Kristina Keneally (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I rise in support of Senator Canavan's amendment. I will not repeat the arguments he has put about the differences between pronuclear transfer and second polar body transfer. I will simply make the observation that one process, pronuclear transfer, involves the creation of two distinct human embryos, one of which will be destroyed, and the other process, second polar body transfer, does not. It does not require the creation of two distinct human embryos, one of which will be destroyed. What I would like to do with this contribution here is to address this very moral and ethical—and scientific—question about what value we should attach to a human embryo.

In saying this, I reflect that the human embryo has moved out of the womb and into the petri dish. This is not something I am opposed to—techniques like IVF have assisted families to have children—but it has raised some significant moral, scientific and legal questions. Thirty years ago, when an embryo could only reside in a uterus, stockpiling them in laboratories was inconceivable. Harvesting bits and pieces from them was unbelievable. Buying and selling them was unimaginable.

Where we are today is truly a brave new world, and it does require us, and has required us, as parliamentarians to think carefully about these things. This parliament—in 2002 and again in 2006—and state parliaments have considered these issues, and they continue to do so. I do want to address this issue of why I think it matters that a human embryo does deserve our consideration and our legal protection. In doing so, I recognise I'm going to get into some slightly vexed ethical and moral issues, so please bear with me, but I think it's important that we tease these out.

I think it is important that we understand that every single human embryo has a new genetic code. It is a code that has never been seen before and will never be seen again. It is a distinct human being. I don't think a human embryo is a human person that attracts all the legal rights of personhood, but nor do I think it is just a collection of cells like those cell we might find in our skin or our hair. It is something different, and I do think it deserves respect. I do think it deserves some legal protection. I certainly do think we should think very carefully about normalising a situation where human life can be viewed as if through a utilitarian lens—that is, that we can create a distinctly new human life for the purpose of harvesting parts from it and destroying it. We need to think about this carefully.

I'm not being partisan, but I'm simply drawing on a quote from Prime Minister John Howard when, in a previous debate, he said, 'I have been personally unable to find a huge moral distinction between allowing the human embryo to succumb as a result of exposure to room temperature'—as sometimes happens in IVF—'or ending it through research.' I've heard other people make that point, and I think it's a legitimate point to make. Here's why I think there is a difference.

The intention of creating the embryo does matter. When you create embryos in IVF, you create them for the purpose of trying to bring a new life into existence. Just as, when you conceive naturally, not all of those embryos survive to birth, and it is the case that creating embryos for the purpose of IVF is to bring a new life into existence, and, yes, some of them may well not survive.