Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I stand today to oppose the bill that is before the Senate, the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. I welcome the debate and the Prime Minister’s willingness for MPs to have a conscience vote on these important matters. It is healthy and appropriate for each of us in this parliament, and indeed in the community, to dig deep into our hearts, our minds and our consciences. In fact, since I came into the parliament in February 2002, this is the third time a conscience vote has occurred—the first being in 2002, with the stem cell research and cloning bill of 2002, and the second being in the last 12 months, with the RU486 bill.

As a participating member of the Senate committee inquiring into this bill, I appreciated the opportunity to learn more about the science and the ethics of the cloning process. I want to thank Senator Gary Humphries for his chairmanship of that inquiry. My views are essentially set out in chapter 4 of the Senate report. I want to thank all those who made submissions and, indeed, all those who forwarded letters, emails, advice and views. That feedback is appreciated. My summation of the inquiry is that the science does not add up in support of cloning and that the ethics—I think it is pretty much agreed across the board—are controversial. In short, the case for change has not been made.

Dolly the sheep is now dead. Dolly was created using the same cloning techniques to be legalised under the cloning bill currently before the Senate. Good science requires good ethics. It is accepted practice that new scientific experiments are proven in animals before applying the proven outcomes on people. Animal cloning has delivered no safe health therapies.

This week our federal parliament is being asked to take the gigantic ethical and scientific leap which would allow the creation of a cloned human embryo for the purpose of being destroyed—destroyed in the pursuit of knowledge. The knowledge is for the study of disease and not knowledge directly for the creation of therapies or cures. Professor Loane Skene, the acting chair of the Lockhart committee that has reviewed the existing laws, said that cures may not arrive until our grandchildren’s time.

The promise of cures from this new legislation is a false and, at best, flimsy hope that can only compound the misery of those with debilitating illness. All members of parliament are at one in their desire to see the defeat of debilitating diseases. I want to strongly emphasise this point and acknowledge the heart and the desire of each MP to achieve this outcome. This applies to those in favour of the bill and those against the bill. As a person with type 1 diabetes and with a father who died of motor neurone disease, I can relate to this issue.

I want to particularly empathise with the many organisations that represent people who suffer from chronic disease or other debilitating disease who presented before our inquiry and who operate in Australia today. It is because of this empathy and concern that I support adult stem cell research. As many would know, I already have much to do with many of these organisations that help and support people, for example, with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, and indeed people with motor neurone disease.

In terms of the adult stem cell research issue, a key finding of the recent Senate inquiry into the proposed cloning legislation was that adult stem cell research avoids the destruction of a human embryo and is actually delivering, in spades, therapies and cures. Queensland scientist Dr Peter Silburn said:

If you have a galloping horse like adult stem cells, why not pursue that? ... cloning is not necessary.

Professor Bob Williamson, from the Australian Academy of Science, conceded that therapeutic cloning is not of importance in giving cells to treat patients and that these are far more likely to come from so-called adult stem cells. In addition, in his evidence to the Senate inquiry, Professor Alan Mackay-Sim of the national adult stem cell centre confirmed:

It is probable that such (adult) stem cell lines as these will render therapeutic cloning irrelevant and impractical.

Why pursue the contentious practice of cloning when an entirely ethical source of stem cells, superior for both treatment and research, is readily available in our own tissues and in the blood of a baby’s cord?

It was on 14 November 2002 that the Senate voted without dissent to pass the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002. This act prohibits the creation of a human embryo cloned for any purpose, including destructive research. By passing this act, the Senate affirmed the view expressed by the government minister of the day, Senator the Hon. Kay Patterson, who 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.

Given this unanimous vote of the Senate just under four years ago, the onus is on the proponents of change to justify why the Senate should abandon this moral principle by allowing in 2006 what it held to be wrong and prohibited in 2002. I accept that there are many members of parliament in both houses who are in fact new to the debate since 2002. Indeed, for them, the proposition is new and fresh, and I acknowledge that.

The Lockhart review, set up in accordance with section 25 of the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act, was required by its terms of reference to consider and report on developments in medical and scientific research and the potential therapeutic applications for such research, and on community standards. Three of the six members of the Lockhart review were already on the record as supporting human cloning for research.

The period of the Lockhart review unfortunately coincided with the six-month period during which a major scientific fraud was perpetrated on the world by Korean scientist Hwang Woo Suk. Submissions to the review from Australian scientists were coloured by the belief that human embryos had been successfully cloned and that patient-specific stem cell lines had been derived from these cloned embryos. Understandably, the Lockhart review accepted these claims and accordingly reported that there had been significant developments in human cloning since 2002. After the Lockhart report was concluded, the Korean research was exposed as fraudulent.

The independent MP Consulting report was prepared for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and released by the Prime Minister on 31 August 2006—just a few months ago. It found:

… on each of these issues—

that is, the definition of ‘human embryo’, the creation and use of embryos for ART research and the creation of embryos for stem cell research—

there has not been any significant change in the state of play since 2002.

That point supports again the argument that a case has not been made for change. Nevertheless, the argument has been put that community standards have changed. But it is curious that the Lockhart review failed to report on an in-depth research study carried out by Critchley and Turney which found that a majority—63.4 per cent—of Australians were not comfortable with obtaining stem cells from cloning human embryos.

In 2002, the federal parliament legalised the use of excess embryos from IVF for research on the basis that those embryos were going to die anyway. But, as noted, we unanimously opposed all forms of cloning because we saw that it was wrong to create a human embryo solely for research. Interestingly, since 2002, although nine licences have been issued authorising research on excess embryos, only one has been issued for research aimed at treating a specific disease.

In 2002, political leaders and others told paraplegics, ‘We’re going to do something for you,’ and had photo opportunity shots taken in spinal injury wards. But there has not been one cure, one therapy or even one clinical trial involving embryonic stem cell research. Over-promising is, of course, a ubiquitous sin in politics. What is the rush to cloning when scientists have not reached first base? If embryonic stem cell research were delivering and cloning in animals were proven safe and effective, the arguments in favour of human cloning might be more persuasive. In short, the ends do not justify the means. In the case of this bill, the desired ends are at best doubtful.

But there is more. The bill not only allows the creation of human embryos for laboratory experiments but also legalises the creation of a human-animal hybrid using eggs from a rabbit or a pig. Thankfully, Australia’s Chief Scientist, Dr Jim Peacock, and many others have opposed this procedure. The bill also legalises the creation of human embryos using ova from cadavers and aborted baby girls. In my view, these proposals turn human dignity on its head.

The bill’s proponents have argued that the human embryo to be created is different because it is not derived from a sperm and an egg implanted in the body of a woman. It is true that the technique for creation is different; however, all scientists agree that the embryo is human, is alive and could, if planted in the body of a woman, become an Australian like the rest of us—remembering that we were all once a human embryo.

We will have two classes of human embryo—an A and a B team. The proponents of the bill say that the B team will be only the size of a full stop, will live in a Petri dish, will bring benefits to the world through research and, yes, will be killed after 14 days. So the usefulness of the human embryo to society outweighs the dignity and respect that all other humans and human embryos deserve. That is a sad, utilitarian argument which sends a terrible signal to the frail, aged, disabled and vulnerable in our society. To say that one life is intrinsically more valuable than another is problematic at best. Once this legislation is passed into law, it is almost a certainty that parliament will be asked in just a few years to extend the life of the embryo from 14 days to 60, 90 or 180 days. Where do you draw the line if it is delivering ‘benefits’ in society?

To achieve the research outcomes, not one scientist could say how many eggs would be needed to clone successfully—and this was the course of discussion for much of the inquiry. There are health risks to women in egg harvesting, as well as the risk of exploitation of women to gain access to more human eggs. Although the bill provides that it is illegal to commercialise the market for human eggs, it is legal under the bill that reasonable transport and other costs can be recouped. It is also noted that, in the UK, discounts at IVF clinics are offered to women who donate eggs and that, in the US, eggs are bought and sold. The exploitation of women for a range of reasons is clearly an issue.

I now turn to two matters that have had little, if any, attention in the course of the public debate on this legislation. The legislation passed by the Senate in 2002, including the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act, was part of a scheme of uniform national legislation agreed to by COAG. The Australian government is a signatory to a COAG agreement that this legislation will not be changed without the unanimous agreement of all the parties. At the most recent COAG meeting, in July, any change to the legislation to allow cloning was not supported by the Australian government or by the New South Wales, Tasmanian, Western Australian and South Australian governments. If the Australian parliament unilaterally amends this legislation to allow cloning, we will certainly have the beginnings of a legal and constitutional quagmire developing. This is not a matter that has gained much attention. Maintaining uniform national legislation in this area is, in my view, definitely preferred. Despite a shared consensus in 2002, there has been instead a sharp divide in 2006 between pro-cloning and anti-cloning premiers. This demonstrates that there is no national consensus to change the ban on cloning universally agreed to in 2002.

In terms of international affairs, although some of the arguments put in the Senate may suggest otherwise, Australia is not alone in its current prohibition on human cloning for any purpose, including research. Over 30 other countries have similar legislative bans, including Argentina, Austria, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany—I particularly take note of Germany and allow other members and the public to come to their own conclusion as to why they have made that decision—Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Panama, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland and the Netherlands.

During its 82nd plenary meeting on 8 March 2005 the United Nations General Assembly approved the United Nations Declaration on Human Cloning. Australia voted in support of this international instrument which solemnly declared:

(a) Member States are called upon to adopt all measures necessary to protect adequately human life in the application of life sciences;

(b) Member States are called upon to prohibit all forms of human cloning inasmuch as they are incompatible with human dignity and the protection of human life;

(c) Member States are further called upon to adopt the measures necessary to prohibit the application of genetic engineering techniques that may be contrary to human dignity;

(d) Member States are called upon to take measures to prevent the exploitation of women in the application of life sciences;

(e) Member States are also called upon to adopt and implement without delay national legislation to bring into effect paragraphs (a) to (d);

The Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 complies fully with this international instrument. If the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 were enacted, it would, from my reading of the United Nations declaration, cause no end of concern and would put Australia in breach of our commitments under this United Nations Declaration on Human Cloning. This is not a matter that has been discussed publicly or debated during the Senate inquiry or to date. In conclusion, my views remain the same as they were in 2002 but my concerns have increased, and with respect to the bill I say this: the kill-to-cure proposal is the foundation of this bill. Passing the bill will launch Australia into a brave new world.