult stem cells and the embryonic stem cells—and a lot of them have become instantaneous scientists.

I do not pretend to be any of those things. I have very little real knowledge of how this issue could be extended into the future in terms of scientific analysis, but I do intend to represent my electorate on this issue, because I have asked my electorate what its view is. Obviously, I cannot speak to every person within the electorate, but, as I have done on many other issues, whether they be about the sale of Telstra or many of the resource issues or the various health issues that I have spoken on, I have always referred back to the people who elected me.

In this case, the people who have contacted me and showed their views to me are opposed to this legislation. That does not mean that everybody in the electorate is opposed to it; of course not. But the majority of people who have taken the time to contact and relay information to me or my office have voiced a view that they would like me to vote against this particular piece of legislation. And that is what I intend to do.

I find it almost amusing and to some degree hurtful that some people in Australia cannot get a debate in this place on dental care being part of our healthcare system. We can allocate all of this time to a free vote on an issue—an important issue; it is about life, but so is dental care about health and obviously about life—but very little debate takes place in relation to dental care. I find it difficult to come to terms with the other issues that we face from day to day, one of which comes to mind immediately: the way in which old soldiers who served in the Second World War are being treated differently to old soldiers who served in the Second World War but went overseas, in terms of the allocation of a gold card. They are things that we could be doing very constructively to assist those people in the latter part of their life, but the government seems reluctant to go there and investigate the options that would be available.

Here we are participating in a free vote. Only yesterday there was a massive change in the wheat industry, and in the next six months, potentially, various policy changes are going to take place. When asked whether the lives of people who depend on those decisions would be taken into account, whether a conscience vote of wheat growers as to their own future and the mechanisms of the export of their product would be taken into account, the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister ruled it out. They cannot have a free vote. Why are we having a free vote on this? Why do the wheat growers of Australia not have some say in their future lives and in the lives of their children? A lot of the arguments put in debate on this legislation have been about helping people in the future, about children and various illnesses that could be fixed by this legislation.

In conclusion, as I have already intimated, I will be opposing the legislation, not necessarily because of my private view or my conscience but because the majority of people who have taken the time to express their view to me or to my electorate office oppose the legislation.

Kay Elson (Forde, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today in support of the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006, although it is certainly not something I do lightly or without a great deal of consideration. I have listened with great interest to the many members of this House who have spoken before me in the debate. I do not intend to take up too much of the House’s time today. Many speakers have outlined concerns similar to those I have on the whole issue of embryonic research and cloning. As a mother of eight and grandmother of 15, I have very strong views on how precious human life is. I have spoken before about this issue in debates on abortion and euthanasia.

I am conscious that our consideration must also take into account the ‘thin edge of the wedge’ argument—that once we start down this path, it is easy to go further than we first envisaged—but I have made the decision to allow the use of ‘surplus’ IVF embryos that would otherwise have gone to waste, as we did back in 2002. I think it would be inconsistent not to consider other strictly regulated options as technology develops and possibilities grow.

If we agree that some degree of medical research can be carried out under strict regulation, I think we are saying that regulation is an effective safeguard to ensure we do not go too far down the wrong path. After much consideration, I do not think this bill goes too far or down the wrong path. There will still be strict regulation of embryo research. Embryos created through an ova fertilized by sperm will still not be specially created for the purpose of research. Only surplus IVF embryos that would otherwise be destroyed can be used for this purpose, as has been the case since 2002. This bill will allow, however, an unfertilized ova to be ‘developed’ through cloning techniques to an extremely early blastocyst stage—basically a collection of cells—and then used for the creation of an embryonic stem cell line.

Even saying that, it sounds incredibly like something from a science fiction novel—and a little scary as well. The whole idea of cloning has extremely negative connotations, and rightly so. To look at it from a scientific perspective, it is the development of one cell of a human body into a very small cluster of cells no larger than a pinhead. I understand that the whole process is usually completed in four to five days.

There will be strict regulation. A licence must be applied for and under no circumstances can any embryo be developed outside the body of a woman for longer than 14 days. So there will not be cloned babies with any resemblance to human form being created. It is important to be reminded that this bill retains our existing strict prohibition on many activities, including: placing a human embryo in a human or animal body; importing or exporting human embryo clones; creating a human embryo by fertilisation of a human egg by sperm donated for other than the purposes of achieving a pregnancy in a woman; making heritable alterations to a human genome; collecting a viable human embryo from the body of a woman; and a range of other options that we as a parliament have decided do go down the wrong path, which we must be careful to avoid.

This legislation allows us to go down a path that may significantly ease the suffering of many people. That essentially is why I have decided to support this bill. The possibilities of stem cell research are very exciting and varied. Not all those possibilities may eventuate, but they are definitely worthy of pursuit.

Members of this House would be aware that, before entering parliament, I worked to raise funds for, and awareness of, those suffering from profound disabilities—with Multicap, the Queensland Spastic Welfare League and the handicapped association, now known as the Horizon Foundation. I have seen firsthand the daily struggle faced by many people living with a disability and also the difficulties this situation can cause for families, particularly as their child grows to an adult and continues to require a high level of care. If this research can offer some hope, if it can possibly mean that down the track others will not have to go through the same difficult situation, I think in this parliament we cannot deprive people of that possibility.

I am a realist. I know that stem cell research is still in its early days. No-one should expect it will provide a miracle cure to all our ills. But there is a chance—a very slight one—and, wherever possible, we need to grasp that chance and see what we can do. If it can improve the lives of people living with a disability or disease, surely we have to at least review our laws relating to the technology and see how they can accommodate the scientific development.

This bill is an ‘accommodation’ of the development of stem cell research. Australian researchers are world leaders in this field and to block them from an emerging possibility—such as therapeutic cloning—could seriously set back their research. Therapeutic cloning is a technique used in 10 countries around the world, including the UK and Singapore, who have legislated for it, and the US, where it is allowed due to lack of legislation stopping it. If Australian scientists do not have access to this technique, who knows what chances and opportunities we may lose.

I acknowledge that it is just one field of stem cell research. I also believe that we must do more to develop other fields, including adult stem cell research and especially cord blood stem cell research. I think we ought to do more to encourage the collection of cord blood, as I believe this is a resource that is severely underutilised. I would like to see a situation where women giving birth in every hospital around Australia have the option of donating their cord blood. I know that two of my daughters who have given birth in the last couple of years have asked about donating their cord blood and were told there was no collection service at their particular hospital.

More must be done to ensure that this valuable resource is not lost. I acknowledge that good results have been achieved with cord blood and adult stem cell research, but that does not mean we ought to stop exploring other options. Alexander Graham Bell did an incredible job with the first telephone. If others had said, ‘That’s good enough,’ and not developed and perfected his technology, exploring new possibilities and applications, then we would not have the internet today. So I do not subscribe to the view that we do not ‘need’ to carry out embryonic stem cell research just because other forms of stem cells are proving useful.

The main reason I have decided to support this bill is the strict safeguards that will remain in place. This bill by no means represents a free-for-all or a significant weakening of the original legislation. I acknowledge also that this bill is a result of the recommendations of the Lockhart review, which looked at the issue very comprehensively and was able to consider scientific developments since the original legislation. The review committee members were all highly intelligent experts in various fields and they consulted widely, considering over 1,000 different submissions. I think, therefore, that their recommendations hold a great deal of weight and that it is right we seek to accommodate the main recommendations, as we do with this bill.

As I said earlier, I do not want to take up too much of this parliament’s time. I merely want to outline my reason for supporting this legislation, despite the hesitations I have with this whole area of research. I simply think that if any member of my family or any of the constituents of Forde were suffering from, for example, diabetes, paraplegia or Parkinson’s—all diseases for which this research holds some hope—then I would want to hold on to that chance; I would want to explore that possibility. So, with proper safeguards and regulations in place to ensure this research does not cross over ethical boundaries, I support this legislation. My hope is that one day we will see real results with this research, whether it is in my lifetime, my children’s or my grandchildren’s. I would not like to be counted as someone who stood in the way of that important progress, so I support this bill and commend it to the House.

Kate Ellis (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In rising to make my contribution to the second reading debate on the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006, can I say what a difficult issue that I and many others have found this to be. In light of this, I would like to acknowledge and thank the members of this parliament who have already contributed to this debate. I have been very impressed with the well-reasoned and valued contributions from members on both sides of the House and from both sides of the argument. I would also like to thank the many members of my local community who have contacted me to give their thoughts and opinions as well as some of the research that has been available to them to assist me in making my decision on this matter. I also do not propose to speak for very long on this issue. Many before me have appropriately outlined the major issues. I do believe, though, that I owe it to those whom I represent to outline my decision on this matter and the reasons for that decision.

As we all know, conscience votes are very difficult. I find this one particularly so. I was very well aware that whatever conclusion I reached on this matter there would be those who would be disappointed in my decision. To those I can only say: ‘Please be assured that I have spent much time exploring this issue and listening to and reading the different views surrounding it.’ I have found this debate particularly difficult. In contrast to the earlier conscience vote this year—which, in my mind, was about process and, as such, was for me a relatively black-and-white decision—I have lost sleep grappling with the many different shades of grey involved in this particular matter.

I have heard that it has been assumed that I would support this bill. Ultimately, I have come to the conclusion that I cannot. I think this shows that it is unwise to assume how one would vote on these issues. Instead, we should recognise that each individual will work through these issues and follow their conscience to reach their own conclusions. I do not normally regard myself as conservative. I am not one who is basing this decision on their own religious convictions, though I do admit that at times recently I have been quite envious of those whose faith has made this a black-and-white issue with an unquestioned conclusion. For me, this was not the case.

During the course of this debate people on both sides of the argument have made many strong points that I agree with; however, some people have made suggestions that I profoundly disagree with and would like to very briefly address. There has been an assertion here from several members that only people who do not care about the sick and who do not wish to give hope to their loved ones would vote against this legislation. I find this argument both false and deeply offensive. It is unreasonable to assume that all those who oppose this legislation oppose science and medical treatment. I do not. I believe that science has an important and exciting role in the treatment of illness and disease. I believe in investing in science. I believe in supporting the Australian research community and building on past successes. But I am also clear that this science takes place within the ethical parameters set by this parliament.

Many of us here know the pain of watching loved ones suffer. I certainly know that in my own experience I clung to any hope available and I absolutely understand others doing the same. I support stem cell research. I hope that this research eventually provides remarkable results, though I note that these results may be quite some time away. As the member for Wakefield noted, Professor Ian Frazer, the 2006 Australian of the Year, said that therapies from these proposals could not be expected for at least 75 years. But I support adult stem cell research, I support umbilical cord stem cell research and I support stem cell research using surplus IVF embryos. I cannot, however, support this proposal.

There are two factors upon which my decision to oppose this legislation has been based. The first is my deep reservation and, indeed, opposition to human cloning. Like many within the community, I am absolutely and entirely opposed to human cloning. I see it as unthinkable. I believe that others have tried to gloss over the fact that this is at the heart of this proposal. It is exactly the same process that created the late Dolly the sheep, and this parliament must be very clear about the path that it is proposing we tread down. This legislation states that human cloning is okay, but only for 14 days. I do not think that human cloning is okay at all, but I also have a problem with the fact that I do not see any reason that would rule out our revisiting this clause in the future when scientists decide that in fact they do not just need 14 days—they need an extra week or an extra month, or any other time frame. As I see it, we find ourselves at the top of the human cloning slippery slope, and it is a slide that I believe we should steer well clear of and reject from the outset.

The advances of science bring with them amazing discoveries, remarkable solutions and revolutionary treatments, but they will increasingly also bring big decisions and ethical dilemmas for this parliament. There is a line which must be respected. Where that line is drawn may differ from member to member, but we as a parliament must be clear on our role. It is the job of the scientific community to explore new frontiers and to push new barriers. Equally, it is the job of us as legislators to stand firm and protect the line that should not be crossed.

The second factor which ensures that this proposal is beyond the line that I draw for myself has been well covered by previous speakers. This bill proposes creating human life solely for the purpose of then destroying it. I am deeply uncomfortable with this proposition. I do not believe that the proponents of this legislation have made the case. After listening to the debate, after researching the matter, I do not see the justification for crossing this line. I know that many will disagree with my conclusion, and I have little doubt that the majority of this parliament will arrive at a different conclusion to me and approve this proposal, but upon my election I pledged to remain true and to act in good conscience and I believe that it would be breaking this vow to endorse a proposal that, at the heart of it, I feel so deeply uncomfortable about. Ultimately this proposal may not be wrong, but I certainly do not know that it is right, and as such I cannot support this legislation and I will be opposing it.

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One year ago, the committee appointed to inquire into the nation’s human cloning legislation reported to the Australian government. The committee, chaired by the late Mr John Lockhart, proposed to allow embryos to be created specifically for the purpose of destructive scientific research. This proposal goes far beyond the existing situation whereby embryos left over from IVF programs can be used, under certain circumstances, for destructive research. It also reverses the clear intention of the parliament in 2002 when it rejected such a pathway. As the then Attorney-General, Daryl Williams, stated at the conclusion of the parliamentary debate, all members had ‘unanimously agreed that a ban on human cloning and other unacceptable practices is crucial’. In voting to ban human cloning, the parliament had clearly included procedures and research involving somatic cell nuclear transfer, SCNT. As the then Minister for Health, Senator Patterson, said, the legislation’s definition of embryo:

... encompasses all embryos, regardless of how they were created ... This includes embryos created by somatic cell nuclear transfer ...

The committee’s terms of reference repeated the requirements for the review, as set out in the human cloning legislation. Specifically, the committee was asked to review the legislation, taking into account: developments in technology in relation to assisted reproductive technology; developments in medical research and scientific research and the potential therapeutic applications of such research; community standards; and the applicability of establishing a national stem cell bank. In other words, the committee was charged to examine scientific and technical developments on the one hand, and community standards on the other. In particular, it was asked to consider whether there had been scientific developments or changes in community standards that could justify a retreat from the clear rejection of human cloning, however performed.

Having read the Lockhart report and much subsequent scientific research literature, I believe that the committee has failed to adduce any adequate evidence that would justify overturning the ban on the deliberate creation of embryos, including by SCNT, for destructive research. I therefore oppose this bill. I also oppose this bill for a more critical reason—namely, that by passing this bill the Parliament of Australia will legitimise the treatment of humans as commodities. As Frank Brennan has stated:

To create embryos with no intention of permitting implantation is to cross a moral Rubicon.

Instead of nurturing our offspring, we as a human species will have agreed to plunder them. ‘Do no harm’ is a principle which has enlightened 2,500 years of Western medical and scientific practice. It is the bedrock upon which ethical medical science is founded. It has been restated in various declarations over the past 60 years, beginning with the 1948 Declaration of Geneva. This enlightened tradition has always placed great emphasis on the intrinsic worth and equal value of every human life regardless of its stage or condition. We should not depart from it. It is dangerous to treat any human life as expendable. The proponents of embryonic stem cell experimentation often like to paint their opponents as having a religious view, but concern about destructive research is shared by many people, of religious belief and none. Guy Rundle, editor of the leftist magazine Arena, has written:

As human life becomes increasingly abstracted, commodified, manipulable and dehumanised, a wider sense of foreboding spreads.

Another non-religious critic, Kate Cregan, observes:

I am concerned with what these technologies do to us socially, how they contribute to normalising the idea that we are reducible to the sum of our interchangeable, abstracted, constitutive parts.

Having commodified the child, we are now told that we should objectify life itself, turning us all into potential spare parts. As Kate Cregan writes:

You get caught pitting one set of competing liberal rights against another, and like a good utilitarian weighing and apportioning worth to desires, totting up ethereal happiness factors in an abstract equation that flattens out any social or cultural content in what is involved.

Worse still, this science will only work if tens of thousands of eggs can be procured. As Katrina George notes:

... the eggs have to come from somewhere and experience overseas shows that the only way is to pay women.

In Britain this has already occurred—so the embryo is a commodity and women become commercial egg suppliers. And all this is being done in the name of potential. In the Lockhart report, we read:

The Committee ... agreed with the many respondents who thought that the moral significance of cloned embryos that are not implanted is linked more closely to their potential for research developments ... than to their potential as a human life.

Where are the benefits that could even justify the greatest good for the greatest number? We are being sold a scientific mirage. As Professor James Sherley pointed out, the science is flawed for the fundamental reason that ‘embryonic cells cannot be used to replace adult tissues’.

There are more than 100,000 embryos left over from IVF procedures in freezers in Australia, yet there have been only a handful of applications to study them under existing legislation. And none of these studies has reported substantive, refereed results. This bill not only will allow embryos to be created for deliberate destruction but will allow eggs to be harvested from aborted female foetuses for similar use. I find this particular proposal reprehensible. How many Australians—indeed, how many members of this House—know that this bill allows for licences to be issued authorising the creation of a human embryo using ‘precursor cells from an embryo or foetus’?

The technical term ‘precursor cell’ is defined in the existing legislation as a cell that has the potential to develop into a human egg or human sperm. The proposal is that a human embryo could be made by using eggs taken from a female foetus. Research on this technique was described by Israeli scientists in 2003. They took a slice of ovarian tissue from each of seven aborted baby girls and conducted successful experiments in maturing eggs from this tissue. The baby girls had been aborted between 22 weeks and 33 weeks gestation. It is generally anticipated that eggs could only be derived from baby girls aborted late term in pregnancy.

The Lockhart review produced no scientific rationale for this proposition in its report, nor could the former members of the committee supply any rationale for it in answer to questions from the Senate inquiry. The Senate rightly removed from this bill the abhorrent provision that human-animal hybrids could be created using animal eggs and human DNA. I ask honourable members who may be listening to this debate: how many of you will return to your electorates at the end of this week and tell your constituents that you voted for a provision that would allow a human embryo to be created from the eggs of a second or third trimester aborted baby girl? Tell me that you believe that such a procedure has the support of Australians. It does not, and it should be rejected.

Let me return to my other objections to this bill. Firstly, the title of bill implies that its purpose is to prohibit human cloning. It does no such thing. What the bill does is to allow an embryo to be formed by the process of SCNT. If that embryo is then destroyed to obtain embryonic stem cells, it is lawful. If, alternatively, that embryo was to be implanted into a woman, it is unlawful. The bill does not prohibit human cloning at all. Its central purpose is to allow human cloning. It then prohibits a particular use of the cloned embryo, namely for reproduction, but allows its destruction.

Indeed, the Lockhart committee argued that, as there is no intention to create a person, embryonic stem cell cloning is ethical. No attempt was made by the committee to explain the moral or logical difference between creating a person’s cells and creating a person. Indeed, the Lockhart committee bases its conclusions on the ‘relational significance’ of the embryo. This is an absurd proposition in the first place, which is then undermined by attaching a different ethical significance to the embryo, depending upon its age. We are told that the ethical significance of the embryo changes on day 14. On day 13 it can be destroyed for research, but on day 15 it cannot.

This argument is totally unconvincing. It reflects the shifting goalposts that have been a feature of this debate over the past six years. As other honourable members have pointed out in their contributions to this debate, who is to say that in another year or two or three the argument will not be advanced that we accepted day 14, so why don’t we accept day 28 or day 56 or whatever? Further, the distinction that some draw in this debate between reproductive cloning and therapeutic cloning is mistaken. It was rejected by the inquiry of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs into human cloning, which I chaired in 2001. What is proposed is the destruction of the embryo, not some procedure undertaken for its benefit.

As the US President’s Council on Bioethics stated, we should resist ‘the temptation to solve the moral questions by artful redefinition or by denying to some morally crucial element a name that makes clear that there is a moral question to be faced’. The council concluded that an embryo produced by SCNT is an embryo. Whether or not we agree with the destruction of embryos, it is misleading to pretend that this bill prohibits embryo cloning.

Secondly, the bill is premised on the assertion that there have been substantial developments in stem cell technology since 2002 that justify the deliberate creation of human embryos for destructive research. The committee’s reasoning is parlous in the extreme. It states that ‘further research involving both adult and embryonic stem cells is required to improve knowledge and to develop effective disease treatments’, that such research is undertaken elsewhere and that regulations can prevent any ‘slippery slope’. Further, as there was no intention to implant the embryo, its moral status could be ignored.

Prominent among the overseas research referred to by the committee was that undertaken in Korea by Professor Hwang, who had been feted in scientific circles for having purportedly shown that this type of research could be used to tailor cures for specific diseases. Hwang was subsequently outed as a fraud for fabricating his research. The Hwang saga and other cases of extravagant claims call for a healthy dose of scepticism when making public policy in this field. This is especially so in cases of claims that embryonic stem cells will lead to cures for Parkinson’s disease, diabetes and other life-threatening illnesses.

Leaving Hwang aside, there is little evidence of real scientific progress. Consider the conclusions of Professor Jack Martin in his evidence to the committee:

The potential benefits of treatment of diseases with human ES cells have been greatly exaggerated, with many of the suggested cures only long term possibilities and some not even remotely possible. There has been no proof of concept provided from animal experiments that animal ES cells can be used effectively and with long term safety.

The use of somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) to generate ES cells to tailor cells for individual patients is a process that is beset with many practical difficulties, including the requirement for a large supply of donor eggs, and the inevitable very great expense of the project per patient.

In addition to requiring animal studies to establish efficacy, safety issues are paramount, with ES cell transplantation still being associated with a substantial rate of formation of serious tumours. The causes of that complication must be determined and tumour formation prevented before any human therapeutic studies could be contemplated.

Currently there is no evidence to justify even the most limited trial of ES cells in treatment of human subjects.

With no adequate evidence to show that human ES cells are essential to provide treatments for disease, the argument has been made that research should be permitted on human ES cells obtained by SCNT, to study mechanisms of specific diseases. The validity of this claim must also be established through animal experimentation, to show that the potential benefits are sufficient to overcome some of the ethical objections.

The United States National Institute of Health Stem Cell Task Force provided evidence similar to that of Professor Martin to the US House of Representatives government reform committee, and yet the Lockhart committee blithely accepted the claims being made for this research. It stated, for example:

Many researchers, and people with diseases that could potentially be treated with ES cell therapies, would like the prohibition on cloning to generate ES cells to be lifted.

But, as Professor Martin and others have indicated, there are numerous practical problems with so-called therapeutic use of embryonic stem cells. No embryonic stem cell technology is even remotely close to a clinical trial. The committee conceded that embryonic stem cell research:

... is mainly confined to preclinical (animal) studies because the cells are not yet characterised well enough for use in clinical trials and there are significant risks (such as tumour formation).

Hence the situation today remains exactly the same as it was four years ago when this parliament unanimously rejected such a proposal. Instead of the scepticism that should have been brought to this review, the committee takes the claims of potential for granted. Indeed, the committee:

... considered that the higher the potential benefits of an activity, the greater the need for ethical objections to be of a high level and widely accepted in order to prevent that activity.

In other words, the greater the claim of potential benefit, despite any real evidence, the easier it is to reject ethical considerations and objections. This is not a logical or rational argument; it is pure advocacy. The legislation review process was, in my view, fundamentally flawed. The committee did not test any competing ethical claims. Detailed work undertaken by bodies such as the President’s Council on Bioethics, for example, was all but ignored by the Lockhart committee. Thirdly, the committee’s discussion of community attitudes was flawed. Although it referred to a survey by Biotechnology Australia about public acceptance of the technology, it ignored other surveys, such as the 2004 Swinburne study. That study showed considerable public disquiet about the use of cloned embryos but acceptance of the use of the ethically less contentious adult stem cells.

Worse still, the committee invented a novel approach to community standards in order to justify its conclusions. Instead of adopting the time-honoured, legally established methods of ascertaining general standards approved by most reasonable members of the community, the committee invented a series of communities with different standards and concerns. As Professor Frank Brennan has pointed out, Australian courts have rejected such an approach time and time again. The novel approach, however, allowed the committee to dismiss the overwhelming majority of submissions from individuals who opposed destructive cloning research. Indeed, the committee’s response to public disquiet is an ongoing education campaign—Brave New World!

I do not believe the committee nor the proponents of this legislation have produced any evidence of either scientific developments or changed community attitudes that would justify passing the bill. An embryo is not a commodity. This bill ought to be rejected.

Kim Wilkie (Swan, Australian Labor 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 and to outline some of my reasons for supporting it and rejecting the amendments which are proposed by the member for Bass, which are clearly designed purely to prevent the bill’s passage when it returns to the Senate, if amended.

In considering the issues surrounding this legislation, I thought back to the way in which advances in knowledge have been greeted in the past, particularly medical knowledge but also others. In many cases when advances have been made they have been greeted with hostility and opposition on the basis of a range of ill-informed opinions. I believe that this will be the case with the technology being proposed in this legislation. Its opponents have mounted a range of arguments but, in my view, in a few years time we will look back on this debate and know that we did the right thing in supporting this bill.

Let us not forget that when astronomers worked out that the world was round, many of them were decried. When the Wright brothers took to the air, there was deep suspicion in some quarters of this new technology and some believed that it was against God’s will for people to fly. In terms of medical science, when anaesthetics were used for the first time in childbirth, many in the scientific and religious worlds were highly critical. Debate raged in medical and religious circles and spread throughout the broader community.

At the time it was reported that a Dr Petrie from Liverpool considered the use of anaesthesia in childbirth to be a breach of medical ethics. He described this use as ‘the act of a coward’ and said that if a woman insisted on the use of chloroform to alleviate her labour pains she must be told that she was in no fit state to make decisions. There were also clergymen who argued that the use of anaesthetics was prohibited by the Bible, which states that ‘in sorrow shall thy bring forward children’. A noted pioneer of anaesthesia, Sir James Simpson, responded humorously that on the occasion of the first recorded operation—the removal of a rib—the Lord had caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, proof of his support for anaesthesia. In his defence of the use of chloroform, Dr Simpson noted that some churchmen had also spoken against optical glasses and spectacles as ‘offsprings of man’s wicked mind’.

It took Queen Victoria’s use of chloroform for the births of her eighth and ninth children for the controversy to end. She gave its use respectability and described it as ‘that blessed chloroform’. Nowadays we wonder what all the fuss and arguments back then about anaesthesia in childbirth were all about. The point is that all through history we can find examples of resistance and opposition to new medical technologies which have significantly enhanced the quality of human life.

When heart transplants were being pioneered, there was opposition among some who claimed that they were unethical. Dr Christiaan Barnard is most often associated with pioneering heart transplants, as is American doctor Norman Shumway, who died earlier this year. Dr Shumway’s research work at Stanford University enabled post-surgical deaths to be reduced. He persevered at a time when there was significant controversy over legal issues such as what constituted brain death among potential donors. Today such operations, if not quite routine, are non-controversial, and thousands of lives have been saved or improved.

History is full of such examples. Debate has raged about many other medical techniques, from blood transfusions through to IVF. There are some who remain opposed to the use of blood transfusions on ethical grounds and others who continue to mount arguments against the ethics of IVF. And yet I am sure all of us know families who have benefited enormously from IVF and have found much happiness from it.

The legislation before us today could pave the way for cures to be researched for diabetes, osteoporosis, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, heart disease, motor neurone disease, spinal cord injuries and many other conditions. How can we stand in the way of such advances? To the people who are spouting the ethics of the day, can I say that none of the other medical research work would have even been undertaken, let alone introduced, in the past. I believe we cannot and should not stand in the way of these sorts of advances.

Last sitting week we had children with diabetes in this place. We looked at the research that might be undertaken to help cure some of the diseases and money that the government will be putting into some of that research. Unfortunately, that research will be limited unless we can pass this sort of technology so that we can look at effectively curing juvenile diabetes. I think it is beholden on all of us to remember what those kids are suffering and to do all that we can to try and improve their lives.

I have received many letters and emails about this issue and have read them all carefully. People have talked about the numerous letters and emails that they have received. From across the country, I can confidently say, because I have saved them all personally, that I have received less than 100 such emails and letters and probably only half a dozen that have come from my electorate—some in support and some in opposition.

As I said, I have weighed the arguments on both sides and have come to the conclusion that I must support this bill. I know that my decision will not be welcomed by some. But I fervently believe that when we are elected as members we must be willing to stand up and be counted for what we believe in. I cannot in all conscience stand by and oppose this bill and in doing so put hurdles in the way of medical research which would benefit so many so significantly. I say that as a Christian, someone who believes in the Christian way of life and beliefs. I believe that we cannot stand in the way of treating these sorts of diseases and finding cures.

Before I finish I would like to say a few things about some of the myths being put forward by those who oppose this bill. Some have argued that this bill would allow human cloning and the development of animal-human hybrids. Anyone who has read the legislation knows that this is a pure fabrication and it is not going to occur. I am quite disgusted that, in what is supposed to be an honest debate on the value of ethics, people would put forward suggestions that are clearly not true purely to try and prevent the passage of the bill. I reject these arguments. They are just misleading and dangerous.

This bill is not about the merits or ethical dimensions of embryonic stem cell research. We had that debate in 2002. The issue we face now is the use of therapeutically cloned or somatic cell nuclear transfer embryos as an additional source for research. Other countries are already using these research techniques. I was in Scotland earlier this year and I talked to their people about what we were looking at introducing in this parliament. They could not understand what the debate was all about. They lead the world in this sort of technology and they believe that it has great beneficial prospects for the future. I do not believe that we should deny Australians the potential opportunities that could arise from the research to be permitted by this bill.

I would like to acknowledge the contributions made in the development of this bill by Senators Patterson, Webber and Stott Despoja and by the member for Moore, Dr Mal Washer. All of these people have been instrumental in enabling us to have this bill debated today. Without their commitment this bill would not have reached the House. I also want to recognise the many contributions made by other colleagues in the House. In this debate we have heard many members tell of their personal and family experiences with regard to medical conditions for which cures may be offered by this bill. Many of their accounts have been heart-rending and I have been saddened to hear of their anguish. I firmly believe that we cannot turn our backs on the potential for all Australians to benefit from research which would be enabled by this bill.

With regard to the proposed Ferguson—the member for Bass—amendment, I observed discussions with my friend and colleague the member for Moore, who referred to the ethical guidelines covering the use of human tissue for biometrical research in Australia. He pointed out that in October 1983 the National Health and Medical Research Council introduced guidelines covering the use of foetal tissue for biometrical research in Australia. These guidelines ensure:

(i) there is distinct separation between the patient and the research group in both the decision-making process and the proximity of the research to the clinical ward; and (ii) parental consent is obtained for the use of the tissue. These guidelines stipulate that the human fetal tissue used must be from terminations of pregnancy at less than 20 weeks’ gestation and where the weight of the fetus is less than 400 g.

So we are not talking about late-term abortion foetal material being used for this research. That is blatantly untrue. We should remember that when we are looking at amendments being moved in the consideration in detail stage. As I said before, we have heard much debate on this particular bill. I believe it needs to be passed in its unamended form. We do not need to send it back to the Senate for consideration of amendments. I urge honourable members in this place to support its passage.

Chris Pearce (Aston, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to contribute to the House’s debate on the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. As all members would be aware, this is a complex and contentious issue which has driven much passionate debate within the community. The residents of Aston have been forthright in communicating their well-considered and thoughtful views on this issue. I want to place on the record that I appreciate the time and effort that my constituents have brought to bear on the national debate, and they have all meaningfully contributed to my own thinking on this important matter. It is important to note that it is issues such as this, where members have the opportunity to exercise a free vote, that I believe show our parliament at its best. This is the third time that a free vote has occurred since I entered the parliament in August 2001, and I think it is instructive to observe yet again that it has been in this free-vote debate that we have heard what I believe are some of the most significant, personal and heartfelt contributions ever made by members of parliament.

I want to acknowledge and recognise what I believe is the fundamental motive driving those who have introduced this bill into the parliament. I think those supporting this bill are, without question, doing so in an endeavour to assist and help people in the future through advances in medical research and disease prevention. I want to say very strongly that I too share the desire to assist and help people, but I believe strongly that the approach taken with this bill is misguided. The genesis of this bill arose from the recommendations of the Lockhart review. In 2002 the parliament passed the Research Involving Embryos Act and Prohibition of Human Cloning Act. As a result, the Lockhart review was established by the parliament to consider issues arising out of the debate and the legislation that was passed in 2002.

In the 2002 debate I said I found the issues most challenging, but in relation to the question of research involving embryos I said:

... I believe the structure of this bill provides us with a framework that allows some investigation to occur in what will be a controlled and regulated environment.

I thought back then that I could, on balance, support this issue because what we were talking about with the bill back in 2002 was a limited and constrained approach to research on pre-existing embryos that were surplus to IVF requirements and were otherwise destined to be destroyed. In relation to the second component of the 2002 debate, the prohibition of human cloning, I said:

... I oppose outright the human cloning component.

I recall with interest that all my parliamentary colleagues from all sides of the parliament agreed with this view back in 2002. Human cloning was unanimously rejected by the parliament back then, and I am not convinced that anything has significantly changed since that time.

In considering this bill before us now, my view remains consistent. I oppose human cloning. In examining this bill and the Pandora’s box of issues that surround it I have arrived at a point where I believe the potential consequences of the bill are profoundly disturbing. I find it disturbing for a number of reasons, but there are three key issues that cause me to be greatly concerned about the bill and its future ramifications. First, I oppose the deliberate creation of cloned embryos for the purpose of their destruction. I believe it is unethical and inappropriate, I believe it is contrary to human dignity and I believe it degrades fundamental community standards.

Second, reproductive and therapeutic—in reality, the more appropriate word would be ‘destructive’—cloning are based on precisely the same technology. I believe the use of one will inevitably lead to the use of the other and therefore result in the inappropriate and potential misuse of technology for destructive purposes. This is an aspect of the laws that will potentially come from this bill that I am concerned has not received the full consideration it warrants. This bill seeks to impose limitations on those researchers who abide by its requirements. However, those who do not respect the legal boundaries of this bill could, and I believe some will, pursue unethical and illegal activities to the detriment of community standards.

My third reason for not supporting this bill is based on the fact that there remain very significant medical and scientific issues about the use and suitability of this technology for humans. The technology now available could profoundly and adversely inflict more harm and disease on people rather than be the panacea we are told it might be. I have read that evidence exists that the cells tend to be rejected by the immune system. More critical is that they may cause teratomas, which are monstrous malignant tumours.

John Martin, the emeritus professor of medicine at the University of Melbourne, has written:

There are no cell-based therapies for any disease that would warrant the preparation of human embryonic stem cells by … “therapeutic cloning”.

Commentators have made the point that research has been conducted on adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells since the 1950s, but only adult stem cells have produced any cures. Adult stem cells have produced breakthroughs in the treatment of type 1 diabetes, liver disease and spinal cord injuries, to name just a few. Queensland scientist Dr Peter Silburn has said:

... if you have a galloping horse like adult stem cells, why not pursue that?

Importantly, it is critical to note that embryonic stem cells have produced very little effect in treating people with prolonged and life-threatening illness. Professor John Martin has suggested:

... it remains the case that embryonic stem cells have never yet been shown in animal research to provide a cure that is sufficiently prolonged and free of complications to warrant human studies. To accept the urgency of work on human embryonic stem cells in the face of the ethical barrier, then at least one experimental example should be provided of safe, prolonged and substantially effective treatment that is better than any existing treatments.

Many eminent academic scholars with either a scientific or ethical focus have argued cogently and reasonably for their views. The scientific method demands that for a process to be considered reliable and valid a significant amount of compelling evidence proving the accuracy of the theory must be presented. I am yet to be convinced at this stage of the debate that the scientific evidence in support of the bill has reached that necessary and crucial threshold. Of even greater significance to me, I am not satisfied that we can meet our ethical obligations to protect the Australian community through the blind pursuit of scientific advancement of the sort that this bill would require. As a result, I am not able to support this bill.

In closing, I wish to repeat the words of Professor Martin, who said:

In truth there is a long way to go before a compelling argument can be made for the development of human embryonic stem cells by somatic cell nuclear transfer. Whatever the nature of science, it must be ethically justifiable.

Even if proof through animal experimentation were provided, and a case more convincing than anything that has so far been produced was made, great caution is needed. Even then, even under those circumstances, which are circumstances not available to us today, we would only proceed, I believe, if, as Professor Martin put it, we were prepared to accept the highly questionable utilitarian principle that the end always justifies the means. I hold the view that the people of Australia would not suspend their ethical principles in the blind pursuit of any goal, no matter how noble that goal may be.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The questions raised by the bill before this House, the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006, are as difficult and complex as those that I discussed in this place in the debate on the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002. Back then I described the dilemma of how to legislate scientific research that opens a world of possibilities without surrendering a piece of our moral soul. And now in 2006 I revisit this same dilemma. I envy those who see these issues as black or white; I certainly do not.

In order to come to my decision to support or not support this bill I have waded through mountains of material, from the Lockhart review to some of the many submissions made to the Senate committees. I have also been cognisant of the very persuasive speeches of others in this place, including the member for Gwydir and the member for Higgins. I have also read each and every one of the many letters from my constituents on this matter. For many of my constituents this is a black or white issue. There are those who believe that anything that can be done to alleviate suffering in our community should be done. There are others who believe that somatic cell nuclear transfer is morally wrong.

Ultimately my decision must be based on my own belief of when life starts and the implications of providing a green light to research in the area most closely aligned with the beginning of life. I cannot divorce my own faith from these deliberations. Based on the provisions of the bill, I do not believe that we are sacrificing life in order to research and develop a better quality of life for others.

The Jesuits who taught me at school instilled in me a strong sense of faith and compassion. They also taught me about the importance of a free and informed conscience. Provided my conscience is clear then my decision to support the bill must be based on sound medical reasoning.

In 2002 I voted to allow the use of in vitro fertilisation excess embryos for medical research. Since then there have been many advances in stem cell research using both adult and embryonic stem cells. New data generated demonstrates the value of both embryonic and adult stem cells, and somatic cell nuclear transfer. The science in support of this bill is compelling. In a recent letter to all members of parliament, Professor Ian Fraser highlighted just a few of the recent results being achieved by stem cell research, including the generation of insulin-producing cells with the potential to treat diabetes, cardiac cells which could be used to repair a damaged heart, dopamine-producing cells to treat Parkinson’s disease, and retinal cells and spinal cord cells to repair damaged nervous systems. This impressive list is just the tip of the iceberg of what may be achieved.

I have closely examined the report of the late Justice John Lockhart. I knew John Lockhart and I held him in high regard. It is my view that the committee he chaired was eminently qualified to consider complex scientific, ethical and legislative issues. It would be remiss of us to dispense with this comprehensive review without very careful consideration.

Australia has a proud history of health and medical research and the Commonwealth government is committed to ensuring that Australia remains a world leader in health and medical research. On a per capita basis, our research output is twice the OECD average. This year, the government has committed more than $490 million in health and medical research funding through the National Health and Medical Research Council. This is more than double the funding provided in 1999.

Much has been said in recent years about the challenges of our ageing population. The growth rate of the population aged 85 or over is projected to accelerate sharply. How can we ensure that our ageing population benefits from a decent quality of life if we do not invest in or allow innovative medical research? I am proud of Australia’s achievements in medical research. They are characterised by the sort of spirit and resourcefulness ingrained in Australian society.

In his submission to the Senate committee, Dr Paul Brock highlighted three potential opportunities to be opened up by legalising somatic cell nuclear transfer. Firstly, it could help us understand the cause or causes of motor neurone disease. Secondly, it could extend the life expectancy and quality of life of those living with the disease. And, thirdly, it has the potential to find a cure. I repeat: the potential to find a cure. Motor neurone disease was first identified by French neurologist Jean Charcot in 1869. It is a tragedy that today there is still no cure.

Australian scientists have consistently demonstrated innovation and moderation in their approach. It is important that they continue to reflect the faith that those who vote for this bill have shown in them. The stringent safeguards provided in this bill give me every confidence that there is no ‘slippery slope’. It was not too long ago that we were having similar controversial debates about organ donation and IVF. This year more than 600 Australians have received organ and tissue donations and the most recently available statistics on the number of babies born to women using artificial reproductive technology, including in vitro fertilisation, reported that more than 8,000 babies were born in 2004. Organ donation is now encouraged and championed by most as the greatest gift you could give to another. I personally know a number of parents who have children conceived through IVF and it is clear to me that these children are the greatest gift their parents could receive.

Professor Singer, in his book The Reproduction Revolution: new ways of making babies,discusses whether these developments are really going to improve the human condition or whether they are going to harm it. That is the fundamental question in this debate: will this bill improve or harm the human condition? I believe that anything we can do to improve the quality of human life, we should do.

The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, in their most recent Burden of disease report, stated that there were just under 700,000 Australians suffering from diabetes, more than 40,000 with Parkinson’s disease, almost 600 with motor neurone disease, 7,600 with multiple sclerosis and 124,000 with Alzheimer’s disease. How could we deny these people, and their family and friends who care for them, the possibility of a cure? Providing people with hope is no longer the exclusive domain of religion. And whilst I understand that we will probably not find a cure for any of these diseases in the very near future, it is not for me to deny hope that in the future these insidious illnesses can be cured. I do believe in the sanctity of human life and I believe in the dignity of the self.

In framing its recommendations, the Lockhart committee noted in compelling terms that ‘the higher the potential benefits of an activity, the greater the need for ethical objections to be of a high level and widely accepted in order to prevent that activity’. Whilst my decision to support this bill would never be based on populism, I have no ethical objections that outweigh the enormous benefits this research may deliver to the generations that follow us. I commend the bill to the House.

Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women's Issues) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In speaking on the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006, I pay tribute to the late Hon. John Lockhart AO QC, who chaired the independent reviews of Australia’s Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 and the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002, which came to be known collectively as the Lockhart review. Sadly, John Lockhart died after a short illness, less than a month after he delivered the report. When I met with him to receive the report, in my capacity as the Minister for Ageing, he described his role as chair of this review as one of the most interesting projects in his career—and John Lockhart had a long and distinguished career.

John Lockhart practised at the Sydney bar between 1960 and 1978. He was appointed Queen’s Counsel in 1973. He was appointed to the Federal Court in 1978 and retired from that judicial office in 1999. He then became Executive Director of the Asian Development Bank from 1999 to 2002 and was a member of the appellate body of the World Trade Organisation from 2002. He was, in my view, one of Australia’s pre-eminent legal minds, and he was ideally suited to this task that the Australian government had asked of him.

His fellow committee members said he brought to the committee both objectivity and wisdom, derived from his long experience at the bar and on the bench. He constantly challenged them to explain their thoughts in a way that ‘non-experts’ could understand. He was always courteous, welcoming and empathetic to those who made submissions to the review. He understood there remained a wide range of deeply held views on the difficult issues considered by the committee. His last official act in chairing the review process and finalising the report of the review highlighted his intellect, his compassion and his humanity.

John Lockhart’s committee included some of Australia’s pre-eminent scientists, including gastroenterologist Professor Barry Marshall, who was awarded the 2005 Nobel Prize during his tenure on the committee; renowned neuroscientist Professor Peter Schofield; neurologist Associate Professor Pamela McCombe; and haematologist and clinical ethicist Associate Professor Ian Kerridge. Complementing these appointments was renowned lawyer and ethicist Professor Loane Skene. In conducting their review, the committee consulted widely and considered more than 1,000 written submissions, heard more than 100 personal representations, consulted with state and territory governments and met with people from all around Australia. The committee’s report and its 54 recommendations reflect the integrity with which the review was conducted and the careful consideration given to the scientific evidence and ethical views that were put forward.

In addition to the types of stem cell research currently permitted, the Lockhart review proposed the legalising of somatic cell nuclear transfer, or therapeutic cloning. The report of the Lockhart review is a powerful legacy. I have strongly recommended it to all members and senators as a document to guide their decision on this difficult topic.

We are faced with an ethical dilemma. This bill poses challenges to us: to define a human life and the point at which a group of cells can be described or defined as a human being. The bill also challenges us to consider the sacrifices we, individually and as a society, are prepared to make to discover treatments and possible cures for many chronic diseases and injuries. For many people, stem cell therapy offers the only hope of cure, particularly for people with diabetes, cystic fibrosis and leukaemia and those with spinal cord injuries. I have had a particular interest in stem cell research and Australia’s regulatory framework governing such research in terms of my current responsibilities as minister for science and in my former capacity as Minister for Ageing, during which time I instituted the review and, in June 2005, announced the composition of the Lockhart committee. Each state and territory government approved the committee appointments.

We know that adult stem cells are found in many organs and tissues of the body, where their main function is to replace cells that have died. These cells can be extracted from the bone marrow of patients or compatible donors, and are routinely used to treat diseases such as leukaemia. Umbilical cord blood is a particularly rich source of adult stem cells which may yield useful clinical applications. Embryonic stem cells have the unique potential to develop into all cell types in the body. In Australia, embryonic stem cells are derived from human embryos left over from IVF programs which have been donated for research by the couple for whom they were created.

The Australian government recognises the potential health benefits of stem cell therapies and has generously supported stem cell research by providing almost $100 million for the Australian Stem Cell Centre under the Backing Australia’s Ability program and a further $5.5 million under the Major National Research Facilities Program. Much of this funding is provided through the Australian Research Council and the Department of Education, Science and Training. In 2006 the National Health and Medical Research Council allocated around $40 million, or nine per cent, of its research budget to stem cell research. This year the government also announced an additional commitment of $22 million over four years to fund the National Adult Stem Cell Research Centre at Griffith University in Queensland.

During the 1990s, advances in in vitro fertilisation and related techniques highlighted the need for governments to responsibly address the ethical issues relating to human reproductive technologies and associated research. This government, the Australian government, was one of the first governments in the world to address these issues by passing two acts, the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002 and the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002. In conjunction with complementary state legislation, these acts provide a nationally consistent framework governing this area of research and medicine.

The framework permits research using excess donated IVF embryos under a strict licensing framework overseen by the National Health and Medical Research Council. In addition to issuing licences, the committee examines and reviews research protocols relating to the use of embryonic and non-embryonic human stem cells. To date, the NHMRC has issued nine licences for projects to improve IVF technologies and stem cell research. Several human embryonic stem cell lines have been derived for medical research in Australia.

Global developments in stem cell research have proceeded on four fronts. The first is the discovery of better methods for growing and maintaining human embryonic stem cells in the laboratory. The second is advances in the methods to drive embryonic stem cells along particular pathways—for example, to develop into muscle, brain or pancreas cells. The third is the demonstration of the capabilities of human embryonic stem cells in at least five animal models of human disease. The fourth is the isolation of many new embryonic stem cell lines and the establishment of international collaborative stem cell banks and networks for sharing cell lines and techniques.

Researchers have improved the conditions in which embryonic stem cells are grown, and the type of cells into which they can grow. These advances are very important for the development of safe and effective embryonic stem cell based treatments for patients. Researchers have also been addressing major challenges around the generation of clinically acceptable human embryonic stem cells and the production of medically relevant tissue cells from human embryonic stem cells tested in animal systems.

Progress has also been made in using embryonic stem cell in cell based screening for new drugs, for toxicology assays, for identifying molecules involved in stem cell self-renewal and for differentiation into tissue cells. Within the last few weeks, University of New South Wales scientist Professor Bernie Tuch demonstrated that tumour formation can be prevented by encasing stem cells in microscopic capsules made from seaweed extract. Professor Tuch said that this would remove one of the major impediments to the therapeutic use of embryonic stem cells.

Significant challenges remain, and it may well be many years before the full potential of stem cell based therapies are realised. Nevertheless, these are exciting times in terms of the breadth and depth of human endeavour. I am proud that Australian researchers are making a major contribution to such groundbreaking research. The eminent members of the Lockhart review made their recommendations after careful consideration of the medical and ethical issues, and I respect the judgement and recommendations of these outstanding Australians.

The hopes of many injured and sick Australians and their families rest with stem cell researchers and, while we do not currently know whether that research will eventually deliver the ‘miracle’ that many hope for, I believe we should support the work of these researchers. It will be through their work that the scientific research of the 21st century will transform all of our lives. As in centuries past, science will again be the key to our success, our progress—as long as the world remains open, endlessly modifiable, unprejudiced. I cannot in all conscience stand in the way of the only ray of hope available to sufferers of devastating and debilitating disease and injury. In this instance, science, for me, has a moral authority as well as an intellectual authority. I support the bill.

Phillip Barresi (Deakin, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In 2002, when we first debated the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill, I came to my position after much anguish and eventually supported the embryo bill while opposing the human cloning provisions. I stated at the time:

Whatever we decide on this bill, we will be back to debate the next challenge that science throws up at us.

I further observed:

... the issue of cloning for therapeutic research will make its way back into the public debate.

In the space of just four years, we have moved from clearly rejecting the concept and science of cloning to a place where we are actively considering permitting this to occur. To make it more palatable, we are asked not to think of it in terms of cloning. Scientists have given us a form of new words—somatic cell nuclear transfer—which can be used to cloak their ultimate intention.

I supported the original bill in 2002, but today I find the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 a far more troubling proposition, and I envy those who have arrived at their decision so easily. The prospect of finding a cure for the most debilitating of illnesses and diseases is one which we should all as members of the human race strive for. Science and scientists will continue to do this no matter what we decide here today. It is in the nature of science to push the boundaries, to call for less regulation and to seek greater freedom for research. It is the responsibility of us as legislators to respond to such calls by being mindful of the ethical considerations.

Unfettered scientific research is a proposition that few in any civilised society would support. Yet what we find today, just four years later, is a call to go another step closer to eventual human cloning, no matter what safeguards we are told are built into this bill or, for that matter, the title of the bill itself. Included in these safeguards is the protection of those women who may be susceptible to exploitation in what my view would become an inevitable market for donor eggs. My concern is that the ultimate cumulative change derived from permitting a series of small gradual steps will be far beyond anything we would deem appropriate in one large move. When it comes to those proposed changes, we must be aware of the absolute potential of the sum of the parts.

Our scientific community are seeking to have a moratorium lifted so as to allow them to undertake research that this place determined only recently should not take place. In reaching my decision to oppose this bill, I had the opportunity to listen to many of the contributions from my colleagues. I note in particular the contribution of the member for Moore, Dr Mal Washer, and also that of my Senate colleague Senator Alan Eggleston—both medical practitioners and each taking opposing positions. I found Senator Eggleston’s exhortation that we are being rushed into this decision—and that even the scientists feel that we as legislators are poorly informed and not fully aware of the consequences of our decision—compelling. We have allowed the highly emotive plea that a cure is just around the corner to overcome the most basic ethical considerations, and we have allowed ourselves to be blindsided by a biotechnology industry that will go on calling for less and less regulation.

I consider the author of this bill, Senator Kay Patterson, a close personal friend. I am convinced that her intentions in presenting this bill for consideration are genuine, yet I cannot support her arguments in this matter. A number of my colleagues have based their arguments on their view of the beginning of life. I have no desire or intention to revisit them as part of this debate. My primary reason for saying this is that this is not a bill about the value or efficacy of reproductive technologies. However, I would like to note that while sperm is not involved in the creation of a cloned embryo, I also recognise the argument that sperm is merely the vehicle to transport nuclear material and is easily replaced by other scientific means within the laboratory setting.

For me to vote in favour of lifting the prohibition, as outlined in this bill, I would require a number of conditions to be met. The first is that I would have to be convinced that there is an urgent need to review the guidelines, and I do not believe that this case has been made. We were assured during the previous debates that there were substantial numbers of human embryos in frozen storage in IVF clinics available for research, including the extraction of embryonic stem cell lines. The National Health and Medical Research Council has reported that there were 104,830 embryos in frozen storage in 2003, and, as at 31 March 2006, only 122 excess assisted reproductive technology embryos had been used for the derivation of human embryonic stem cells. I do not believe that the demand is as pressing as some supporters of this legislation have presented. We are being rushed into a decision. The argument that other nations have embraced such research is not a compelling one. To accept that argument is to make all our policy considerations subordinate to international legislative action. We do not do it in relation to other policy areas and we should not do it here.

The second condition is that the gains to be made from lifting the prohibition would be massive and realised in the short term. I ardently believe that cures and treatments need to be found for diseases such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s, degenerative neural conditions and diabetes. I have received heart-rending appeals from sufferers of these conditions and their family members claiming that somatic cell nuclear transfer offers their only hope for a cure. It is this that has presented me with the biggest problem. It is also the overwhelming reason why I voted in favour of the 2002 bill—but not so now.

Publicly and consistently the supporters of this bill and the science it champions appeal to the community’s sense of compassion and proclaim that a cure is just around the corner. Yet behind the closed doors of their labs and among themselves the scientists, like Australian of the Year Professor Ian Frazer, talk openly about preliminary treatments being available at best in 75 years time. The supporters of this technology need to come clean with the people of Australia. It is unfair to sufferers and their families to inflate the effectiveness of this science in its current form and to deliberately foreshorten the time lines for the delivery of these cures.

In opposing this bill I am no less distraught when faced with friends or constituents who are seeking the cure to their illnesses. I have paid close attention to the letters, emails and phone calls that have come into my office. This contact from the people of Deakin has been both in support of and in opposition to this bill. I would like to thank all of those who have taken time to share their points of view with me. I respect their views and I trust they will respect my eventual decision.

There will be criticism from some who will wonder how I can support the use of spare IVF embryos while opposing the provisions in this bill. As I mentioned at the outset, I was troubled by this point in the 2002 bill but eventually supported it as the spare embryos would have been destroyed. But to create an embryo, be it a second-class embryo, in order to destroy it is to ask for support that I cannot give. The creation of an embryo in order to destroy it is one situation in scientific incremental steps that I am not willing to support. I acknowledge that I may be on the losing side in this vote. If that be the case, I am at least comforted to note that the bill does have severe punitive measures for wayward researchers.

While unable to support this bill, I would like to commend Senator Patterson for her work. Furthermore, I would like to acknowledge the work and contributions of all who were part of the Lockhart review. It is a pity that this bill does not call for a similar review process to take place. It is after much careful consideration that I am unable to support this bill.

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We live in a world that can sometimes seem to be moving forward at an alarming rate. Science and technology advance around us at an extraordinary speed. Naturally, as these advances are made, new ethical dilemmas arise that challenge this parliament to come up with a framework within which these new technologies can be exploited. This is the second time in the life of this parliament that we have been called upon to make a decision according to our conscience about an issue that has substantially divided the community as to its morality. As in the RU486 debate, the issue of therapeutic cloning has led many of my constituents to contact me to let me know what they think about the issue. There is no question that views on both sides of this debate are very deeply held and, although I have not done a scientific count, there is no question in my mind that of the constituents who contacted me many more oppose the passage of this bill than support it. I have found this a very difficult issue on which to form a view. Indeed, it was only over the weekend—a lot of which I spent reading as much as possible about the topic, including the Lockhart review and the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs—that I came to a conclusion about how to vote on the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006.

On most of the bills I have voted on since being elected in 2004, I have had a strong sense that the position I have taken is the correct one. Although I will be voting for this bill, I still have substantial hesitations about doing so. I can only say to the electors of Stirling that I have researched this issue as extensively as I can and I have made a judgement based on the evidence and according to my own conscience. I know that my position today will disappoint many of my constituents. It will disappoint many friends of mine who strongly oppose this bill. But I thank my constituents and my friends in Stirling who have made the effort to let me know their views. In return, I will be forwarding them copies of my remarks today, and I would like to do them the courtesy of explaining how I came to my position.

It has not been easy, as a layman, to digest all the concepts that are involved in this debate. I chose not to attend the various briefings offered by proponents on either side of this argument and I made an effort to do my own research to properly understand the decision we are being called upon to make.

One factor that weighed heavily on my mind was the composition of the Lockhart Review Committee and the experience of its members. This legislation gives effect to their recommendations and I think it is useful to understand who was behind them. All six members of the committee were very distinguished Australians with impressive records in the fields of science, law and, very importantly, ethics. They were drawn from across Australia and from differing fields. It is worth while noting that not all were scientists. After looking through the review I was impressed by the arguments they put forward and I believe that the committee did its best to navigate what is obviously a moral minefield. I gave the views of the committee a lot of significance when coming to my own conclusions.

I believe that the job of legislating is up to this parliament. Occasionally people express to me the view that perhaps these things are best left to experts, but I absolutely reject that. I believe that this parliament is the proper place to adjudicate community standards on contentious issues. But I think part of that process is receiving this expert advice and, as I said, I gave great weight to the conclusions that were drawn by the Lockhart committee. I believe that these conclusions achieve a reasonable outcome in allowing research that may lead to life-saving discoveries with the community’s obvious desire to make sure this research is done within clearly defined parameters.

The Lockhart review recommended that certain practices be outlawed whilst recommending that certain practices be allowed. Human cloning, along with other questionable practices that are widely condemned throughout the community—specifically the use of animal ova in somatic cell nuclear transfer, or SCNT—will be outlawed. What will be allowed is therapeutic cloning, SCNT, and this technology has enormous potential to alleviate human suffering.

I want to take a minute to highlight what exactly this SCNT is. It is where the nucleus of a person’s cell—for example, a skin cell—is removed and placed into an unfertilised ovum that has had its nucleus removed. This egg now contains the donor’s DNA. It is subsequently chemically and electrically stimulated, which causes it to divide and form what I suppose could be described as a group of cells. Contained within this group of cells are a number of embryonic stem cells that are capable of forming any of the tissues in the human body. This provides enormous potential to cure particular ailments or to alleviate some of the suffering that is associated with them—although I stress that it is only potential, and I take note of some people’s comments that they believe that this potential has been oversold.

But the potential alone—the potential to alleviate the symptoms of diseases such as diabetes, osteoporosis and motor neurone disease, and to alleviate the effects of spinal cord or brain damage, muscular dystrophy or stroke—is enough for me to believe that these are research avenues that must be pursued even if they ultimately prove fruitless.

I am sure that everyone in this House has had personal experience with people suffering from one or more of these diseases. To see a loved one who has been ravaged by the effects of a stroke or to watch a friend slowly succumb to the indignities of motor neurone disease is a horrific experience for all involved and, of course, for the person who is directly suffering. Although other areas of research also hold the potential to help, it is true that SCNT has so far produced some of the best results and some of the most productive glimpses of what might be possible in the future.

I am convinced that embryonic stem cells provide different and better avenues to advance medical research in ways that adult stem cells simply cannot. I cannot, in all conscience, see this parliament close lines of research that offer the potential to alleviate so much suffering. I believe that that potential is just too great. Although I will be voting for this bill, I understand and I have sympathy for those who will be voting against it. A lot of the opposition revolves around definitions of what properly constitutes human life and ideas about when life begins. This is really at the heart of this debate today.

Obviously, it would be impossible for me—or anyone in this chamber, I am sure—to accept that the collection of cells we are discussing today actually constitutes a human life and then vote for this bill. The idea that we would create a life to then destroy it is completely unacceptable. But I believe that what we are discussing here today can best be understood as human cellular material, not a human life. The collection of cells, which is about the size of a grain of sand, does not have the potential to become a human being. It has never been in contact with sperm. It could not be implanted into a woman with a view to growing into a life. Most importantly, it does not contain the primitive streak which is the first real sign of life. As someone who was raised a Catholic, I fully understand that this is a deeply offensive view to many people, but it is my considered view.

This has been a debate of the highest quality in this parliament and I have tried very hard to listen to as many speakers as I could. I hope, regardless of the outcome that finally emerges from this debate, that the Australian people can feel reassured that the issue has been given the weighty consideration that it obviously deserves. I will be voting for the bill, although, as I said, not without reservation. But I believe that the potential for this new technology to alleviate human suffering is just far too great to be ignored.

Michael Hatton (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are in a House of Representatives, but in the modern parliaments that we have experienced—in modern parliaments all over the world—the very idea of representative government is a foreign one; it belongs in the 19th century, not the 21st. This chamber is not simply composed of a number of disparate individuals who will make up their own minds on every bill that comes before the House, or who will simply cluster on the basis of whatever their perceived interests are—either sectional or otherwise—in relation to a series of bills that come before the House.

We are party elements within this parliament: the Liberal Party and the National Party for the coalition, the Labor Party and even those few Independents—lone souls that they are down the other end. We still operate within a structure where a determined position is taken on either side and, in order to gain government in this House and to have that supported in the Senate, we need to aggregate a series of opinions, we need to put forward public policy on a range of different matters and we need to involve ourselves in fundamental compromises about whatever our views are on a range of subjects to come to a social view—not just an individual or individualistic one—which the party expresses.

But when we come to debates such as this, where there is a conscience vote, every single member of this House has to make up their own mind and stand their own ground and be truly representative. It is impossible for them to represent every single individual in their electorate on the basis of reflecting the differences of opinion that those people have. You cannot contain within yourself both the yes and the no to a bill. You have to make a determination on the balance of your research and the balance of your response to whatever stimuli there are, whether it is to your constituents or interests within the community from the churches, ethical groups, and the scientific community. You have to make a determination, a judgment, and then stand by that.

For good or ill, on both sides of the House, people have split one way or another in relation to the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 and the debate, as lengthy as it has been—as with similar bills such as those relating to matters that we are fundamentally dealing with here: the RU486 debate, the euthanasia debates and the debates in relation to abortion—goes to the very core of what it means to be a human being living within a society. A society has a vast range of religious, ethical and scientific opinions both now in the 21st century and stretching back through the centuries. We are conditioned by the people we work with, by the people we represent and by our upbringing, but we are brought to this place and this debate and we simply have no choice but to make fundamental choices about what is right and wrong and how we should proceed.

These are the healthiest debates that I have experienced in the time I have been in this parliament—and of course the most difficult. They are the most heart-rending for people who are outside the parliament because the expectation that people in this parliament will vote one way or another will have dramatic implications for people. It either concerns their fundamental beliefs about the nature of life, religion or about an ethical or moral approach to life, or concerns their fundamental views conditioned by the experience of friends, husbands, lovers, wives or children who have had their lives encumbered by a range of incurable diseases—seeing them suffer and not suffer just once or twice but suffer day by day and they are unable to help them or do anything about it. We can offer compassion, empathy, understanding and help, but in this parliament we are in a position to offer legislation which could attempt to ameliorate the condition of those who suffer and also to hold out a hope. It may not be now. It may not be in a year’s time. It may not be—but I do not think it will be this long—in 75 or 100 years time. There is the hope that what we determine today may be the initiator for a better life to come, unencumbered by the most gross diseases and conditions that humans have had to suffer from.

If you take simply the basis of a moral or religious stand in relation to this you can quite easily come, particularly someone from a Catholic background, to a point from which on an ethical basis you should go no further—that the previous bill should not have been allowed; that this bill should not be allowed—and decide that there are strict parameters in terms of how guidelined and straitjacketed a person should be in regard to the bill before the House. I am not someone who accepts that approach. That is just too simple and it is too easy.

The thing that drives me in relation to matters such as this is my personal experience of people who are suffering and have suffered. For those people, it is a belief—even if there is that spark of hope that will not be fulfilled because the work done either on adult stem cells or on embryonic stem cells will not give them a chance to resolve their issues—that prospectively, for the whole of humanity and what is available to it in the future, cures for the fundamental blights that this research looks to solve may in fact be achieved.

Cast your minds back just a few years to the work done by two significant researchers and the effect that they had. With his polio vaccine Jonas Salk saved tens of millions of lives—lives that were encumbered and crippled. People like Alan Marshall, who wrote the book I Can Jump Puddles, gave us a clear view of what it was to be a young polio victim. The scientific work done by Salk and others led to the eradication of this dreadful childhood disease.

The work done by Fleming and, in particular, Florey, the great Australian researcher—Fleming just finding the penicillin mould—led to hundreds of millions of people having their lives saved. Scientific research has been proven time and time again. But there is always a hazard. There is lots of research that has failed, lots of research that has really gone nowhere and lots of research that has lead to dead ends. But if you do not take the steps you will not fix the problems.

In relation to this bill and the one that was previous to it, there is a fundamental undergirding—a safety net in regard to how we proceed. I know the member for Deakin argued that the incremental changes suggested in this bill and others will lead inexorably down a path where we will not have a moral or ethical girding to stop full cloning of human beings. I simply do not think that that is at issue here. I can understand the hesitancy and I can understand the fact that there is a perceived great danger of that, but it is up to this parliament, and the parliaments and congresses of the world, to stress as strongly as we have when other bills have come before us that we are entirely against the cloning of human beings—but not against the copying of a cell to create lines of cells that could lead to therapies for people who have diseases that are unutterably bad.

I taught English and history in a Catholic school. I taught Warwick Love. I have spoken before about Warwick in this House. The reason I spoke about him was that that young lawyer who emerged from De La Salle, Bankstown—one of the best and brightest students I taught—died from cystic fibrosis. If there had been a cure as a result of these kinds of therapies, then Warwick Love may not have died. He was amongst the best and brightest children I ever taught. There was no hope for Warwick. He was burdened by something that shattered his life, yet his spark, hope, openness, generosity and cleverness shone throughout his 26 years. I am voting for Warwick Love and all of those people who need the chance to not live a life encumbered by that.

I am also voting for Paul Brock. Paul Brock has been a member of the Australian Labor Party for 30 years. I have been a member for 39 years. Paul Brock taught English and history for 11 years. I taught those subjects for close on 10 years. Paul Brock was a Marist brother for 15 years. I was in the De La Salle juniorate for two. Paul Brock was a lecturer in English method at the University of New England and taught me English method in my Dip. Ed. He is a fantastic teacher, but he has been cut down by motor neurone disease. He gave evidence to the Senate and to a number of different groups that met with regard to the bill before us now. He wrote to me with regard to this. He has written to other people. He is someone, like Stephen Hawking, whose life has been dramatically changed because he is suffering from motor neurone disease, and he put in a plea for people in his position.

It is not their fault that there is a genetic problem that has caused the difficulty that they have. It is within our power to give hope to them and to others that blighting diseases such as these may be eradicated from the face of the earth and then in future human beings may not have to suffer the terrible agony of someone with motor neurone disease—to be completely intellectually alive, as Stephen Hawking and Dr Paul Brock are, and yet have their body waste away in front of their very eyes, for their lives to be foreshortened in ways that we just cannot imagine. However, their courage and tenacity is a clarion call to others and to us to take their position into account and to have a moral and ethical position that is based on whether we believe that we are a society of individuals who live in association or that we are just disparate individuals and do not actually have a commonality which binds us together to have that concern, love and compassion for others. I think that is the core ground on which this rests.

I would like to quote some part of what Paul wrote to me, because it is compelling, instructive and a fundamental, clear example of what this is all about. He says:

Having been a Marist Brother in the Catholic Church for over 15 years, I know a hell of a lot more theology and moral philosophy than Tony Abbott ever picked up in his year or two at the Seminary!!

As you know, I am now totally paralysed by Motor Neurone Disease. Mind you, having been diagnosed in 1996 and given 3 - 5 years to live, I am a very rare long time survivor of what is still currently an incurable and terminal disease (Professor Stephen Hawking is the most famous long term survivor). While therapeutic cloning definitely does not promise any overnight miracle cures, it equally definitely offers the most exciting and scientifically and ethically reputable basis for research which will help us better understand the cause, point towards some ways of improving the quality and duration of life, and eventually lead to a cure for this mongrel disease.

He then indicates that he is still working in the New South Wales department of education. He then says that in his submission to the Senate inquiry and also more broadly he has:

... concentrated on the ethical and moral issues - gladly acknowledging my own Christian position. Further, I specifically addressed the issue of the Catholic Church’s formal opposition to stem cell research.

As I said to the Senate Inquiry, it is a mistake to assume that all religions oppose SCNT. They do not. It would also be a mistake to assume that every branch or denomination of the whole Christian faith formally condemns therapeutic cloning.

The most outspoken opposition to the 2002 Bill’s legalising stem cell research within strict protocols, and the Lockhart Review’s endorsement of SCNT, has come from some very senior people within the Catholic Church. As a Christian, with a powerful Catholic heritage, I am proud of the great achievements of the Catholic Church throughout history. The Catholic Church has had a splendid commitment to social justice and the protection of the weak from the strong in contexts of employment and workers’ rights. For example, the Papal Encyclical Rerum Novarum on Capital and Labour, written by Pope Leo XIII in 1891 at the height of the Industrial Revolution and its social and economic impact upon working people, remains one of the great statements about the rights of human beings within an industrialised society.

The magnificent care and compassion for the poor, the sick and the weak exercised by organisations like St Vincent de Paul and the many Catholic charitable organisations serving the needs of people in Third World countries help to transform our world. The Catholic Church’s contribution to education – especially, but not exclusively, to the education of the poor and the lower ‘classes’ in 19th Century Europe and both 19th and early 20th Century Australia – has been highly significant in helping to shape a better world. I am proud to be able to say that I spent 15 years of my life as a Marist Brother in a prestigious Religious Order of the Catholic Church, and that I taught in Catholic schools for nearly 11 years.

But he then goes on to say:

But the Catholic Church has also been wrong. Galileo is but the most celebrated example of the Church not only being wrong in its decisions about science, but also in savagely persecuting those who hold views that dissent from dogmatic ecclesiastical pronouncements on matters of science. In our modern era the vast majority of the Australian population does not agree with, nor abide by, the Catholic Church’s ban on contraceptive practices like the Pill. Indeed, I am confident that most Catholics in both belief and practice, dissent from the Church’s ruling on contraception. The Church’s banning of the use of condoms as part of a campaign to alleviate the scourge of AIDS is, I am sure, not supported by the vast majority of the Australian community.

He further says:

I wonder how many Catholics support the Church’s unequivocal opposition to IVF? Despite the fierce opposition of the Australian Catholic hierarchy to the proposal that excess embryos produced in IVF treatments should be allowed to be used for research purposes, with the explicit permission of the parents and under very strict scientific and ethical protocols, authoritative surveys of Australians supported the proposal which was, of course, endorsed by the Federal Parliament in a conscience vote in both Houses in 2002.

It is wrong to assert that the Catholic Church never wavers in its teachings. Even in my own lifetime, I have witnessed significant shifts in positions previously assumed by us within the Church to have been immutable. For example, as youngsters we were taught by the Church that to deliberately eat meat on a Friday, with full knowledge of what we were doing and complete freedom of will, was a mortal sin: if we died before we had gone to Confession (the Sacrament of Penance) and expressed contrition for this ‘wickedness’ and had received absolution from the priest, we would go to Hell!

Similarly, the Church taught that there was a place called Limbo where God sent the souls of those who died without being baptised but who had led a good life. This is no longer part of Catholic teaching. Back in medieval times, it was a mortal sin to practise “usury”—which was lending or borrowing money at interest. This practice has long ceased to be considered a mortal sin!

He goes on to say that he could give other examples over 400 years—it took them that long to get over Galileo, a devout Catholic. He says:

People like myself do not have the luxury of waiting for another 400 years for the Church to correct its current teaching on the science of stem cell research.

It is also worth emphasising that we live in a democratic, multicultural, multi-faithed and non-faithed society—not a theocracy, let alone a theocracy of one particular religious orientation.

In relation to the core of his argument, at the end of his argument about where he stands and what his moral and ethical ground is, there is a summary—and it is the best summary I have seen of an approach to this bill. It says:

The nub of the issue facing the House of Representatives can be put like this. the 2002 Australian legislation allowed for the creation of human embryonic stem cell lines from fertilised human eggs that have become surplus to the needs of IVF implantation—which means that they would never be implanted into the woman’s uterus. But the 2002 legislation did not allow creation of such human embryonic stem cell lines derived from an unfertilised human egg in the SCNT process, which would also never be implanted into the woman’s uterus. But this is a logically and ethically inconsistent situation. Maintaining the consistent logic of its ethical and scientific argument, the Lockhart Report recommended that legislation be drafted to allow the use of unfertilised eggs as well as the fertilised eggs for the creation of stem cell lines. The Bill passed by the Senate would enable that to happen. And that Bill also prohibits the use of animal eggs in therapeutic cloning. It warrants being passed, without amendment, by the House of Representatives this week.

I believe that this bill is in fact on the side of the angels and, in particular, of those young children who have come to this House who have type 1 diabetes. They deserve hope that their lives will not be blighted by that dreadful disease.

Mark Baker (Braddon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in the House today to also discuss and be involved in the debate currently occurring in Australia concerning the proposed medical research technology utilising embryonic stem cells. International research in the field of embryonic stem cell research has initiated the debate in Australia on the medical and ethical possibilities and problems of this research. Opinion is divided in this country, and this has never been more evident than in the level of communication that has reached my office, both in favour of and against the use of embryonic stem cell research.

Members of parliament stand as a small representative number elected by the people to debate and formulate decisions on issues that directly impact on those whom we represent. The debate today centres on the use of embryonic stem cells. Either it is considered a crime against humanity or it is considered that the use of embryonic stem cells is a cure for human suffering. Correlated to this are the arguments for and against the use of surplus IVF embryos or purpose-created embryos made using nucleus substitution.

Do the benefits of possible cures for a range of diseases outweigh concerns over the destruction of embryos? Embryonic stem cell research is particularly controversial because, with the present state of technology, starting an embryonic stem cell line requires the destruction of the human embryo and/or therapeutic cloning. Some opponents of the research also argue that this practice is a slippery slope to reproductive cloning, leading to a society of purpose-built human beings. In contrast, medical researchers in the field argue that it is necessary to pursue embryonic stem cell research because the resultant technologies are expected to have significant medical potential and that the embryos used for research are only those slated for destruction anyway. Such diverse opinions to the one research program highlight the fact that embryonic stem cell research represents a social and ethical challenge.

Economics has also come into the debate, with South Korea, Great Britain, Japan, Germany, India and other countries rapidly pioneering this new frontier. It is said that Australia is being left further and further behind in medical technology. Additionally, Australia will miss out on the revenue pool that Harvard University in 2005 equated to $US400 billion.

However, whilst this is a consideration, it is of less weight in my opinion than the social and ethical basis of this debate. The medical arguments for the use of embryonic stem cells centre on the future potential of this procedure as a cure for the more chronic and terminal illnesses. Embryonic stem cells are thought by most scientists and researchers to hold potential cures for spinal cord injuries and illnesses and sicknesses such as multiple sclerosis, diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, heart disease, hundreds of rare immune system and genetic disorders and much more. Scientists see almost infinite value in the use of embryonic stem cell research to understand human development and growth and the treatment of diseases. Actual cures, however, are many years away, since research has not progressed to the point where even one cure has yet been generated by embryonic stem cell research.

Equating the numbers quoted by Harvard University to the Australian population, over 20 per cent of our community suffers from diseases that it is argued may eventually be treated more effectively or even cured with embryonic stem cell therapy. Some researchers regard this as the greatest potential for the alleviation of human suffering since the advent of antibiotics. Future treatments may include replacing destroyed dopamine-secreting neurons in a Parkinson’s patient’s brain, transplanting insulin-producing pancreatic beta cells in diabetic patients and infusing cardiac muscle cells in a heart damaged by myocardial infarction. Embryonic stem cells may also be used to understand basic biology and to evaluate the safety and efficacy of new medicines.

Those who support the use of embryonic stem cell therapy argue that it is not a pro-life argument, as the embryonic stem cells are harvested from embryos which will be discarded as a part of the normal process of IVF technology. The ethical arguments against the use of embryonic stem cell therapy must also be considered in this debate. To date, the wider ethical argument against embryonic stem cell research is the destruction of human life as a result of scientists removing the nucleus from an egg cell and replacing it with the nucleus of a cell taken from a living person, such as a skin cell. The result is a cloned human embryo. When stem cells are extracted from this embryo, it is destroyed. Opponents of therapeutic cloning claim this embryo is a human life that should be afforded the rights and status entailed. Much of the debate has also focused on issues like animal-human hybrids, the pressure on women to donate eggs and the possibility of purpose built humans in the future.

The research debate against the use of embryonic stem cell therapy includes the unknown outcomes from the procedure which, whilst it may deliver a cure to a defined illness, may also create tumours known as teratomas. Additionally, with the permutations in outcomes that may occur, the ability to control a procedure to deliver a precise cure or result at this stage, with current techniques, is not possible. The argument against embryonic stem cell usage also encompasses the case that adult stem cells have the potential to achieve results without the destruction of life. The reality is that adult stem cells have been used to treat people with success and have scientifically proven long-term potential.

Currently there are more than 1,000 adult stem cell based therapies in clinical trials as opposed to the nil to negligible number, depending on the research that you read, of embryonic stem cell based therapies. Whilst adult stem cells are traditionally thought of as undifferentiated cells—cells that can be used to replace other cells in the body—they are also deemed as not as versatile and not as easily cultivated as embryonic cells. However, this view is being challenged today and, to the therapy’s credit, adult stem cells have been used for the past 30 years in treating blood disorders.

Confidence in the adult stem cell therapy research over embryonic stem cell research is reinforced through evaluating the results that have been recorded in the New England Journal of Medicine, by the National Institutes of Health USA and in a wider read of European journals. All the mentioned journals contain studies of successful use of adult stem cells in the treatment of various conditions including leukaemia, heart functioning after cardiac conditions and injury repair.

Even the premise of the undifferentiated cell theory attached to adult stem cell research has been challenged and proven to be incorrect by such leading researchers as Dr Patrick Dixon and the Global Challenge genetic research team. Indeed, researchers are now finding that many cells in children and adults have extraordinary capacity to generate or stimulate growth of a wide variety of tissues, if encouraged in the right way. Professor Jonathan Slack at the University of Bath has also demonstrated how adult human liver cells can be transformed relatively easily into insulin-producing cells such as those found in the pancreas. Other proven work includes using bone marrow cells to repair brain and spinal cord injuries in mice and rats, and the same is now being done to repair heart muscle in humans.

Harvard Medical School has also contributed strongly to the case for adult stem cell research over embryonic stem cells. Trials have shown partially restored sight in animals with retinal damage. Clinical trials are expected within five years using adult stem cells as a treatment to cure blindness caused by macular degeneration—old-age blindness—which is one of the most common causes of sight loss in Australia. Within 10 years it is hoped that people will be able to be treated routinely with their own stem cells in a clinic using a two-hour process.

The reality we are now finding is that in most cells almost every gene we have is turned off but, as it turns out, not as permanently as we thought. Adult stem cell therapy holds tremendous value for the future. When reviewing all the above points, the expected rapid progress in adult stem cell research and the slower work with embryonic stem cell research, embryonic stem cell therapy is positioned at this moment as a high-risk, ethically challenging option along with therapeutic cloning.

Research and technology developments of adult stem cell therapy and current progress in tissue building and repair offer a defined pathway to achieve the cures and treatments as desired by the general community without the destruction of life. Current research incorporating new repairs using differentiated cells and, in other cases, temporary assistance in local repair processes demonstrates the flexibility of adult therapy to meet medical needs of the chronically ill and injured much more effectively than current embryonic cell therapy. It is also predicted by the research fraternity that we will see some exciting new pharmaceutical products in the near future which promise to achieve some of the same results without having to remove a single stem cell from the body. These drugs may, for example, activate bone marrow cells and encourage them to migrate to parts of the body where repairs are needed.

In conclusion, my decision reflects a fundamental commitment to preserving the value and sanctity of human life while also having a strong desire to promote vital medical treatments for the wider Australian community. Whilst I recognise the very fast pace of research developments for both adult and embryonic stem cell research, the evidence presented at this point of time does not allow me to support the legalising of embryonic stem cell therapy. I do, however, urge the parliament to maintain a vigilant and continuous review of the developments overseas, especially in light of some of the major research organisations stating publicly that technology was advancing to the stage that harvesting embryonic stem cells may be able to be undertaken without harm to the embryo. Additionally, the ability to control outcomes and the potential decrease for resulting tumours are also recorded as improving with ever-increasing research.

I also urge my colleagues to review Australia’s participation in the adult stem cell research program with a view to further supporting the spectacular results that are currently being recorded worldwide in this domain of research. The cure, treatment and management of debilitating injuries, illness and terminal conditions with a therapy that does not challenge the ethical fibre of our wider community must be the goal of all of us in this debate. Present research information clearly indicates that embryonic stem cell therapy does not satisfy this goal at present. However, alternative adult stem cell and pharmaceutical pathways do offer a balance between sustainable cures with an ethical base and an economical proven value.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Order! It being almost 2.30 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with the resolution agreed to yesterday. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.