John Watson (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

In 2002, I voted for the Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002 and supported the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002 as, I remind the Senate, did the majority of the members in this place. At the time, given some high-powered and persuasive arguments, my reasoning for supporting the research involving human embryos bill in 2002 was that I felt that important research could be undertaken that would benefit human society.

I remind the Senate that the system the parliament put in place in 2002 is still working. Scientists who wish to undertake research on embryos in excess to the IVF process can do so under licence from the National Health and Medical Research Council. The scope of allowable research is quite generous. But creating a human embryo for research is a significantly different matter, and I believe that this should remain prohibited.

I remind the Senate that an opportunity was given in 2002 for limited experimentation with human embryos. Unfortunately, the recommendations made in the Lockhart report opened that door far too wide so that the negatives would outweigh the benefits and, in so doing, would introduce wider fundamental ethical issues.

I would now like to acknowledge Mr Jim Wallace AM of the Australian Christian Lobby, a person who has a close association with the Parliamentary Christian Fellowship, of which I am a member. Mr Wallace has been working very hard in this area, and I think his efforts are commendable.

I remind the Senate that one of the better comments in the Lockhart report is this:

… 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.

The absence of any demonstrated potential for cloned embryonic stem cells except in the discredited Korean results, on which I believe the Lockhart report is based, means that the 2002 decision should really stand. The fact that some are seeking to do cloning not four years after the original legislation is evidence in itself, I believe, that the ‘slippery slope’ is very real. From a practical point of view, stem cells can be obtained from the umbilical cord of newborn babies and either used immediately or stored for further research. The diseases that scientists claim they will research using embryos in the first 14 days will not manifest themselves in that time, making a subsequent request to extend the experimentation time inevitable—in the same way this request has come so quickly on the heels of the last, less than four years ago.

It is interesting to look at what the Lockhart report said about the creation of human-animal hybrids:

The Committee noted that there was strong community objection to the implantation of such prohibited embryos into the body of a woman or to their development in any other way beyond 14 days. The Committee sees no reason to depart from this strong community objection.

I would imagine that this strong community objection would apply to their creation and development at all, not just whether they were allowed to develop beyond 14 days.

I take some inspiration from the Catholic Health Australia chief executive, Francis Sullivan, who said the report showed that scientists were ‘far from settled on even the need to clone embryos’. A Catholic Health media release states:

The Report does canvass many issues but fails to face head-on the fundamental issue at stake: … that scientists wish to deliberately create human life to directly destroy it.

The Lockhart report itself acknowledges:

The creation of such embryos is widely accepted for helping people who would otherwise have difficulty having a family, but there is little general support for the creation of such embryos for research purposes—

which this bill wants. The report also deals with another cogent argument, saying:

… because the technology is the same as that used for reproductive cloning, allowing cloning to extract stem cells would inevitably lead to its use for reproduction.

Finally, I do not feel that these additional changes to the act are justified. We gave scientists the ability to do limited research involving embryos, as I said earlier, just four years ago. I do not think they have exhausted all avenues, nor do I think it is prudent to continually relax legislation in this area just to keep up with other, less ethical societies. For these reasons, I will not support the legislation before the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Minchin) adjourned.

Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour.