Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Aged Care, Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to debate this important bill, the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006, which is before the chamber today. Discussion about the regulation of research on embryonic stem cells is not new. Australia, along with the rest of the world, has had to have this discussion since the mid- to late 1990s as a result of developing understanding of the science and the potential benefits of the use of embryonic stem cells and now, of somatic cell nuclear transfer, SCNT. In 1998 the then health minister requested the Australian Health Ethics Committee, AHEC, to undertake analysis of the scientific, ethical and regulatory considerations of cloning techniques. Following receipt of this report, the minister then requested the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs to review the AHEC report. The Andrews report was tabled in 2001.

In 2002 the parliament passed two bills which responded to the earlier reports. As a part of that process the community affairs committee conducted an inquiry into the bills. There has been consistency in the recommendations of each of these committees of inquiry. The consistent themes are that cloning for the purposes of human reproduction should be banned; that in no circumstances should payment for human ova, sperm or embryos be allowed; that regulation on the use of human eggs and embryos is required, and that consistency of regulation across the states and territories is essential. It is my view that these principles should remain the same into the future. They reflect community opinion and they reflect scientific opinion.

So what, then, has changed? Why do we have to return to this issue—an issue that is difficult for some of us in this place and for the community? We return to it because the potential benefit for people with disabilities, chronic illnesses, or life threatening diseases is growing with greater knowledge and understanding.

The Andrews report tabled in 2001 acknowledged that potential, recommending, among other things, that there should be a moratorium on the creation of embryos by means of somatic cell nuclear transfer techniques for three years, at which point the issue should be re-examined; and, further, that the creation of embryos by means of somatic cell nuclear transfer should not be permitted at that stage, although this need not necessarily form part of the legislative ban on the deliberate creation of embryos. It did not rule out somatic cell nuclear transfer at all but rather recommended analysis of its further potential.

The legislation passed in 2002 mandated a review after three years and, as we know, the government commissioned John Lockhart, an eminent jurist, to conduct that review. His report is an important contribution to the public discussion and I thank his committee for their work. Following a long, detailed and public inquiry his committee made 54 recommendations, and the legislation that we are dealing with today results from some of those recommendations. It is not true to suggest that the legislation is a result of growing pressure from the science community to continually attempt to gain greater access to research practice.

One contributor to this debate suggested that the legislation was somewhat diminished because it was not being brought forward by the government but rather as a private senator’s bill. I suggest to him that he knows as well as I do that the fact that it is a private senator’s bill is more about politics and less about the substance of this legislation. I commend Senator Patterson for bringing this legislation forward. Further, I commend Senator Stott Despoja and Senator Webber for the work that they have undertaken in the exposure draft of their bill. I also thank members of the Lockhart committee, the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs and those community members who have contributed to the processes that informed the various reports. I also thank my constituents who have taken the time to make their views known to me.

The proposed legislation provides the framework and the safeguards that our community requires to ensure that research using human embryos is conducted ethically and safely, and that is why I will be supporting the bill. In an open letter to the Senate, Professor Ian Frazer, the Australian of the Year this year, urges our support for the bill. He identifies that in the 1970s the debate about genetic engineering—the precursor to his groundbreaking work in the development of a cervical cancer vaccine—was difficult because the underlying science was complex and easily open to misrepresentation. He makes the point that we are in a similar situation today and that various attempts have been made to discredit the science behind embryonic stem cell research and SCNT. My concern also goes to the attempts that have been made to discredit individuals who support legislation in these areas, and I urge calm and careful language from all sides in the course of the discussion and debate.

One of the arguments being offered by those in opposition to the legislation is that false hope is held out to those who suffer from conditions that may—I repeat ‘may’—in the future be alleviated by therapies that could be derived from the research that is facilitated with the passage of this legislation. This argument was also used in the 2002 debate. As was the case then, many people now with chronic conditions and disabilities are offended that others would deem what they are allowed to feel.

Recently, MS Australia held an information evening in the parliament, where a young woman by the name of Sarah Ross-Smith, who has multiple sclerosis, spoke. She was not speaking about the potential of cures derived from SCNT or embryonic stem cells but, rather, more broadly about the goal of MS Australia to find a cure. She spoke eloquently and passionately about the fact that, for her, the hope that a cure will be found is her motivation to keep going in the face of what she knows will be a difficult journey for her and her family. Hope is her incentive to continue to go to work, to manage her treatment and to speak on behalf of MS Australia to encourage the much-needed funds to conduct the research that is required.

It was that story and her expression of hope that made me somewhat angry at the assertion by people that it is wrong to even contemplate that hope is an essential part of dealing with a chronic condition. Is it false hope? The science is a growing area of research. Alzheimer’s Australia says:

While in the short term, stem cell based therapies may be more likely to benefit other neurodegenerative disorders, such as Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s Australia believes that stem cell research is a valuable research area that holds great promise to yield insight into many neurological disorders.

Scientists involved in the research are most explicit. Treatments, let alone cures, are decades away. It is simply dishonest to claim, as people have in this chamber and elsewhere, that the scientists are peddling false hope or asserting that cures are around the corner. Can I suggest to those who do: read the evidence and point to any scientist or research organisation who has made that assertion.

All medical research takes time—considerable time. It is simply the nature of research that involves humans that it will take time. It took over a decade for Nobel Prize winners Barry Marshall and Robin Warren’s work on stomach ulcers to be broadly accepted, and it has taken 20 years for Ian Frazer’s work on the human papilloma virus vaccine to emerge. But the point is that they are typical stories.

I ask: is false hope being ‘peddled’? It is a term that is often used. Some contributors to this debate have alleged that it is the scientific community which is promoting hope in order to maintain their position. This is disingenuous and reflects more on those making the allegations than the scientists that they are trying to impugn. Scientists are realistic in their assessments of the potential time line in which therapies and cures can be achieved. CAMRA, the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research Australia, says:

While no-one can claim with certainty what benefits may eventually result from allowing therapeutic cloning in Australia, it is the overwhelming opinion of the scientific and medical community that this research has tremendous potential to better human life ...

The fact is that we do not know the answers to the questions about the potential for therapies or cures. But to deny people the right to have a hope that their condition may be assisted is to take away their right to believe. As I have said, the understanding of the science in this area is growing. We have much to learn and the results to this point are at best promising. It is wrong to say that we should therefore not be undertaking any research because to this point there have not been significant results in terms of therapies.

Much has been said about why there have not been large numbers of applications and approvals since the passage of legislation in 2002. We have to be honest about why. There has been one ART licence granted to tackle an explicit disease and three licences granted which are intended to develop stem cell lines which will be used to tackle a range of diseases. It is misleading to extrapolate from that that, because there have been a small number of licences granted, there is little interest or potential. The research is on the stem cell lines, not on the embryos.

One contributor contended that SCNT is designed to take resources away from other areas of research even though, in his view, it does not work. This is a profound misunderstanding of how science operates. No scientist will deliberately try and drag funding to a dead end. That is the exact opposite to the pathway of how scientific credibility operates, and consequently how the funding streams lie.

It is contended that, as there is apparently a lack of scientific agreement, we should not proceed. This is disputed. Most of the scientific community support regulation of the use of embryonic stem cells and somatic cell nuclear transfer. Of course, there are some who, for largely personal reasons, do not. But, I say again, most do.

A point constantly made by the scientists is that adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells have different properties. We simply do not know which is going to be more appropriate for any disease. Professor Bob Williamson, representing the Academy of Science, stated during the inquiry:

... we are in a situation now where all of the possible approaches—those involving embryonic stem cells, somatic cell nuclear transfer, cord blood stem cells, adult stem cells—should continue in parallel. We believe that these approaches will cross-fertilise each other and help us to develop a more robust scientific answer.

The same point has been made by other scientists and scientific organisations. This was a consistent message from scientists in 2002 and is again now. Adult and embryonic stem cells have different properties and research into one, including through SCNT, can shed important light on the other.

I want to go to the issue of a stem cell bank. In 2002 the Senate agreed to an amendment to the legislation that we were then debating that requested analysis of the potential value of establishing a stem cell bank here in Australia. The Lockhart committee undertook that analysis and recommended that a national stem cell bank be established and that consideration be given to the feasibility of the Australian Stem Cell Centre operating as the bank. I support the legislative elements that are proposed in the Patterson bill that refer to that recommendation—that is, to require the minister to report to the parliament within six months on the most appropriate method to deliver the stem cell bank and also the appropriateness of a register of excess ART embryos. It is not a measure that requires legislation at this point; it can be delivered through regular government processes.

In conclusion, I think that the fundamental question that needs to be answered is this: if research into somatic cell nuclear transfer is allowed to proceed in Australia, can treatments, therapies, cures for motor neurone disease, MS, chronic diabetes et cetera be found? The answer is maybe. But if research into SCNT is not allowed to proceed, can treatments for these debilitating conditions be found? Definitely not in Australia. Research will proceed in other countries in the world, and the reality is that only those who have capacity to access support in those countries—that is, those who are wealthy enough to travel to those countries and pay for the services—will be able to access that assistance. That is not most of us. Australia has an enviable record in the regulation of research. We are recognised as a country that has been cautious and conservative in regulating this area of research, and this legislation fits that description. This legislation will allow for research that is well regulated, that is safe, that is ethical and that will respect the boundaries that our community expects. Public opinion supports the passage of this bill. I urge senators to reflect that opinion.