Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise this afternoon to provide some brief comments about the legislation currently before us, the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. I do so because, when a lot of us walk out of this building for the last time and look back on our careers in this place, I think there will be very few watershed moments, signposts of ideas or innovations in this country in which we have been so actively able to participate, and I view this week as one of those moments. Whether or not this legislation succeeds in passing through this chamber is yet to be seen, but I do think that this will be one of the weeks that we look back on and say, ‘I was part of that, and I was able to perhaps influence the outcomes one way or another.’

Although I was the first woman to be elected to the federal parliament from the Northern Territory and I am one of only two senators representing the Northern Territory in this place, I do not come to this debate with a Northern Territory perspective. I do come here, though, representing the views of people in my constituency who have lobbied me in respect of this legislation.

We did deal with these issues in 2002. The question here today, though, I think, is whether or not we take the next step forward with this scientific research. In 2002, the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act outlawed any form of human cloning, whether it was for reproductive or therapeutic reasons. The second act, the Research Involving Human Embryos Act, allowed researchers to access surplus human embryos that were created through assisted reproductive technology, albeit under strict conditions. This allowed embryos created before 2002 and surplus embryos created for IVF purposes to be used with consent.

As we know, the Lockhart review committee arose as a result of the requirement for this legislation to be reviewed independently and for that review to be submitted to COAG within three years of the legislation receiving assent. The Lockhart committee, which of course we have heard lots of comments about this morning, was appointed in June 2005 and presented its report in December 2005. It had 1,035 submissions and, if you have a look at the work that the review undertook, there were extensive consultations around this country.

It was known, and there were comments made at the time, that the Lockhart committee was conservative in its make-up and in its views of the ethics around this matter, and there have been claims of bias. My colleague Senator Stott Despoja outlined some of the criticisms that have been made of the Lockhart committee. Nevertheless, the committee has made significant recommendations, proposing that the research in this area should not only continue but be extended. The legislation framed by Senator Patterson seeks to address the recommendations of the Lockhart review, which have required extensive examination by those of us in this place who take such reviews seriously and seek to translate such a review into legislation and into reality.

The decision I have come to today has not been easy, despite the expectations of some of my colleagues. I have taken quite a long time to come to an understanding of exactly what this legislation would mean both scientifically and ethically. I have taken the time to actually read the Lockhart review report. I did not participate in the work of the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs, but I have certainly read, where I could, most of the transcripts of the hearings and the report of that committee.

I want to take the opportunity to thank the Parliamentary Library for the work that they have done. Those of us who operate in this place on a day-to-day basis know exactly what work the library does and what it means to us, but I think that in this case their work deserves a significant reference. I want to mention Roxanne Missingham and the lecture series that was undertaken by the Parliamentary Library, including the cases for and against this legislation. Having the ability to download those lectures and stick them onto an MP3 player assisted people like me. I spent many of my journeys between here and Darwin in the last couple of weeks listening critically to both sides of the argument. Also, the papers titled, ‘The pros and cons of therapeutic cloning’ have assisted me in coming to the decision that I have come to today. I also want to mention the staff in Julia Gillard’s office and recognise the work that they did in providing us with time lines and descriptions of some of the scientific terms that we have encountered on this journey.

I do not intend to go into the scientific details of what is being proposed; nor do I want to be emotive or irrational about the issues that are under debate. These are not simple matters to come to grips with, and this legislation does have vast complications and ramifications. But for me, in the end, it is a matter of deciding whether the next step in the scientific research is warranted and whether or not we should allow the advancement of science to unlock another mystery or a discovery about future prospects relating to people’s health.

Senator Judith Adams outlined in her speech a whole range of areas where, in the past, scientists and probably the general population have questioned whether they were on the right road. The Galileos and the Aristotles of the world have asked questions like, ‘Is the world round or flat?’ Smallpox vaccinations and the work related to vaccinations for cervical cancer must have, at some stage, caused scientists and the community to ask themselves: ‘Are we doing the right thing here? Are we investing in scientific research that is actually going to provide a benefit?’ Of course, you do not know until you take the first step. But for me this is about providing some medical hope or experimenting beyond our means. Should we allow that to happen? The conclusion I have come to is that I should not be the person who stands in the way of this scientific advancement.

I do not think this is about control or empowerment. I know exactly what the ethical considerations are now, although I have to say that it has taken me some time to get my head around exactly what the opponents of this legislation are arguing in not supporting it. I do know that there are ethical questions in this legislation that need to be considered, and I know that colleagues of mine in this chamber have thought long and hard in arriving at decisions.

The Lockhart review showed that the legislative and regulatory regime is working well. The controversial recommendations allowing therapeutic cloning and a range of new procedures for the creation of embryos recognise the role of these technologies today and in the future and the need to bring them all under an effective national licensing and regulatory regime.

I believe that the central question today is: exactly what is an embryo? Perhaps the whole debate centres on this definition. Those whose ethical beliefs and strong religious convictions are different from mine will no doubt have a different definition from mine, and I respect this variance of views. I understand that, for some, an embryo is an embryo. But for me, a cell that is fertilised using somatic cell nuclear transfer is intrinsically different from one that is fertilised by a sperm. Some would not see any difference in the embryos, which they would regard as having a moral potential to be a human life. As we know, this legislation does allow the deliberate creation of embryos, and I believe that the use of this term scientifically, not ethically or morally, should be considered.

Professor Bob Williamson argues that somatic cell nuclear transfer does not create an embryo. He would argue that it has no genetic identity or social context and so does not represent an ethical hazard. I believe that the potential research warrants serious consideration about the use of embryos. Embryonic stem cells have two important properties in that they are generic and any cell type can be produced reasonably easily, and they have the capacity to multiply indefinitely. Some people argue that we should continue to use adult stem cells and that we should, in fact, have more use of adult stem cells before we embark upon this path, but I believe that this is limiting. My understanding is that these embryos do not have the same potential as other embryos. Professor Williamson gave as an example the fact that they do not have the ability to form heart muscles. I think that Senator Adams outlined some of the benefits of embryonic stem cells and the limitations of adult stem cells. There is potential to find out more about how early embryos are created, and these need to be created if we want to look at diseases, rather than using healthy embryos created for IVF purposes.

I am convinced that this legislation contains enough safeguards for retaining the existing prohibitions on the use of this research. We know that you need a licence in order to continue or to commence this research. We know that since 2002 only nine licences have been granted, and most of those have been for fertility treatments. We know that researchers must report on and justify why there is a need for these embryos. We know that in this country you are not allowed to buy and sell human organs and tissues, and that will remain. We know that there is a ban on human cloning and duplicate people. In other words, these cells will not be implanted in a woman, and there is not—and I do not think there ever will be—an intention to do that.

We do not know how many eggs are needed, and scientists have raised this issue when arguing for this legislation. Whether we need one, 10, 100 or one million, that question cannot be answered because they simply do not have the key to unlock that mystery. In my heart, I do not believe we would need an excessive number but, if we did, there would be a means to use them. I do not believe that women would be coerced into providing their eggs for money, and it would be prohibited under this legislation anyway. However, there may be women who would willingly donate their eggs to further this research. As a woman I feel that, if that is their choice, if they know the risks and they want to do it, so be it. They should have the choice to put up their hands and say, ‘I want to donate my eggs for that purpose,’ just as I may want to donate my organs when I die so that someone else can benefit from them. That is my choice, and I believe that into the future that will also be a woman’s choice.

I believe that the safeguards are there to the extent that scientists will have too much to risk if they fall outside the regulations and the safeguards. Fifteen years imprisonment is a lot to risk if you have put your life into studying this sort of research and you are keen and enthusiastic to make changes and improvements.

In the past Australia has taken a leading role in this area of research—for example, in the IVF discoveries in previous years. Our scientists should be able to participate at an international level. If we leave this debate where it is now and we do not move forward, we will be left behind internationally. However, that is not the one and only reason to support this legislation. I will refer to some of the comments of a man I highly respect, Sir Gustav Nossal. The Victorian government has commissioned a report into further legislation to facilitate stem cell research, entitled Key advances in human embryonic stem cell research: a review of literature, which was commissioned by the Department of Innovation, Industry and Regional Development. In the report, the Chief Scientist, Sir Gustav Nossal, and Professor Mitchell made the following recommendations:

In the opinion of these reviewers, and in the current and appropriate cautious and regulated environment, a broad SCNT approach is required for stem cell based regenerative medicine to achieve its undoubted promise. On the specific question of whether the field has actually progressed in a technological sense, we can respond unequivocally in the affirmative.

They continue:

Australian scientists have been prominent in this global endeavour [research with human stem cells] and should not be excluded from the next exciting chapter involving SCNT-ES [embryonic stem cells from cloned embryos].

The essential question lies in the potential use of this research. We know that medical research has a long lead time and that community attitudes do change. Unlike my colleagues, I have not been lobbied to a great extent to vote against this bill—to be honest, the lobbying has been particularly minimal compared with what we receive on some of the legislation we deal with in the Senate—but, surprisingly, in the Northern Territory I have been urged to support this legislation by people I meet at the football and in the supermarket, by doctors, medical professional people, constituents and those who have been affected by lifelong or life-threatening debilitating diseases.

I received a letter from a woman who I will not name here—she knows who she is—whose granddaughter has cystic fibrosis. I met a couple on the weekend whose child died from leukaemia. I see images of Michael J Fox struggling with Parkinson’s disease and making an effort to campaign in the US elections to be held this week. I see people who are suffering. I cannot vote against this legislation, which provides them with a little chance or hope. They know there will not be a cure for them. They realise that—they know that cures are probably decades away, maybe even half a century away—but they are all saying to me: ‘You have to take this next step. You have to give scientists the key to unlock this door so that they can try to make life for people on this earth just a little better than it is currently.’

This research will possibly be useful—we do not know—but I feel that I need to give the scientists the key that can unlock the answers that we are all looking for today. I do not believe the legislation will create false hopes. I do not believe it makes promises to people that cannot be kept. I believe that those people who are suffering understand that cures may never come or may take years, but I know they are looking for some sort of future and some sort of hope.

Different views can coexist, but the bottom line is whether scientists should be stopped from doing this research. The answer for me is, no, they should not. I do not believe, after examining the research and having talked to people who oppose or support this legislation, that I can come to any other conclusion. I am well satisfied that very safe regulations and safeguards will ensure that this scientific research cannot be abused or misused. I support this legislation. I do not seriously believe I can look somebody in the eye who is suffering or has a child or grandchild who is suffering and say to them, ‘I stood in the way of scientists possibly finding an answer and a cure to your lifelong debilitating disease.’ This is a very exciting week. If we give scientists in this country the chance to take the next step, I trust the scientists will do so wisely and genuinely. I think we should allow that to occur.