Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Banking and Financial Services) Share this | Hansard source

The Senate is considering the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. We have a conscience vote. This is the fourth occasion in my 16 years in the Senate where we have been allowed to decide the issue based on our own examination of the facts and come to a personal decision based on our own set of personal values. I would have to say I do not fear conscience votes. In fact, I wish we had a few more conscience votes in the parliament. I do not see that they are a threat or will undermine party discipline or democracy as it has evolved and as we currently practise it in Australia. So I think it is a good thing that we are from time to time presented with decisions that we have to arrive at in a non-collective way and that we will be held accountable for those decisions. I do not shy away from that responsibility, nor do I fear it or worry about it, although I have worried a great deal about the decision I have to make on this particular piece of legislation.

It is not my intention to go into detailed analysis of the vast amount of material on the issue before us. That has been referred to to varying extents very well by a considerable range of senators and the issues are well canvassed in the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs report. I would like to congratulate all the senators who were involved in that particular report on their diligence and hard work—again, I think, a good example of the very good work that Senate committees do.

My approach to issues around human life has been a socially conservative one. It is not a social conservatism based on an active involvement in religion or Christianity. However, I am a student of history. I read a lot of history, and I have a general moral view that in our approach to dealing with issues surrounding human life we should be extremely cautious about how we proceed. It was very difficult for me to come to a conclusion on this matter. The central problem is moral and ethical; there are two difficult moral and ethical issues to resolve. On previous occasions in considering these matters, as is on the record, I have made it clear that it is with great trepidation and worry that I view developments around experimenting with the fundamental building block of life. I have great concerns about where experimentation in this area is going to lead us, perhaps not in my lifetime but in 50 or 100 years time. That is a socially conservative view. I know that on both sides of this debate there has been some exaggeration, but I do genuinely worry about the ‘Boys from Brazil’ type evolution of the human species.

The other moral and ethical issue I had to consider was the possibility—and I do say it is a possibility—and the hope that there may be some scientific advance as a consequence of this legislation that would see the improved diagnosis and treatment of what are currently untreatable diseases. I had to consider whether there was any realistic possibility of dealing with these serious medical diseases with an alternative approach. So they are the two difficult ethical and moral issues I have had to deal with.

On this occasion I have to say, without a great deal of confidence and with a great deal of worry about where we are headed, that I have come to the considered view that I will support the second reading of the bill. It was a very difficult decision and not one that I have easily come to. I believe this experimentation is not without some risks in the future, as experimentation proceeds in this area. Nevertheless, I have with a great deal of worry, concern and reluctance, come to the conclusion that it is best that the bill should pass the Senate and the Parliament of Australia. However, I will be looking very closely at amendments that attempt to deal with further safeguards as experimentation moves forward in this area. I am sure those amendments will be forthcoming. I have not seen any as yet, but I will examine those amendments on their merit.

I have come to a general conclusion that the bill should pass, with the possibility of perhaps greater scrutiny and safeguards with regard to the moral and ethical issues involved. I have had to weigh up very carefully the issues around experimentation with the building block of life versus the argument that there is the possibility of a cure for presently incurable diseases. I do not like to see people offered false hope. I do understand the significant medical health issues faced by people who suffer a range of serious diseases. If there is some hope that treatments can be developed then morally and ethically that should proceed, but with great caution. In my case, it will involve a great deal of worry about how that should occur and about ultimately where it will lead.

It is strange in politics how you come to a conclusion. When I flew into Devonport last week the cab driver and I got involved in a conversation. He had a retarded child, 33 years of age. He was explaining to me some of the great difficulties he and his wife had experienced in having to deal with the issues around having a retarded child. I do not know how a family can cope with these often grave issues. I have enormous respect for any parent who has to look after a child whose capacity is limited and who experiences suffering in this way. I think governments should place much greater priority on providing the resources to assist in this area. I just do not know how these families cope with the grave difficulties associated with having such a child.

Talking to that cab driver encapsulated my general worry and my belief that we should at least try to do more for the people in the community who suffer these appalling diseases. Some claims about the great advances that can be made have been a little overblown—such advances remain to be seen. But if the life of even a few people can be improved by advances in research, and thus diagnosis and treatment in this area, certainly that is a more important ethical and moral consideration when weighed against the ethical and moral considerations involved in experimenting with the building block of life. It was not an easy decision I came to last night, after a great deal of thought and grappling with what is an extremely difficult issue.

I would like to thank all the senators who have participated in the debate. I think it has generally been a debate conducted well and based on a great deal of knowledge and thinking. It is our role as legislators in a community to set parameters around a variety of moral and ethical issues. That is the role of government. We might disagree about how it is done, where it is done, and the amount of detail, but it is the role of the government of the day to deal with these issues. This is not an issue that should be solely dealt with by scientists. We have a community responsibility, in a Western society where Judaeo-Christian values are rightly at the forefront of our consideration of life, and we should not shy away from that or be afraid of it.

I have been pleased with the general respect shown by senators towards each other in a debate where there are strongly held views. For my own part, perhaps I should not have indicated to the Australian last week that I was undecided on this matter because I then received an absolute bombardment of emails, requests to speak to me, and all manner of information through the mail. Generally, my approach has been to consider the issue on its merits, read at least some of the material—particularly the Senate committee report—weigh up the issues based on my own personal experiences and ethical values, and come to the conclusion that I have. In concluding, I state that I will look very, very carefully at amendments that may deal with some of the more difficult regulatory and governance type management issues of this legislation, as I anticipate it will be passed. I think we need to focus on some of those issues in the committee stage.