Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

This is a review by the Legislation Review Committee of the Research Involving Human Embryos Act and the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act, often known colloquially as the stem cell legislation. That legislation passed through this chamber in 2002 by way of a conscience vote. I think it was the last chamber-wide conscience vote we had. This review was tabled back in December.

Firstly, I want to note the very tragic passing of the chair of that committee, Mr John Lockhart, who died not long after the report was presented. That is certainly a great loss and I acknowledge his contribution not just in this report, of course, which was probably the very last major piece of public work he performed, but also his significant contribution in many other areas.

It is a very comprehensive report. I cannot speak to it in detail in five minutes. It goes for 250 pages and it deals with some very complex and controversial issues. As we recall, the stem cell debate in this chamber those few years ago was controversial, and it shows the value of this process. I understand that the process itself is a requirement of the act and I am fairly sure it is a requirement that was placed in there as a result of an amendment moved by my Democrat colleague Senator Stott Despoja and Senator McLucas, who moved a number of joint amendments to improve that legislation.

There is a lot about this debate that is misunderstood, not surprisingly because the science is so detailed and complex. Certainly I do not profess to have a full understanding of it, but I recommend that people and senators that have an interest in this topic try to peruse this report. I think it is available online as well. The report does attempt to present the concepts and the issues in as accessible a way as possible given the complexity of some of the science. I note that despite some of the controversy in this area there was consensus in some aspects, and the committee heard strong agreement between all groups that human reproductive cloning should continue to be prohibited on ethical grounds. That was clearly strongly recommended by the committee. The committee also recommended that the use of embryos created by methods not involving fertilisation of eggs by sperm for reproductive purposes should remain prohibited. They also recommended continuing the prohibition of placing any human embryo into an animal or the body of a human apart from in a woman’s reproductive tract or placing a human embryo into the body of a human for any period of gestation.

It is important to emphasise the commonality of view in maintaining those prohibitions. Where there was some controversy was in the recommendations dealing with the approval of creating human embryos by methods of somatic cell nuclear transfer to generate embryonic stem cells not for the purposes of reproduction but for the purpose of generating stem cells. That is sometimes called therapeutic cloning and therefore people think we are allowing cloning and that is terrible. It is not reproductive cloning; there is a clear distinction. The report recommends that distinction and I think that debate should be had on face value and not confused. There is a clear prohibition on reproductive cloning and it is recommended that that continue, but the other method of creating embryos for the purpose of generating embryonic stem cells is a different issue.

I believe this is an important debate that needs to be advanced and considered in a measured away. I urge the government to respond to this report in that way and do so as promptly as possible. Given the complexity and importance of the issues we cannot expect an instant response but I do hope that they maintain the momentum on this. I know that there are a number within the government who are supportive of what the committee has put forward but there are some who are not. We need to keep the momentum going and get a strong response quickly and keep the necessary developments in this important area of research continuing.

Natasha Stott Despoja (SA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I acknowledge the contributions of my colleague Senator Andrew Bartlett on this particular report. It is a report that I have certainly commented on publicly on behalf of the Democrats but this is the first opportunity to comment on the finished reports in the parliamentary sphere. I also want to add my condolences to the family of the former Federal Court judge, the Hon. John Lockhart AO QC. Unfortunately, he died on Friday, 13 January this year, so soon after the completion of this committee’s reports and their recommendations. I want to pay a tribute to Mr Lockhart for his general contributions to Australian life and the legal world, but in particular for his work and contribution to what was quickly dubbed the Lockhart review.

The reports that this committee produced are a comprehensive and innovative review of our laws governing stem cell research and cloning. They contain insightful recommendations and have been welcomed by many—in particular, those in the scientific and research communities. I do note the respect and esteem in which Mr Lockhart was held by the review committee members and, indeed, the wider scientific committee. All members of the Lockhart legislative review committee deserve our thanks for their time and their commitment in conducting the review. We all wait for a response from the government and I hope that we do not have to wait too long for that.

Many people in their submissions revealed their frustration particularly those with diseases or disabilities who desperately hope that our laws will be relaxed to allow the exploration of stem cell technology including somatic cell nuclear transfer or SCNT. One of the committee’s 54 recommendations was that somatic cell nuclear transfer be allowed so that Australian scientists can explore the potential benefits of this technology in treating a number of conditions and diseases from Parkinson’s to spinal injuries. Indeed, one of the recommendations to which my colleague referred was in fact the establishment of a stem cell bank and, yes, it was an amendment moved jointly by Senator McLucas and me back in 2002 to that legislation that called for investigation into the applicability of the establishment of a national stem cell bank in this country. I am happy to see that the committee recognised the importance of this concept and recommended its establishment to give researchers access to stem cell lines as well as to expert advice.

The Lockhart panel also strongly recommended public education to improve the community’s understanding of research and stem cell work as well as ART research generally. While there is a degree of public knowledge and support out there, there is a lot more work that could be done. I strongly supported the 2002 legislation, in particular the research involving the embryos act which regulates the use of excess assisted reproductive technology embryos in research. As well, of course, I supported the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002. I believed then as I do now that there are sound reasons to encourage research that may alleviate disease, and that there is an intrinsic value in understanding biological processes such as cell differentiation and regeneration independently of whether or not it yields direct medical applications, and also that a national sound, consistent regulatory framework is required to provide publicly accountable oversight of research on excess ART embryos that otherwise would be allowed to succumb.

Nonetheless, our current regulation is quite conservative in comparison to many other countries, particularly the UK, Israel, Singapore and certainly the US, if you look at private funding which allows so-called therapeutic cloning. I hope that the government will look realistically at these recommendations and I strongly urge them to consider not only responding positively but bringing in legislation to this parliament that will relax legislation to a degree so that we can keep up with the rest of the world in this extraordinary field of science and technology. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.