Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to make my contribution to the second reading debate on the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. Like others in this place—certainly mirroring the comments that Senator Sherry has just made—this has been an extremely difficult process for me. It is very exposing to stand up in this place and, in front of the nation, on an issue of such importance as this, put yourself out there on the public record.

In that context, I congratulate Senator Patterson, Senator Stott Despoja and Senator Webber for having the courage to bring this particular issue before the parliament in the first place. It is very confronting and, as the debate has indicated so far, it is a difficult issue for people to grapple with. It takes a significant amount of thought time to come to a decision. Like the speaker before me, Senator Sherry, it has taken me a long time to sort this out and work out what my general direction is going to be.

I thank my constituents who have contacted me, and my colleagues for the way they have conducted this debate. I think it has been very considered. There have been some extrapolations, on both sides of the debate, in relation to what might or might not occur but generally it has been a very civilised process. And I think that stands this chamber in very good stead.

When I first came to the debate and when I first took notice of some of the issues being put before us it was in the context of the potential for development of unique therapies that removed the risk of rejection—therapies developed specifically for an individual through the process of cloning. At that point in time I started considering the scale of what was being considered, and an issue that came to my mind was the resource that was required to deal with that process. There were some people who, very early in the piece, expressed concern about where that resource was going to come from. I think John Anderson was one of the people who expressed concern. Not being so brave, or perhaps keeping my own counsel, I decided not to say anything about that but to do some further research.

It now transpires, following further discussions and questioning, that that may not be the way that it is all going to go. It may be that there are a number of lines that are developed that assist a majority of people. Up to 80 per cent of the population can be looked after through this process through a certain number of lines. But that demonstrates to me that within the process there are still a huge number of possibilities, options and directions that this can take. It may be that a unique therapy is developed, and that raises serious concerns in my mind. Those concerns, particularly in relation to supply of eggs, have been expressed a number of times on all sides of the debate during the last two days.

In my mind, what we are considering is research that is complementary in respect of what we decided on in 2002 in relation to adult stem cells. What is being proposed is obviously another step, and some see it as the thin end of a wedge and the progression down a so-called slippery slope. As it took me a long time to come to a decision in relation to adult stem cells, consideration of that next step, and whether it was in fact the thin end of a wedge or a progression down a slippery slope, was something that I really needed to take some time considering. My conscience told me that I had essentially crossed the Rubicon when I decided to support the stem cell research in 2002, as difficult as that might have been. But having made that decision still did not take away the concerns that I had in relation to the regulation or management of the supply of human body parts, specifically eggs, to deal with this process.

We heard several times today and yesterday about who ought to be in control of the ethics surrounding this process. It is a concern that I also have in relation to this. Senator Bob Brown, whom I very rarely agree with in most debates, I think expressed very well that we need to maintain some control, as the Australian parliament, of the ethics and the regulation of these technologies and where they are heading. In my view that is, importantly, our responsibility—that we retain oversight of this. It was said very early in the debate that this was just the first step and we would be back to debate this again—and perhaps we should. As the technology develops, we should consider where we are at and where we are going, and we should not be frightened of coming back to consider it. As hard as it may be, as exposing as it may be, I think we should be more than prepared to come back as many times as it takes to ensure that the proper regulations, the proper protections, are in place that ensure that this research is carried out in a moral and ethical way that is in accord with the wishes of the Australian people through the Australian parliament. To that end, I flag that I will be moving amendments to the bill to that effect.

The bill calls for the NHMRC to develop guidelines that support the legislation in relation to the donation of eggs and how they are managed. In my view, a better way to deal with that, and a more responsible way for us to oversight that, would be through regulation. So I will be moving an amendment that regulations rather than guidelines be put into place to oversight that process. That obviously means that potentially we will be back here to look at the regulations, but I do not have a problem with that. I do not fear that. I think that is our responsibility. I think that is a way that we can ensure that the issues that I have spoken about before are properly and responsibly managed by us and that we can retain that proper oversight.

Further, I will be moving an amendment to the effect that the bill does not effectively commence until those regulations are in place, so that we know that the protections are in place before we start moving things forward. I see that fundamentally as our responsibility. During previous debates on other issues, particularly on RU486, the responsibility for oversight was taken away from the parliament—from the minister, initially, but in my view it should have remained with the parliament. I see that we have a responsibility in relation to this.

I did some research on the situation that exists nationally in relation to oversight of human tissue. The results were quite interesting. They demonstrated a very varied regulatory oversight regime across the country, which varies from state to state. A paper was prepared in 2004 by Imogen Goold, ‘Tissue donation: Ethical guidance and legal enforceability’, and published in the Journal of Law and Medicine. In the conclusions it indicates that the ‘regulation of human tissue donation and use in Australia is well regulated in many ways’. But it did indicate that legislation has not kept up with ethical guidelines. The proposition was put that all state human tissue acts require comprehensive revision.

Given the context and the import of the issues that we are discussing today, that drives me more strongly to assert that what we should be considering in relation to the oversight of this issue is regulation, not guidelines. Beyond such state legislation, eggs, adult and embryonic stem cells are not necessarily nationally covered in a consistent way. Therefore, in my view, it may be argued that regulations may be developed as part of this process. However, the growing complexity of non-blood based human-tissue based therapies and therapies yet to be devised—whether adult or embryonic stem cell therapies—suggests to me that an overarching national regulatory approach is required.

My support for the bill is in some sense conditional. I will be putting those amendments during the committee stage of the debate. I strongly urge senators to positively consider them. I think it is the right thing for us to be doing, and that is the basis of my support for the legislation after all the consideration, thought and consultation. I will not say ‘lobbying’ because I do not think you can lobby a conscience. Unlike Senator Sherry, I have remained aloof to media calls and other things of that nature. I can make up my own mind and I can seek out my own information. Fortunately, that approach has spared me the inundation that some others might have received from one side of the equation or the other. Perhaps, having let the cat out of the bag, I might not be so successful next time. It has been a very difficult process for us all and I think it is appropriate that my views are rightly demonstrated here in the chamber rather than counted in a poll in one of the newspapers or elsewhere in the media. I look forward to engagement with senators in further parts of the debate.