Natasha Stott Despoja (SA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Ageing (Senator Santoro) to a question without notice asked by Senator Stott Despoja today relating to stem cell research.

The question was in relation to the issue of stem cell research generally but, more specifically, the issue of the Lockhart reviews. I am sure honourable senators remember the Lockhart reviews, which reported on the legislation that we passed in this place in 2002 dealing with the prohibition of human cloning and specifically the research involving human embryo legislation.

I was asking the minister today about a number of factors. First of all, I am wondering when the Senate, the federal parliament, the states and territory governments and COAG specifically are going to get an opportunity to examine the recommendations of the Lockhart reviews. We have seen the report. It was due to be tabled on 19 December last year, but is there going to be a legislative form in terms of those recommendations? Will the review’s recommendations come to this place so that we can have a debate about the review? Will we get to see what cabinet has decided in recent days, I believe, in relation to the Lockhart recommendations?

I asked a specific question to the minister today about why the government has taken the step of engaging a legislation consultancy firm, Matthews Pegg Consulting, to review developments in embryonic stem cell research. I do not have a problem with the developments of embryonic stem cell research being examined and regularly so—as you know, I am a big fan of stem cell technology; in fact, I am a big fan of genetic technology debates in this place, let alone the specifics or the potential benefits, therapeutic or otherwise, of that particular technology—but why has the government engaged this legislative consultancy firm to do this particular study when the Lockhart reviews have done just that? In fact, they have done a study. Their literature review did exactly the same study.

If the government is arguing—and I gleaned this from the minister’s response today; I understand he was trying to be helpful in his response and he was unable to give me a specific time line, but I have no doubt that we will hear from the government shortly on this issue—that the Lockhart review is somehow outdated already or that there has not been some kind of update in the technology then I am particularly concerned about that. I am particularly concerned because I note that yesterday’s Australian stated:

... Mr Abbott is expected to argue there has been no scientific breakthroughs that warrant lifting the ban.

That is the ban on aspects of therapeutic cloning in particular—somatic cell nuclear transfer, for example. The Age reported that a senior government source said:

There has been no real change in the science which would recommend going forward ...

This appears to be a line coming from aspects of government that there has been no particular advance in the technology and therefore we should not necessarily pursue the Lockhart recommendations.

I put on notice some of the recommendations, including one that was brought about as a result of an amendment that Senator Jan McLucas and I co-sponsored—that was to look into the applicability of a national stem cell bank. The review has come back and said: ‘Yep, good idea. Let’s establish a national stem cell bank.’ I am not quite sure why that would be confronting to anyone in the debate, regardless of our views on adult or embryonic stem cell research or what have you. Other components of the reviews recommend public education so that people understand a bit more about the debates and the technology. Why would that be a confronting recommendation? So I hope that the government, and the cabinet in particular, is going to look at these recommendations and then give us the chance as a parliament to come up with a debate, a legislative form, that is suitable. I do not want that opportunity to pass us by.

It is imperative that we have the debate. As we know, the legislation has been passed in conjunction with the states and territories. This has to go to COAG, so I would hate to see the federal government stamp on this proposal or the review recommendations without debate. No doubt, this is an emotive issue sometimes and there are conflicting stories about what recommendations should be pursued or what technology has potential. I note that the literature review of the Lockhart reviews recommended:

For preclinical (animal) research, the summary ... only provides a superficial outline of the huge literature in the area. The overall picture is one of an extremely active research field involving both embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells, with many potentially promising lines of investigation.

I make a plea to the cabinet and the government to pursue the Lockhart reviews. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.