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

They may never get used; that is true, Senator Pratt. But that doesn't make it right to use those embryos that are surplus, or create new embryos simply to harvest something from them and destroy them. It is a utilitarian view of human life. I say to the chamber: imagine if we applied that approach in other circumstances. What if we were able to cure Parkinson's disease by harvesting brain cells from comatose people or severely disabled people, whose lives we might say aren't viable or productive? We would react in horror to that. I would hope we would. So we don't do that. For many Australians—and I am one of them—the idea of creating a new human embryo simply to harvest something from it and then destroy it is a step down a slippery slope that I don't want to take. There are many Australians who share that point of view. That's why we have conscience votes like we are having now.

I have made this speech, or versions of it, in previous parliaments when similar bills have been debated that go to the use of human embryos. What I often find is afterwards I get accused of being anti abortion. So I'm going to take a moment or two and speak to this. Let me be clear: human life is not simple or straightforward. As I said earlier, I don't think a human embryo at its embryonic stage is a full human person deserving of all the legal rights that a person has, but nor do I think it is nothing. I can't align myself 100 per cent with the pro-choice movement, with those people who think there is no consideration we should give. And I can't align myself 100 per cent with the pro-life movement either, with those who think that we cannot ever allow an abortion to happen. I take the approach that former US President Bill Clinton took: abortion should be safe, legal and rare. I take the view that, in an ideal world, contraception would be more readily available through the Medicare system to young women and young men and the use of abortion in terms of contraception would be reduced. That is my personal view, and it's what I would support in a policy sense. I want to put that on the record lest some people seek to take my remarks here tonight about human embryos, twist them and use them in another context.

This is a deeply important issue we are considering here. I am actually hopeful. I'm encouraged by the number of senators who have expressed concerns about this bill, because I think we are rushing into a brave new world here. Not only are we asking this parliament to legalise a technique that alters the make-up of human beings at its most significant level—its DNA level; we are also, unless we support these amendments, legalising and giving a tick to the creation of a new, distinct human life, which has never been seen before and will never be seen again, solely for the purpose of harvesting something from it and destroying it. I ask those people who say it is just a bunch of cells to reflect on that very fact. We are introducing a utilitarian approach to human life. We are saying that unless a life is viable it is not one that deserves our respect and support. I don't make those comments lightly. This is a deeply held conviction that I bring to this debate, and I ask people to consider it.

Senator Canavan has observed that these amendments do not stop the progress for those people who want to see mitochondrial donation progress; they merely remove an ethically and morally problematic process from the legislation. In that sense, I think they improve the legislation. In that sense, I think the parliament would be wise, given the novel and, indeed, revolutionary process that we are being asked to legalise, to take a conservative approach—not the Left-Right kind of conservative but, rather, the most risk averse approach. I will be supporting Senator Canavan's amendments.