Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand that it would suit the convenience of the Senate for the proponent of the bill to operate from the government side front bench during the committee stage of the bill. There being no objection, it is so ordered.

Ruth Webber (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to be here today speaking in support of such an important bill, the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. Firstly, I would like to acknowledge the members of the Lockhart committee, whose extensive research and hard work are the reason we are debating this bill today. Secondly, I would like to acknowledge the late Hon. John Lockhart, who led the committee and whose wisdom and experience were absolutely invaluable. I am sure that his wife and his family are very proud of the impact his most recent work will have on Australian research, should this bill be passed. I would also like to acknowledge the people who made up the Lockhart committee: Professor Loane Skene, who, as deputy chair, represents the committee publicly today; Professor Peter Schofield; Associate Professor Ian Kerridge, who provided the Senate inquiry with wise and valuable advice on the first day of our hearings here in Canberra; and Associate Professor Pamela McCombe, who made a thoughtful contribution to our inquiry. She outlined how the evidence presented to the Lockhart review caused her to change her view on many of the recommendations, despite having started from the opposite viewpoint.

Rarely in my time in the Senate have I met a group of people as professional, open minded and compassionate as those who made up the Lockhart committee. Of course, because I am from the great state of Western Australia, I must pay tribute to our very own Nobel laureate, Professor Barry Marshall, who really did take dedication to scientific research to its absolute extreme when he drank a Petri dish full of bacteria. While the Lockhart committee encompassed an incredibly wide range of experience and expertise, I think that probably Professor Marshall can claim credit for being—as far as I know—the only member of the committee who is also a state yo-yo champion.

The members of the Lockhart committee have demonstrated great wisdom in preparing their important report, and, in their continued efforts to have the recommendations of the report understood and implemented, have shown great integrity and commitment to scientific research. That is why I continue to be appalled by those who, because they do not like the recommendations that were made, have tried to attack the character and professionalism of these people. It is a sign of the shaky foundations on which opponents of this bill stand that they must resort to such unfair and unjustified attacks on such a remarkable group of Australians. Meanwhile, it is a great credit to the members of the committee that they have responded to such rude attacks in such a dignified manner.

Members of parliament are being asked to make a very important decision. We are being asked to decide whether we will support a framework that allows and encourages the pursuit of knowledge or whether we will turn the scientific process on its head, demanding proof of discovery before we will allow research to be done and limiting legitimate avenues of research into disease. We have had similar debates in this place before, and the parliament has agreed that the community benefits when we allow experts to do their job rather than imposing our views in areas where we do not have expertise.

The Lockhart committee heard evidence and arguments from a wide range of internationally renowned scientists, jurists and ethicists—all experts in their fields. After six months of investigation, they decided on a set of recommendations that parliament should accept. I believe it would be foolish for any of us to ignore this valuable advice. It is the view of the Lockhart committee and the majority of science based organisations who made submissions to the Senate inquiry that the recommendations within the bill are an important next step in scientific research. Science is ready to move beyond the limits imposed by the 2002 laws, and Australia is at risk of being left behind the international community.

There is a great deal of evidence suggesting that somatic cell nuclear transfer—SCNT or therapeutic cloning, as it is sometimes known—may provide us with valuable information about how diseases develop and may lead to cures for diseases that, for now, remain life threatening. It worries me to hear from people who want to prevent this research on the grounds that it is only potential and not proven. Surely if the results were proven we would not need research. Again, Professor Marshall’s experience provides a fitting example. Almost everyone thought that his hypothesis was misguided, yet he pursued his research and was proved correct. In this instance, we have a large majority of the scientific community in agreement, yet there are still some who say this is not enough support. I sometimes wonder what would be enough.

Opponents also suggest that we do not need this bill because there are other promising avenues for research. This too is unconvincing. While this argument, if true, may carry some weight when research funding is allocated, I cannot support a view that allows people to be put in jail for 10 or 15 years simply on the grounds that they have performed research that is unnecessary. That is not the way science works.

Like most of us in this parliament, including the Minister for Health and Ageing, I do not possess any scientific qualifications. It is therefore dangerous for us to try to pick scientific winners by preventing other avenues of research. We must allow all avenues to be explored. Only then can we be certain that we have found the best answers. Most importantly, this assertion is not correct. Adult and embryonic stem cell research both show potential in different areas. Why should we not allow both to continue side by side, with scientists in each area informing each other’s work? Embryonic stem cell research does not have as long a history as adult stem cell research; therefore, the comparison is not valid. With this in mind, do we really believe that it would be wise to prevent research from happening and to never know what might be discovered?

I also want to talk about morality. This debate has been characterised by opponents of the recommendations as one that is between science and morality. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am sure the overwhelming majority of people who are in support of this research would likewise reject the implication that they are acting against morality. At the moment, the law allows research on excess embryos that have been created in the IVF process and also allows for more embryos than necessary to be created—that is, the law allows the deliberate creation and destruction of embryos for the worthy goal of helping infertile couples to conceive. Is the finding of cures for disease less important than this? I think not.

At the moment, the law allows people who have given fully informed consent to be living donors of tissues, fluids and organs to help save and improve the lives of others. The National Health and Medical Research Council regulates this process and ensures that the proper risk assessment procedure is followed. Is there something about women that somehow makes this process ineffective? Are women in any way less capable of making similar assessments about the donation of ova? Again, I think not.

In the process of creating embryos through assisted reproductive technology, ART, animal eggs are used to test sperm quality to maximise the chances of fertilising an egg. For many years, medicine has used animals to help the sick—for example, through the use of pig valves in human hearts. Is it really sensible to make hyperbolic claims about the use of animal eggs in SCNT, somatic cell nuclear transfer, research? Is this really a quantum leap? While I respect that there are people who do not share the same moral code as me, I reject the claim that there is only one moral view and that the supporters of this view are willing to ignore morality in the pursuit of science. I do not believe that I am alone in subscribing to a moral code that values the finding of cures for diseases to help people to live longer, better lives, but I certainly believe that I am in the majority of people who refuse to insist that everyone live by my particular moral code.

Opponents of the bill have accused its supporters of attempting to confuse and trick people into supporting research by changing the language used. I, for one, do not seek to avoid the word ‘cloning’; however, I believe it is incumbent on us as people with the power to change the direction of Australian research to ensure that the public is well educated about what is really being debated here. The word ‘cloning’ can sometimes bring to mind terrible science fiction types of images. We must therefore seek to distinguish that idea of cloning from what the recommendations of the Lockhart committee actually seek to allow. When opponents argue that cloning is cloning, regardless of whether the purpose is to create embryos for destruction in research or to implant embryos to enable birth, it is they who are being deliberately inaccurate. Cloning, or copying cells, is not the same as cloning for the purposes of creating identical human beings.

Attempts to distinguish between the use of animal eggs for research and the creation of Frankenstein-like people with wings or gills are not because we are trying to be sneaky; they are because opponents of the bill have tried to use the latter to make the former seem frightening and radical. We would not have to spend time clarifying terms and distinguishing meanings if opponents of the recommendations could debate honestly and without exaggeration. If we did not have people such as our very own health minister making absurd claims that are without a scientific basis, we would not have to waste our time getting bogged down in pointless debates about whether we do or do not support the creation of half-man, half-chicken creatures.

I will now address the view that allowing SCNT research to occur would be the beginning of a slippery slope. Firstly, by admitting that they are opposed to this bill on the grounds that it may lead to undesirable consequences, aren’t opponents admitting that the recommendations before us are not intrinsically bad—that they are only bad because of what the results may lead to into the future? Secondly, opponents fail to explain why researchers should be put in prison for doing research, not because it is unethical but because someone may use the research for unethical purposes. It strikes me as somewhat odd that some people think that society could not enforce a ban on reproductive cloning but that it could successfully prohibit research on microscopic organisms. What does such an argument say about their faith in future members of this place?

I, for one, am confident that the community opposition to reproductive cloning will not change if techniques to help cure disease are developed. The desire to cure disease is not new. Throughout history, people have searched for new and better ways to save lives. On the other hand, there is no desire to clone human beings. It is not true that the only thing stopping it from happening is a lack of technology.

Before finalising my remarks, I want to pay tribute to a couple of people who gave evidence to the Senate committee and also to some of my colleagues on this side. I want to place on record my thanks to my Labor colleagues who do not share my view, who perhaps do not share my personal moral code, for the professional, considerate and dignified way that we have conducted our internal debate so far. We are all conscious of giving one another credit for thought and for the particular moral views that we bring to this place, and we have conducted ourselves with a great deal of dignity. I am sure that that will continue throughout this week.

There are two people who made submissions before our committee who I think one cannot help but be moved by. One was Dr Paul Brock. He gave us theological reasons why this bill should be allowed to pass, and he gave us medical and scientific reasons why this bill should be allowed to pass. He finished his submission on a very personal note, and I would like to quote from it:

I do not seek your support for this Bill merely because of my own quite devastating physical crippling nor even on behalf of others struggling to live with this mongrel of a disease.

Nor even just because of what passing this Bill could mean to those of the next-generation yet to be afflicted with—

motor neurone disease—

I believe that my advocacy for this Bill rests on powerful rational argument: it is not founded on pity.

                 …         …           …

So, for a minute or two could I ask you to imagine looking fairly and squarely into the eyes of my 90 year old mother. My 43 year old wife. Our two daughters, Sophie (15) and Millie (11). And, if you would not mind, imagine looking into the eyes of the author of this submission who ten years ago had nothing wrong with him except a slightly weak forearm but who now is completely paralysed—except for two fingers, some neck muscles, and those muscles enabling him still to speak and swallow. Can you really imagine telling us that for you to support a Bill such as this would be wrong?

I mentioned earlier the contribution of Professor McCombe. She was unable to appear before the Senate inquiry but sent us a written submission outlining her thought processes in changing her view on these issues and coming to support the recommendations. She said in conclusion:

My conclusion was that those people who think that there is no moral problem with embryo research should be allowed to carry out this research, and should not be prevented from doing so by the power of the law. Those people who think this research is wrong should be allowed to say so, and to protest against what they believe to be wrong, and those who do not wish to participate in treatments that arise from stem cell research should be allowed to avoid such treatments.

One cannot ask for a more compassionate and ethical framework to guide us than that.

I would like to thank many members of the scientific community, particularly some from the Lockhart committee, for assisting me in my scientific journey of discovery to arrive at this view. As I say, like most members of this parliament, I have no scientific background. I would now regard myself as marginally scientifically literate—and therefore probably in danger of misrepresenting all science. I would like to thank them for their tolerance, their understanding and their commitment to the pursuit of this important research.

I would also like to place on record my thanks to Senator Stott Despoja for the work that she has done in the lead-up to the introduction of this private member’s bill. Whilst it is Senator Patterson’s bill that we are debating today, there is no doubt that it is Senator Stott Despoja’s commitment to advancing the cause of scientific research, the struggle to implement the recommendations of the Lockhart committee and the work she did on the exposure draft for her bill that have more than assisted us in getting to this place today. I think that is something this chamber should recognise.

In conclusion, today we are faced with a very exciting opportunity. We can choose to accept the challenge, to help Australian researchers and scientists remain world leaders in their field and to help find cures for terrible diseases as they have in the past. No, none of us here know for certain where this research will lead us. That is the very nature of scientific discovery. But we must decide now whether we will look to the future and use our vote to support progress or whether we will vote for the past, for the status quo. I hope that members will take on this great responsibility and vote for the rights of future generations to live in a world that is even better than the one we have today.

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

It is a great pleasure to speak early in this debate. I do so as a strong supporter of this technology, in particular somatic cell nuclear transfer. I am a strong supporter of the recommendations contained in the Lockhart review and I am a strong supporter of the bill before us, so I rise in support of the Lockhart report’s recommendations as enshrined in the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 and to encourage senators to pass this legislation that will implement the recommendations of the Lockhart review. Yes, Senator Webber is correct: we have played a role in this process. She was a co-sponsor of my exposure draft for a bill. The bill before us mirrors that private member’s bill, which was the result of many months work. Like Senator Webber, I believe it provided a springboard for the debate that we are having right now.

Scientific endeavour has been an enduring area of interest to me throughout my time in this place. I have been particularly concerned with finding an appropriate balance between allowing the cutting-edge research and technology that we have to prosper and needing to protect our community through effective regulation of scientific activity. For that reason I was particularly interested in the Lockhart review and its recommendations. Indeed, I lobbied the government pretty hard to make sure that they established that review in line with the recommendation of the acts that were passed in 2002. I have argued for a long time for a debate on the recommendations.

I indicated on 24 March this year that if the government failed to provide an opportunity for the parliament to debate those recommendations then I would draft a private member’s bill—famous last words, perhaps. But sure enough we did embark on the long and arduous process of drafting a bill that would actually provide some legislative and policy framework for debate. The exposure draft of that bill permitted the ongoing development of medical and scientific research using stem cells, including the strictly regulated use of somatic cell nuclear transfer, and sought to allow the development of techniques for efficient training and research and improvements in clinical practice in assisted reproductive technology. I always intended that the bill would inform the Senate about how the Lockhart recommendations could be encapsulated in legislation. I also intended it as a catalyst, if you like, for the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs.

I acknowledge a very clear political reality: members of the government in particular and obviously the Prime Minister would prefer to debate a bill initiated by their own side. Senator Webber and I have agreed therefore not to table a final draft of our bill. We are supporting Senator Patterson’s bill, which is before us today. But I am proud of the role that the Democrats played in this process and in bringing the debate about and I am happy to see that the original bill provided a bit of a basis. I have indicated that Senator Webber and I will move some amendments where we think that our bill may be preferable. But we will still keep to the integrity of the Lockhart recommendations. There is not a difference of opinion here; we support the bill before us. The Prime Minister’s decision to grant a conscience vote on this issue was a welcome one and was no doubt in recognition of the burgeoning support for this technology and the changing attitudes within our community since the original debates in 2002. Now it is up to the parliament to accept, to reject or even to amend the clauses in the bill.

I acknowledge that this is not just a scientific debate; it is an ethical debate as well. I understand that there will be some senators who are strong supporters of the bill and some senators who are strong opponents of the bill, and I suspect that there are some senators who are in between. I respect the right of senators to make a decision that feels ethically correct and comfortable for them. However, I would ask those senators who came to this debate without strong views either way to please understand that there has been a lot of disinformation peddled regarding the abilities and the motives of the proponents of this research, including the Lockhart committee, and Senator Webber has touched on that. I hope that they will recognise that there has been disinformation and I hope that they will take that on board and recognise the context in which it was put forward.

Virtually all people who oppose this bill are ethically opposed to the research. That is okay—I can completely accept that people have different beliefs. What I find hard to accept on occasions is that some of those who are opposed to this legislation have attempted at times to use scaremongering or bad science to try and convince others. I am less comfortable with that. I am sure that in this debate you will hear arguments, specifically from opponents of this bill, that this bill will allow the use of human eggs in the research and that this will cause unacceptable risks to women. You may hear that adult stem cells can do everything that embryonic stem cells can do, and possibly more. You may even hear that nothing has changed since the original acts were passed in 2002 and that therefore we cannot justify a change in the legislation. You may hear that the Lockhart review was biased in favour of allowing the research, or that their research was sloppy in reaching the conclusions in their report. You will hear that this bill will start us down a slippery slope towards reproductive cloning, and who knows what else.

The Lockhart legislation review was charged with investigating the scope and the operation of the 2002 acts, taking into account a number of terms of reference, including:

... developments in medical research and scientific research and the potential therapeutic applications of such research;

Some opponents of this technology claim that there have been insufficient developments since 2002 in the embryonic research field specifically. This is misleading. Research using embryonic stem cells is in its infancy. It has been going for eight years, compared to the 50 years of research using adult stem cells. To claim that we have not seen enough development to justify legally regulating somatic cell nuclear transfer is disingenuous. This is not a field of rapidly realised cures and quick fixes. It takes time; it takes investment. Importantly, it takes a supportive legislative framework—albeit one that is strictly regulated. I see somatic cell nuclear transfer as a tool which will help Australian researchers better understand the development of some of our most intractable diseases and hopefully down the track find cures to defeat them.

The Lockhart committee conducted a literature review which provided examples of developments in research using embryonic stem cells, albeit mostly at the preclinical stage—nobody denies that. It revealed that animal embryonic stem cells have differentiated into insulin producing beta cells. Mouse embryonic stem cells injected into rats with spinal damage differentiated into neural cell types which improved function. There has been research into Parkinson’s disease, in which dopaminergic neurons in the brain are destroyed. That is a very active area of research. This has shown that mouse embryonic stem cells have the ability to differentiate into these neurons, potentially providing a source of new cells. Time magazine recently reported the progress of scientist Lorenz Studer, who has differentiated embryonic stem cells into:

... just about every cell type affected by Parkinson’s disease and has transplanted them into rats and improved their mobility.

United States biotech company Geron is apparently close to seeking permission to conduct the first human trials using embryonic stem cells to create cells that produce neurons. Other developments have been highlighted during the Senate committee inquiry into this legislation, and I encourage senators, particularly those who may have doubts about the amount of progress that has been made since 2002, to please have a look at that committee inquiry.

Some have lauded the seemingly less controversial adult stem cell research area as the way to go, claiming that advances in this area have made embryonic stem cell research redundant. Indeed; no-one denies that adult stem cell research is a promising field of stem cell science. It excites me to say that. However, we should be wary of advocating one type of research over the other, particularly at this early stage. Each has its strengths and its weaknesses. For example, it is widely accepted that embryonic stem cells are able to more widely differentiate into different types of cells. That is the science. I think that is an accepted part of this debate. Embryonic stem cells also have the unlimited capacity to keep dividing, which of course can tell scientists incredibly useful things about the cellular ageing process. Embryonic stem cells created through the use of techniques such as somatic cell nuclear transfer can facilitate the creation of disease-specific stem cells which will hopefully assist in investigating cures and causes.

While I note that individual scientists, particularly those who gave evidence to the committee, have their individual beliefs, it is interesting to note that the two peak scientific bodies that attended the committee hearings in Canberra—the Australian Academy of Science and the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies—both called for research into embryonic and adult stem cells. Rather than seeing embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells as competing fields, we should see them as entirely complementary. It may well come to pass that research into embryonic stem cells, particularly somatic cell nuclear transfer, will help us to understand and improve the therapies actually using adult stem cells. As Professor Peter Rathjen, Dean of the Faculty of Science at Melbourne University and an internationally recognised stem cell researcher—whom we enjoyed having at the University of Adelaide for a while—said:

You need to understand how science progresses. It doesn’t progress with a single step that means that you suddenly have cures. It moves incrementally towards a goal, and you gradually put in place bits of the jigsaw and solve various technical problems that are required.

In relation to the Lockhart review, the 2002 acts included a provision that the laws be reviewed by an independent committee following three years of operation. The Lockhart review was not instigated by the scientists; it was in fact enshrined in the original legislation. The Lockhart review was appointed by the government. The legislation review was chaired by the late former Federal Court judge the Hon. Justice John Lockhart AO, QC.

Unlike some in this chamber, I do not consider the Lockhart review to be a sloppy process. They conducted an exhaustive, independent review of the laws over six months, with hearings in the states and territories. The committee analysed 1,035 submissions, met with a range of scientists and researchers and other stakeholders and conducted an exhaustive literature review. I pay tribute—as did Senator Webber—to that panel and, in particular, to Justice Lockhart. He was held in very high esteem by those in the legal and scientific communities and he made a critical contribution to this debate on stem cell research. I also acknowledge his wife Juliet and thank her for her kind words, particularly in recent times.

Perhaps the best argument against those who state that the Lockhart review was biased in favour of somatic cell nuclear transfer before the review even started is a letter from Dr Pamela McCombe entitled ‘Why I changed my mind about stem cell research’. As you heard from Senator Webber, Dr McCombe tabled that letter at the committee hearing on 20 October. Dr McCombe was in fact a sceptic of embryonic stem cell research when she joined the legislation review committee, but her participation in the review led her to conclude:

Those people who think that there is no moral problem with embryo research should be allowed to carry out that research and should not be prevented from doing so by the power of the law. Those people who think the research is wrong should be allowed to say so and to protest against what they believe to be wrong. And those who do not wish to participate in the treatments that arise from stem cell research should be allowed to avoid such treatments.

It should be made very clear that this bill does not propose any relaxation of the prohibition of human reproductive cloning. Senator Patterson’s bill makes that clear, as did Senator Webber’s and my exposure draft. Although I am one of the strongest supporters of the science that would be enabled by this bill, I have always opposed and will continue to oppose human reproductive cloning. Part of the reason that we have enshrined this in law was thanks to the pressure applied by people such as former Senator Brian Harradine, me and some others. That is clear in this bill—so don’t anyone suggest that a slippery slope is enabled by this legislation or legislation that I and others have put forward.

Opponents of somatic cell nuclear transfer have further warned that legislation of this type may lead to the commoditisation of human eggs. It is important to note that this bill—as did mine—maintains the current prohibition on the sale of human eggs, sperm and embryos. This is another slippery-slope argument—that, if we allow this bill to pass, it will not be long before women are offered financial incentives to donate eggs. Many of us in this place have been advocates for women’s issues, and we will continue to be. I acknowledge that there are risks involved in egg donation—it is an invasive and risky procedure—but I believe that this bill allows women to make an informed choice to donate their eggs for research if they choose to do so. There are a number of reasons that women may want to donate their eggs for research, and they should be allowed to do so. If it turns out that the supply of eggs is too limited for the science, my thoughts would echo those of Professor Peter Schofield of the Lockhart committee who said, ‘Tough!’

For opponents to suggest that we should not pass this bill because of what might happen or what might be sought in the future is ludicrous. We must consider the legislation and the research before it at this point in time. Around the world somatic cell nuclear transfer is a widely accepted technique for progressing stem cell research. It is not a radical agenda. Countries like the UK, the US, Singapore, Israel, Belgium, Japan, Spain, China and Sweden all permit this process. I acknowledge the difference in the US between privately and publicly funded research, but it is still allowed. We risk losing more of our best and brightest scientists if they feel thwarted from pursuing such cutting edge technology. And peak bodies fear that attracting foreign researchers will be difficult, too, if we continue to have a restrictive and uncertain research environment, which would be the case if we do not pass this legislation.

Whether or not this technology will be progressed is beyond dispute. And if it does not happen here, it will happen elsewhere. Unless opponents are suggesting that we ban all imports of therapies derived using somatic cell nuclear transfer then Australians may well ultimately benefit from this technology, regardless of what happens here. But do we not want to be part of this? Do we not want to invest in the potential and the hope that it presents us with? At stake is whether or not we want our research community to play the role that they are able to in this. If we allow this bill to pass, we can ensure that Australians benefit not only from the outcome but from the knowledge that is gained in the process and the increased speed with which progress may come about if Australia’s innovative prowess is allowed to be brought to bear on this challenge.

In the absence of federal government action on the Lockhart review’s recommendations, the Victorian and Queensland state governments have indicated that they may go it alone—they will legislate to permit somatic cell nuclear transfer. I believe a nationally consistent framework that permits research using somatic cell nuclear transfer is necessary and preferable. If we fail to broker such legislation now, we run the risk of yet again relying on inconsistent and widely varying state laws, as we did prior to 2002. The legislation being debated today gives us the opportunity to foster scientific innovation and discovery in addition to potentially providing treatments and cures—although they may be a long way off—for Australians.

As the Australian Democrats science and biotechnology spokesperson, I have come into contact with many people for whom stem cell research offers hope. Like all senators, I am sure, I have received a lot of correspondence and emails. It is critical that the potential of such therapies is not overestimated. I understand the need to be realistic. We have to allow for realistic time frames for therapeutic application to be made. But it is also essential that we allow for the potential for this to be explored. I am not suggesting that we should be unrealistic, but I believe it would be unethical not to invest in this research and the technology and possible clinical application that it will bring. I am a strong supporter of this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support the Lockhart recommendations being enshrined in law.

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I had the privilege of chairing the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs during its recent inquiry into the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. The committee’s report was tabled last week, and I hope as many of our colleagues as possible have had the chance to read it in that time.

Senators will be aware that the community affairs committee has been especially busy over the last year on a succession of references, each with a vexing and controversial moral dimension: the abortion drug RU486, the transparent advertising of pregnancy counselling services and, most recently, the cloning of human embryos for scientific research. For me, however, this last inquiry was the most challenging, the most far-reaching and the most disturbing. It was disturbing in that this legislation, the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006, redefines the ethical boundaries of Australian science more fundamentally than any decision of this parliament in recent memory.

Let me dwell on that point for a moment. It would dismay me if any senators were to sit this one out and, for the sake of other priorities, not seriously address the intellectual questions that are raised. Let me assure such senators, if they exist, that the cloning of human embryos for research, if permitted by this parliament, will generate many more debates in the future around the nature of the brave new world we have entered. It is an issue to which we will need to return again and again, with ever more complex legislative responses, as the manipulation of the human genetic sequence raises more and more intriguing and surprising possibilities.

The proponents of this branch of science believe that this line of research can lead to the discovery of cures for a host of diseases in human beings. Its opponents argue that such research around the world has to date produced no such cures, that conceptually the process cannot produce the results promised and that, even if it could, the research comes at a considerable price—that is, the destruction of human life at its earliest stage. There is no dispute that every Australian and every senator in this place wishes to see diseases like diabetes and leukaemia defeated. Nor is there any dispute about whether embryonic stem cell research should take place. That debate was held in 2002, and the research has been taking place under the current legislative regime.

The crux of this debate and, in fact, the sole question that we face in this debate is whether this parliament will authorise and enshrine in legislation the bringing forth of human life—human embryos created through cloning, in other words—in order that those human lives can be used and then destroyed in research. The proponents of the amending bills do not and cannot point to any principle upon which this parliament can or should amend the legislative regime that has been put in place since the detailed inquiry and debates in 2002. I believe there is no principle that can justify the creation of human life in order to destroy it. But I accept that there are many senators who do not share my views about when life begins. Those senators do not equate a clump of human cells rapidly dividing in a test tube to a human being replete with rights, and I accept that the gulf between those two perspectives is probably unbridgeable.

To those senators, however, I address a further concern that I ask them to carefully ponder. Let us suppose this legislation passes and becomes law and in a few short years time, while those senators are still sitting in this place, the cloning scientists come back again and say, ‘Our research hasn’t produced the miracle cures yet, but that’s because we’ve discovered that we need to extend the life of the embryos we’re experimenting on from 14 to 28 days before destroying them in order to find the answers we need.’ What do we say to those requests? How do we distinguish between the value of an embryo at 14 days and that of one at 28 days of life—by how it looks?

Let me add a further variation on this conundrum. Scientists announce that in this not-too-distant future scenario it is possible to clone an embryo from a person with a diseased kidney, lung or eye and grow that embryo to the foetus stage, where its genetically identical kidney, eye or lung can be harvested to be transplanted into the sick donor. All that stands in our way, the scientists say, is for parliament to further extend the period during which cloned human organisms can be kept alive. And, of course, as you would understand, there quickly appears a lobby of Australians who would benefit from this great advance who clamour for parliament to do just that.

What would we say to such a clamour—that creating human embryos to become spare parts for other human beings is wrong? Indeed, I am sure we would. But what do we then say when the scientists respond: ‘But, Senator, you gave us the right in 2006 to create human embryos for the therapeutic benefit of other human beings. What we now propose is a difference of degree but not of concept.’ And, of course, they would be right. What response can there be to that argument, for in fact at that point it would be evident to anybody that the clear ethical boundary we seek will be behind us, not in front of us? We will have passed the point of no return.

The House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics, in 1994, stated the obvious fact:

Issues of life and death do not lend themselves to clear definition ... to create an exception to the general prohibition of intentional killing would inevitably open the way to its further erosion whether by design, by inadvertence, or by the human tendency to test the limits of any regulation.

Indeed, what was stark in the evidence before the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs was the inability or unwillingness of those advocating therapeutic cloning, including the scientists actually wanting to conduct it, to explain the proper ethical limits of this research. Some even tried to deny that somatic cell nuclear transfer was cloning. This uncertainty was highlighted by Professor Kerridge of the Lockhart committee, who admitted that the proper limits of scientific inquiry may indeed change in the future as so-called community standards change.

Professor Alan Trounson, a high-profile proponent of therapeutic cloning, typified the difficulty in leaving the setting of these limits to scientists themselves when, in commenting on the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill 1985, he said:

I would do anything to cure disease ... I don’t care if it is a floodgate. If it opens an opportunity to treat really serious disease and disabilities it is all right with me.

I respect Professor Trounson’s enthusiasm, but I cannot respect his ‘whatever it takes’ attitude. It is our job as parliamentarians to look over the horizon and determine where a less regulated approach to scientific inquiry might lead. We do not allow journalists to write the laws of defamation or company directors to decide the rules on insider trading. Similarly, it cannot be left to scientists to decide what experiments they can conduct on human beings.

I believe the balance struck by all sides of the Australian parliament in 2002 was right. That approach did allow embryonic stem cell research to be conducted in Australia, and indeed it is being conducted today. Not only does this legislation unravel that consensus in a way which will be deeply divisive, not just in the broader community but in the scientific one as well, but it sets us on a path for many more such debates as new and problematic applications of this technology give rise to ethical dilemmas which it will fall on this parliament to resolve. Are our moral compasses ready to deal with these complex questions? I very much doubt it. Let me make the prediction that, if this bill passes, we will again, during the political life of many present senators, be considering legislation to further widen the scope of this area of scientific research and it will not get any easier the more times we do it.

I want to respond to a number of claims supporters of this legislation have made in the course of the community affairs committee inquiry. Proponents of the bill have suggested that there is a distinction between an embryo created by the fusion of sperm and egg and an embryo created by cloning. The implication of this claim seems to be that a cloned embryo is not quite as human as a naturally fertilised one, so destroying it after experimentation is not quite as bad. Of course, the techniques or processes for bringing it into existence are different. The result, however, is the same: it is a human embryo. That was readily acknowledged by the members of the Lockhart committee. Professor Skene, the deputy chair of the Lockhart committee, said to the community affairs committee:

Other people have said to us that what we are talking about today, a somatic cell nuclear transfer embryo, is better not being called an embryo. We did not shy away from calling it an embryo because it is conceivable, as happened with Dolly the sheep, that if that entity were put into a woman, after a lot of care, it could in fact develop into a foetus. So we did call it an embryo.

That makes it quite clear that an embryo created by somatic cell nuclear transfer is not an artificial entity that can only exist in a Petri dish. It has real potential for independent human existence. After all, it was this very process that led to the birth of Dolly the sheep—a real sheep, albeit a very sick one.

Another contentious proposition is that there will be no cures for a host of debilitating diseases unless therapeutic cloning is permitted in Australia. There was a great deal of evidence before the committee concerning the potential of adult versus embryonic stem cells as the source of cures for diseases. In terms of runs on the board, it did seem to me that the evidence before the committee suggested very strongly that adult stem cell research was a long way ahead of embryonic stem cells, taking into account overseas research, where the position between the two technologies is more ‘competitive’. Adult stem cells are already being used in 80 therapies around the world. In the United States there are more than 1,200 Food and Drug Administration approved clinical trials in relation to adult stem cells.

There are no clinical trials in relation to human embryonic stem cells. Even the Lockhart review observed that, to date, human embryonic stem cell research:

… has not reached the stage needed to start clinical trials (ie proof of principle of a safe and efficacious treatment in animal models).

There was significant medical evidence from researchers and clinicians to similar effect given to the Senate community affairs committee.

Much of the evidence put to the committee in support of the value of adult stem cell research was in fact acknowledged by the proponents of cloning. It was argued by some witnesses that adult stem cells are safer than human embryonic stem cells. They avoid all of the immune-rejection and immune-suppression problems associated with human embryonic stem cells. They are safer also because they are much less prone to the incidence of volatile cancer formation that currently afflicts human embryonic stem cell research. Another argument put to the committee was that there simply will not be enough embryos to pursue embryonic stem cell research unless we clone more. A large supply of eggs and embryos are needed, so the case goes, for these lifesaving cures to be found, and cloning is the only path for that to occur.

The NHMRC confirmed that, as at 31 December 2003, there were 104,830 embryos in frozen storage in Australia—presumably there are more today. These are left over from fertility treatment processes. However, under the regulatory regime established in 2002, the licensing committee has issued just nine licences pursuant to which embryos have been made available for research. Of these nine licences, five have been issued in relation to fertility treatment. The NHMRC has confirmed that only one licence is directed at treating a specific medical condition. There is a striking disjunction between, on the one hand, claims about the need for access to embryos so that embryonic stem cells can be procured and research conducted to relieve disease and, on the other, the fact that only one licence has been issued for such a purpose.

This led the committee to quite reasonably ask: with over 100,000 embryos available for research, how many embryos have actually been used across all areas under the current legislative regime? The answer from the NHMRC was just 178—out of 100,000 embryos. Less than one-tenth of one per cent of those embryos have been used. If embryonic stem cells are the miracle weapons to fight diseases that the proponents of the bill claim they are, why so few licences? Why only one licence to research disease and why such a small number of embryos used to date? Something does not quite stack up.

Another point that was put to the committee was that the scientific community overwhelmingly backs embryonic stem cell research and cloning for that purpose. I concede that the majority of scientific umbrella organisations did back this bill, but I dispute that those witnesses who oppose it can be painted as the lunatic fringe. The committee heard emphatic testimony challenging this legislation from the likes of Professor John Martin, Emeritus Professor of Medicine at the University of Melbourne, and Professor Alan Mackay-Sim, the director of the Eskitis Institute for Cell and Molecular Therapies at Griffith University. The opinions of such people cannot be dismissed lightly. They are respected leaders in their fields. The reality is that there is fierce dispute within the scientific community, both here and abroad, about this technology, and passing this bill will not end that. The respected British journal of medicine the Lancet put it this way in 2001:

... given the large supply of discarded embryos that is available ... the creation of embryos solely for the purpose of producing human stem cells is not only unnecessary but also a step too far.

With this legislation, we stand at the threshold of a place we have not been before. I put it to the Senate that if we pass through this doorway we will inevitably be drawn to explore every room in this house, whether that enriches us as human beings or not. We can already guess what exists in some rooms, because science has taken us there in a theoretical sense: splicing the genome of human beings to enhance some characteristics and suppress others, creating organisms with more than two parents, genetically redesigning our children to suit our tastes and our pockets and creating hybrids of humans and animals for the supply of human spare parts. And when the entrances of those rooms are reached, the imploring arguments of those pioneering these developments will be the same as they are today: that science must have the right to discover what lies beyond our knowledge and that therapeutic gains outweigh any ethical considerations. Former US Chief Justice Earl Warren said:

In civilised life, law floats on a sea of ethics.

We take laws out of that environment at our peril. This legislation dramatically departs from the ethical framework which the parliament unanimously acknowledged just four years ago. Indeed, it proceeds without any clear indication of what its ethical parameters concerning therapeutic cloning actually are. What is the ethical justification for choosing 14 days as opposed to 28 days? If that sort of question has not been answered, what prevents that boundary being extended incrementally into the future? We will be taking a very large step if we pass this legislation. The question is not: do we accept that life can be terminated at this stage after 14 days? The question is, really: is it okay to destroy one form of human life for the benefit of another?

If we accept that the therapeutic possibility exists, we must countenance the many circumstances in which that might occur. I do not believe the parliament has been fully apprised of those possibilities and those implications in putting this legislation forward today. I ask senators to consider very carefully where this legislation leaves the Australian community and to reject this legislation because of the many uncertainties that surround it.

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Science and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I concur with the comments made by Senator Humphries in his contribution on the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 that this legislation raises as many questions as it answers. We are debating here a choice not between science and ethics but between science that is ethically responsible and science that is not. Cloning involves the destruction of human life, and the thrust of this bill is that such destruction might one day prove to be of possible benefit to others, but to reproduce human life in a depersonalised way, in a laboratory, for the purpose of killing that life indiscriminately is to reduce it to a mere means and an instrument of other people’s wishes. It is exploitation and it can never be justified, no matter what putative benefits might be claimed for humanity in doing so.

As Senator Humphries said, much of the argument about this bill concerns the language that is being used. Let us just call an embryo an embryo and killing killing. Substituting meaningless terms or unfamiliar acronyms does not help the debate. Before we change the legislation on a conflicted issue such as this, we need more information about it and a better understanding of it. Our country’s interests are best served by well-informed legislators and policy makers and a well-educated public. There needs to be more clarity and a common understanding about the science and technology of stem cell research, even among scientists, and more understanding of and respect for the costs and risks of embarking on such a treacherous track.

I have said before in this place that I approach every piece of legislation with the same questions: what is the intent of the bill and what are its consequences? The consequences of this bill are such that I cannot support it. From a moral position, I am firmly opposed to the bill. However, there are many other reasons why, as legislators, we must not proceed down this path. The science of embryonic stem cell research is unproven and unsafe. However, embryonic stem cell research is exciting for scientists for several reasons. These cells can be propagated almost indefinitely under laboratory conditions. They can be easily genetically modified and, in principle, can be induced to differentiate into a desired cell type. However, making the embryonic stem cell convert into a specialist cell is not straightforward, and it is certainly not predictable. We hear a lot about possible cures for juvenile diabetes, for instance, but cells like the insulin-making cells of the pancreas have proved to be extremely hard to grow, and scientists believe that current islet research will provide a cure for this crippling disease, so we do not have to pin our hopes on cloned embryonic stem cells.

I am all for research that helps us to understand and arrest a disease process, but the fact is that, despite all the hype and all the media, after 20 years of research there are currently no approved treatments that have been obtained using embryonic stem cells. Why have those stem cells not been used to treat people? Because, as Senator Humphries said, there is no evidence in principle of their efficacy. They are unproven and unsafe. They have been shown to produce tumours, to cause transplant rejection and to form the wrong kinds of cells. The simple fact is that nobody knows whether embryonic stem cells will yield successful treatments or not. So, to find out and overcome the problems encountered so far, there would need to be a lot more experimentation. That is what this bill is asking us to approve, which, to my mind, is research of questionable scientific merit.

It is important to examine the practical considerations that this bill raises, and the first of those is the provision of human ova. A large supply of human eggs will be required for this. For example, to treat 1,000 patients would require in the order of 50,000 to 100,000 human eggs. Collecting 10 eggs per donor, for example, would require a cohort of 5,000 to 10,000 women. Think of the cost of harvesting those eggs, both in dollar terms and, of course importantly, in terms of women’s health. I was pleased that Senator Stott Despoja acknowledged that there are risks to women’s health in harvesting their eggs for stem cell research.

We heard of plenty of evidence at the inquiry of the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs that the process of harvesting a woman’s eggs for stem cells places that woman at risk. In order to obtain women’s cells, superovulation regimes or the higher dose hormone therapies used in fertility treatments would be applied, with subsequent health risks. While there is some debate about the degree of risk involved, there is none about the fact that there is risk involved. A growing body of evidence shows that these practices, when used for standard IVF treatments, can cause a wide spectrum of problems, including memory loss, seizure, stroke, infertility, cancer and even death.

So there are two issues to consider here. There is the extent to which superovulation used in IVF programs has been greatly decreased as developments in ART have moved to what is called ‘minimum stimulation’ and a necessity for fewer ova. As the availability of so-called ‘excess eggs’ decreases—despite the fact that there are over 100,000 eggs still in storage—the options of researchers become limited and lead to a dilemma: more eggs are needed for research but fewer are required for ART. Where are those eggs now going to come from?

Should women be put at risk to produce more eggs than either nature or their particular choice of ART intended, or should there be commercial inducements for women to produce excess eggs knowingly for research purposes? Some people might think that the latter choice sounds like futuristic fiction, but that is exactly what is happening, right now—not, as you might fear, in the underdeveloped world but in the UK. In July this year, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority in the UK issued a licence to the North East England Stem Cell Institute allowing it to offer a 50 per cent discount on IVF treatment to women who were willing to donate ova for embryonic stem cell research. So the commercial exploitation of women is another ethical issue that we as legislators must be aware of and be prepared for.

We know that over the course of her reproductive years a woman releases about 400 ripe eggs. Given that at puberty a woman has approximately 300,000 ova, the crude arithmetic suggests that her surplus requirements are in the order of 750 to one. Researchers told us they prefer fresh ova to frozen ones, as these often die, so there will inevitably be financial pressure on women, particularly poor women, to sell their eggs for experimental purposes.

But ultimately the issue is not about whether the eggs are gathered from women who are paid or from those who give them altruistically or from women who are forced to give them or from cadavers, which is also being proposed. The practice of using them for cloning purposes is just not acceptable. The Australian parliament came to this decision in 2002, and nothing has happened to change that. One thing that has happened to reinforce that 2002 decision, however, is that the Lockhart report has upped the ante to include interspecies fertilisation. The Lockhart committee suggests:

... under limited circumstances, human-animal hybrid or chimeric embryos could be used, under licence, for preliminary investigations of nuclear transfer technologies.

Why would they want to allow such practice even under the strictest guidelines: because it would solve the problem caused by ‘the need for human egg donation’. Oh, what a tangled web—we find a way out of one ethical dilemma by creating another, and it is all done in the interests of the pursuit of knowledge!

And what about recommendation 28 of the Lockhart report? This goes even further, approving for research the use of embryos which have more than two genetic parents—under licence, of course, and in order ‘to advance knowledge and investigate specific diseases and conditions’. The justification offered for this kind of activity is of course research—the curiosity factor—hence the distinction is made between so-called ‘therapeutic’ cloning and the ‘reproductive’ cloning, which opens up the possibility of genetically engineered human beings. A clone is a clone is a clone and neither language nor semantics can disguise that fact.

To an educated and intelligent audience, such as we have here, it might seem alarmist and sensationalist to bring up the matter of genetically engineered human beings. But while we may find the idea of human clones unthinkable and abhorrent, we should be aware that there are individuals—other than the discredited Korean researcher—such as Severino Antinori in Rome, and several organisations including Clonaid and Human Cloning, that are totally committed to this end. This is not just in the realms of science fiction. And the technology which would allow them to clone embryos for therapeutic reasons can equally be applied to reproductive cloning. A cloned embryo is an embryo and once the technology is there it can be used to create life. We need look no further than the Dolly the sheep exercise to see that this is fundamentally true. And it has been done. Experimentation with human beings is not just confined to the fictional world of Dr Frankenstein, or George Orwell’s 1984, or the Brave New World of Aldous Huxley. For those who say that could not happen these days, I ask you to think about some of the other inconceivable things that are happening these days at the hands of so-called educated and enlightened people—for example, people being imprisoned for years without trial and people being tortured in the name of democracy. I do not really need to go on. There are scientists who oppose reproductive cloning but who nevertheless believe that it is inevitable. Why should we as legislators be more optimistic than these professionals? It is our duty to ensure that cloning does not happen by enshrining that in law.

There is another issue that raised huge concerns in my mind during the Senate inquiry, and that was the issue around oversight and monitoring. There are those who argue that the cloning techniques would be safe from such abuse because they would be strictly monitored. Senator Patterson is confident that we can go down this path because, as she said in the committee hearing:

... there will be strict guidelines the NHMRC will put in place.

I have two problems with this. Firstly, the NHMRC evidence to the inquiry did not give me a great deal of confidence. We heard that the NHMRC has not met to consider the implications of the Lockhart bill on its resources or its mandate despite the fact that the Lockhart report was tabled last year. Secondly, guidelines have no value unless they can be enforced. The NHMRC has neither the capacity nor the power to ensure those guidelines are followed, nor does it have any rights to act if it finds the guidelines have been ignored. Are we seriously being asked to envision NHMRC staff descending like health inspectors on various laboratories? Will they be expected to see immediately what is going on and seize any offending Petri dish? The NHMRC’s submission to the Lockhart review highlighted the tensions around accreditation and licensing of ART centres and where their responsibilities lie. There is no registration and licensing system with proper enforcement powers, and there are no plans for one. So I cannot see how the government can ensure that, if embryonic stem cell cloning techniques were developed here, they would not be abused. We are being asked to put our faith and trust in scientists and in doing so we are abrogating our responsibility as legislators.

We need to support the alternative viable options. We can do this without dashing the hopes of people who suffer debilitating illnesses. Remember that there are three sources of stem cells. As well as embryonic stem cells there are adult stem cells and neonatal cord blood stem cells. What the advocates of embryonic cloning do not publicise is the fact that we do not need embryonic stem cell research. Treatments that do not require the destruction of human life are at least as promising as any approach using embryonic stem cells.

Adult stem cells can be readily obtained, usually from the bone marrow of patients. They have been used clinically about 30,000 times, so claims made about their effectiveness or otherwise are based on evidence, not dreams. It is a fallacy that adult stem cells are unlikely to be as effective. They have some disadvantages—that is true. There are risks to the donor during extraction; there is significant risk of transmission of infectious disease from donor to recipient; and these cells are, at present, more difficult to propagate en masse under laboratory conditions. The fact that they have the potential for fewer divisions is also seen as a major limitation to their use.

On the plus side, fewer divisions may be advantageous from a safety point of view because it reduces the chances of inadvertent stem cell proliferation in a part of the body where it is not desired. When taken from the patient, there is no problem with rejection. A positive finding from many years experience in bone marrow transplantation is that adult stem cells are not prone to teratoma formation and they appear to retain their self-replicating capacity while contributing to tissue development or regeneration.

Thousands of lives have been saved by adult stem cells. Campaigns that divert attention and resources away from adult stem cell research to focus on embryonic stem cell research run a real danger of slowing down and even stopping the progress toward cures that is being made in this field. They also draw attention away from the discoveries and success achieved using neonatal cord blood stem cells. More than 6,000 patients and 66 diseases have been successfully treated with stem cells from cord blood. They too have many advantages: they can become many different tissue types; they have the capacity for many cell divisions; they involve no donor risks; and they cause less graft versus host disease, in which the donor cells attack the tissue of the patient’s body, than adult bone marrow stem cells. So let us not turn away from this progress in our pursuit of new goals by methods which are unacceptable and for results which are unknowable.

In areas of public policy, the precautionary principle is used where there are deep differences of opinion. I believe what is needed here is a precautionary principle. Why the need to hurry down this path? I have thousands of emails and letters from Australians who do not want to legalise destructive embryonic research because it is destroying life—I have to say I do not have thousands of emails from people imploring me to support this legislation. Adult and cord blood stem cells create potential for regenerative medicine in the future. Even if the research on embryonic stem cells were successful, it is never acceptable to use a good end to justify an evil means. Cloning commodifies human tissue and endangers human life. I believe that as legislators we must say no to the bill now before there is no turning back. Senator Humphries in his comments started us thinking about where we go if we start down this path. It is an issue that is being reflected in many of the pieces of correspondence that I have been receiving over the last few weeks about this bill.

I think there are some people that need to be acknowledged in all of this: the unsung heroes of course are the secretariat staff who deal with the complexities of this kind of legislation. I want to place on the record the thanks of the Senate to the secretariat, particularly to Elton Humphery for the work that he has done, and to the witnesses for the quality of the submissions on both sides of the debate, because the public engaged in debate on this legislation.

As a final word of caution, Senators Polley, Hogg and I made some additional comments which are contained in the report. We believe that, despite all the evidence we heard from witnesses on both sides of the debate, this debate is about crossing an ethical line. Deliberately creating or cloning human embryos expressly for destruction in order to obtain stem cells for a wide range of research should not be possible, and we condemn this legislation for proposing that.

Kerry Nettle (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is the second debate on stem cells that I have been involved in in this parliament and I am pleased to see that so far people in their contributions have managed to remain calm and reasonably rational. My recollection of four years ago was that there was some pretty passionate debate. It is good to be passionate but it is important that we respect that people have different and legitimate views on this issue.

For those people who oppose the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006, one of the primary drivers is a view about when human life starts. I do not share the view of many who oppose this legislation that every egg, every sperm and every embryo is a human being. I think that everyone who is involved in this debate, as well as the legislation and the Lockhart review, recognises that human embryos have special status. Indeed, the whole basis behind this legislation is that it sets up a special regulatory regime which has a ban on using egg-sperm embryos for research. It has limits on how long research on embryos can proceed for. It has got bans on the implantation of research embryos into women and it has a continued prohibition on therapeutic cloning. All of those are measures that recognise that human embryos have a form of special status. This point has been made clearly by the members of the Lockhart review.

Central to the view of people who support the legislation is that embryonic stem cell research may offer possibilities for treatment of disease that will help people. The submission of the members of the Lockhart review to the Senate inquiry talks about the need to care for the sick and vulnerable and the wishes of individuals as also being morally important.

It is important to be realistic about any successes that come from this research, and I am pleased that the scientists I have heard speaking about this issue have been realistic. The deputy chair of the Lockhart review said when she was at the Canberra hearings that members of the committee have been very careful to say that the community should be fully educated on how long it takes for this kind of research to develop. She said:

It is not going to be us or our children; it is going to be our grandchildren by the time the research is done.

A number of scientists who appeared before the Senate committee looking into this legislation talked about the process of scientific discovery being a continual journey. It goes in stop-start methods and it means sometimes you just do not know if there is a significant breakthrough around the corner. A number of scientists talked about almost daily new developments that are happening in the area of stem cell research. The Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies in their submission to the Senate inquiry noted:

… the high level of research activity and publication in stem cell and related sciences and believes it is premature to close off research options or make determinations on what approaches—eg adult and embryonic stem cell research—will be the most useful …

One of the witnesses that the Senate committee heard from was Professor Phil Waite from the University of New South Wales, whose research group is comparing the effectiveness of adult and embryonic stem cells in repairing spinal injury. She described her research as being unique in Australia and, she thought, internationally. She spoke about the fact that a lot of laboratories have an interest in a particular type of stem cell research, whether it be embryonic or adult, and have expertise in that particular area, and that, quite frequently, their funding is linked to a recognition by the broader community that they are achieving milestones and breakthroughs in that area of research—thereby highlighting the possibility that many of the people who are advocates for research of a particular cell type do so because it enables them to get funding for their research. That is what is unique about her research: she is funded to look at which cells are more effective when it comes to spinal cord injury. This is what she told the committee about the area that she is looking at:

… it is clear that differentiation of embryonic cells and their effectiveness is leading the field. Adult cells have been tried. Adult cells taken directly from the adult are not effective. Adult cells de-differentiated to become progenitor cells are much less effective than the embryonic cells and to be effective have to be put in with other trophic factors.

She was saying that, just in her area of research, at the moment the people who are leading the research are those looking at embryonic stem cells.

The concerns that the Greens and I have with this legislation are the same concerns that Senator Bob Brown and I spoke of in 2002. They relate to the privatisation and the commercialisation of this research. Much of the stem cell research that is being done around the world is in private hands, and it is currently generating massive profits for the biotech industry. Part of the reason why this has occurred is that stem cell lines are patentable entities. That brings with it the controversy regarding the commercialisation of human reproductive material; some people interpret that as the commodification of human life. Because stem cell lines are patentable, they create an opportunity for the biotech industry to increase their profits. That is central to the concerns that the Greens and I have in relation to this legislation.

Senator Bob Brown and I moved a series of amendments in 2002 that tried to ensure that stem cell research stayed in public hands. Those amendments were defeated, and we have seen the research in Australia continue in a mixture of public and private hands. I understand that the federal government’s injection of funding into stem cell research has been in the order of $200 million, both committed and already spent. I cannot tell you how much private money has been put into it, but I imagine it would be a substantially higher figure.

During the Sydney hearing of the inquiry into this legislation, I met a researcher by the name of Catherine Waldby, who has co-written a book on this called Tissue Economies. In that book, she goes through and looks at the different models around the world under which stem cell research has occurred. Like the general manager of Stem Cell Sciences, she recognises that, in the US, embryonic stem cell research is largely unregulated, while in Europe there are a range of different models for funding and regulation. In the book, she and her co-author conclude:

… these systems of public, national funding for embryonic stem cell research sit alongside significant transnational, commercial investments…

And:

… in most cases, public funding for stem cell research is designed to work together with commercial research rather than replace it, and public sector researchers also secure patents on their stem cell lines.

They write—and it is true here in Australia as well:

… transnational biotechnology companies dominate the research field and trade cell lines around the world.

They do point to one particular example, and that is the United Kingdom:

… the United Kingdom is at the forefront of the public sector research program, in part because of a history of public debate—

and the way in which that debate has occurred in the UK. The debate around stem cell research in the UK has had far more of a focus on these issues of commercialisation and privatisation than the debate here in Australia. It has been disappointing to me how little emphasis has been given to this issue, which is central to the debate. In the community, support for embryonic stem cell research would be far easier if people could be assured that there was a public system of regulation and that the research would be held in public hands. This would allay some of the concerns that people have about embryonic stem cell research. In Tissue Economies, the authors write:

This success in keeping embryo research within acceptable social limits and under well-managed governance has given the United Kingdom a strong position in the international research arena.

These are concerns that have been touched on in Australia. Indeed, the Lockhart review looked at these issues, and its report states on page 140:

People are concerned that these benefits and profits remain in the public domain, through public ownership, and that therapies remain available within the public health system.

There is a system of public licensing set up in Australia around stem cell research—and that is what we are dealing with in this legislation—but there is no system of public ownership, which is essential for how it is proposed this research will operate in Australia.

In the UK, the Stem Cell Bank is the central mechanism for ensuring that embryonic stem cell research stays as much as possible in the public domain, and it maintains public control over it. All the laboratories licensed for embryonic stem cell research in the UK must deposit a viable stem cell line with the bank. I will be moving an amendment in the committee stage of the debate, on behalf of the Greens, to require the same conditions in Australia, so anyone who gets a licence must deposit a viable stem cell line with a public bank. The idea behind the amendment and behind the whole concept is that researchers gain access to stem cell material through a bank and in return they contribute their innovations back into the public domain. This also helps to lower the barriers between commercial and public sector research in a variety of ways. I will go on to explain how the UK Stem Cell Bank does that.

To describe how the stem cell bank works in the UK, I will quote from the book Tissue Economies:

… as an obligatory passage point for all stem cell lines derived in the UK, the bank can accumulate master cell banks and provide ethical oversight to an entire field of tissue that would otherwise disperse throughout the globe and into an unknowable future. It provides a stable site of governance and brings all the stem cell lines under a single bioethical gaze. As a public institution, the bank will help to locate the stem cell research effort in public, national space, even when commercial firms carry it out. It will try to ensure that British research is not diverted away from national health boundaries by global markets. To this extent it is well situated to manage, although not resolve, the potential conflicts over embryonic value arising from stem cell circulation. While the bank cannot fundamentally alter the structural inequity built into the giving of tissues to increasingly commercialised research bodies, it may ameliorate and dissipate some of its worst effects.

Another way in which the stem cell bank in the UK does this is by giving public researchers access to the stem cell lines at marginal cost rather than at full market price. This helps to keep the research in public hands and within the budget of public sector funding.

The importance of a national stem cell bank in the Australian context was raised by Senator Bob Brown and me in 2002 and also in relation to this latest bill. Associate Professor Wendy Rogers, from Flinders University, stated in her submission to the Senate inquiry into this legislation:

Finally, some of the key issues in the Lockhart Report have not been addressed in the proposed legislation. In particular the establishment of a stem cell bank and conditions for benefit sharing are not considered. Some of the reasons for these omissions have been explained, but in my view there is a serious ethical issue of equity that arises when tissues donated by Australians for the benefit of the Australian community (including both researchers and patients) are then used to develop commercial products for private enterprise. The products and profits from the research involving SCNT and the development of stem cell lines including a stem cell bank (should they proceed in Australia) should remain in public control, and equally available within the public healthcare system. The current climate of competition between the states for commercial biotechnology investment raises concerns that there will not be public ownership of many resources donated by Australian women for stem cell research. It is appropriate that any legislation recognises the interest of those groups who provide the basic resources for the development of potential therapeutic treatments in having access to those treatments.

The Greens see the establishment of a national stem cell bank as a fundamentally important way of ensuring that embryonic stem cell research is well regulated, that it remains in the public domain and that it delivers public health benefits.

I moved amendments to the 2002 bill on behalf of the Greens that required the government to establish a national stem cell bank, and they were not supported by the Senate. Instead, the Lockhart review committee was required to look at ‘the applicability of establishing a national stem cell bank’. The Lockhart review came back, and recommendation 47 of the report states:

A national stem cell bank should be established.

In the Prime Minister’s press release of 23 June 2006, he indicated that the government supports a national stem cell bank, but it is not in the legislation. I heard Senator Stott Despoja say that this is because the establishment of a stem cell bank does not require legislation, but it can be set up by legislation. The bill before us requires the minister to report to parliament within six months on the establishment of a national stem cell centre.

The Greens say that we should not put off the establishment of a stem cell bank. To proceed with the research and then look at setting up a bank in the future is to do it the wrong way around. What we should do—especially since everyone who is involved in this debate seems to agree that we should have a national stem cell bank—is to say, ‘We are going to have a national stem cell bank.’ We do have a de facto national stem cell bank operating at the moment, run by the Australian Stem Cell Centre, and it is functioning similarly to the way you might want a national stem cell bank to operate. However, it is a private institution and so it does not have the same capacity to ensure that the public interest is protected that a publicly run institution would have. During the Senate inquiry into this legislation, I asked the CEO of the Australian Stem Cell Centre about this issue. He gave an example of a stem cell bank that had been developed overseas, and it had taken 18 months to two years to establish. I will be moving an amendment to this bill to require the government to establish a national stem cell bank within two years. If we all agree with it, let us make it part of the framework, because it has the capacity to really contribute to the way in which this research is being carried out.

I want to touch on the third amendment which I will move to this legislation, which is also about trying to cement the public interest and the public health system as central to this kind of research. This amendment will require the NHMRC licensing committee—who make decisions about who gets licences for embryonic stem cell research—to, for each application, look at the capacity for any benefits that come out of the research to be delivered though the public health system and/or to reduce the global disease burden. The reason for this is to give the NHMRC a mechanism by which they can say, ‘We will prioritise research that is focused on delivering public health outcomes, be they in Australia or be they overseas.’

During the Senate inquiry into this legislation, I asked Professor Warwick Anderson of the NHMRC about the workability of such a proposal, and he said, ‘If parliament did wish for such a consideration to be taken into account, the NHMRC could certainly add that to the process.’ So it is possible for this to work. People did raise some concerns about how early it is in the field of embryonic stem cell research and how difficult it is to flag whether or not this will lead to a treatment that can be delivered through the public health system—and I acknowledge that. But this amendment will give the NHMRC a mechanism that they can use. They will not necessarily use it on all occasions, but they can use it to say, ‘We prioritise research that is going to be delivered to a greater number of people rather than to a few wealthy individuals who are able to pay the biotech companies to provide them with any benefits that come out of the research.’

The central focus for me is to look at the issues of privatisation and commercialisation to see how this legislation can be amended to ensure that the public interest becomes central to the way in which research is carried out and that it is done in the public domain. These three amendments provide mechanisms that will assist us to ensure that the research has public oversight, that it occurs in the public domain and that any benefits are delivered to people across the board. That is my central focus. The Greens’ contribution to this debate, as it was in 2002, will be to look at issues of privatisation and commercialisation and to ensure that the public interest and public concerns are considered. This research will deliver benefits, and we want those benefits delivered through the public health system. We want the research done in the public domain and we want the public to have oversight, which includes looking at what is in the public interest when decisions are made about this research.

Judith Troeth (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I inform the Senate that I will support the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. I applaud the work of the Lockhart committee, which is composed entirely of extremely respected scientists. I have taken the central point of my argument from the committee’s point on page xvii of the executive summary, which said:

The Committee therefore agreed with the many respondents who thought that the moral significance of such a cloned embryo is linked more closely to its potential for research to develop treatments for serious medical conditions, than to its potential as a human life.

This is the question that we must consider. I have been very gratified by the support from the Victorian scientific leaders forum on stem cell research, chaired by Sir Gustav Nossal, and I will have more to say later about the position of Victoria. In answer to the very many who have said in opposition to this bill that there is no point in passing this bill because the advances in embryonic stem cell research have been very few, I would like to give them the words of the scientific leaders from Victoria. They say that in recent years there have been great advances in embryonic stem cell research and that sufficient evidence exists in animal models to justify the adoption of recommendations from the Lockhart review to enable the pursuit of this work in human systems. Page 16 of the Lockhart review committee’s recommendations says:

... while embryonic stem cell research findings have not yet translated into any clinical trials or treatments, the use of excess ART embryos to derive embryonic stem cell lines has contributed to progress in the derivation and culture of the cells and in methods of promoting the growth of different cell types ...

Broadly speaking, my view is that we should use embryonic stem cell research for greater medical research into serious human disease. That is my position. I am not a scientist, therefore I do not propose to go into complex scientific questions, but I believe it is the role of the scientists to do that.

Much has been made of what might happen if we pass this bill. As other senators speaking in favour of the bill have done, I will put onto the record what this bill does not support. In the recommendations which are mooted to be passed, this bill continues to prohibit reproductive cloning. It continues to prohibit implementation into the reproductive tract of a woman of a human embryo created by any means other than fertilisation of an egg by a sperm. It prohibits the development of human-animal hybrids. It prohibits the collection of a viable human embryo from the body of a woman. It prohibits the sale of sperm, eggs or embryos. It prohibits trade in embryos.

I regret to say that much of this debate has been made up of scare scenarios, which have been pushed to the absolute limit of science fiction, to try to persuade those who are in favour of the bill not to vote for it. As an educated member of parliament I resent that. I also think that many members of the public have been led astray in their thinking on this by somewhat wild statements. So, once and for all, we should put this to rest. As to what this bill does not do, I have just given you some indications of what is specifically prohibited.

There is no doubt that there is a long time frame for product development in the medical field, and 20 years from the development of an idea to its place in clinical research is not unusual, but the amount of progress that has been made in eight years with human embryonic stem cells is amazing. Australian scientists have been very prominent in this global endeavour, and I fail to see why they should be excluded from the next chapter. I am aware that my home state of Victoria has a particular level of excellence in this field of science, and I am very keen to see Victoria maintain this expertise. So often our scientists have to leave Australia to pursue their area of research, and I would want my country and my state to be a leader in this research.

Most members of parliament are not scientists, and we can only make a decision based on our idea of the common good and our perception of what will advance our country. Looking at the evidence that has been given by eminent scientists through the Lockhart review and by many other bodies of opinion through the country, and looking at the recommendations of the Lockhart review about what should be allowed and what should be prohibited, I can only come to the conclusion that we should pass this legislation. I will vote for this bill.

I would like to congratulate the Lockhart review committee on their many hours of interviewing committees and other constituents, taking evidence and sifting through it to make their recommendations. It is a wonderful body of work which I believe will set the blueprint for research in this area for the next 10 or 20 years. I would also like to congratulate Senator Natasha Stott Despoja for the lengthy attention she has devoted to this issue and the way in which her work has contributed to this bill.

I would also like to thank Dr Mal Washer for the work he has put into the development of the bill. Not only was his general medical knowledge of great assistance in explaining scientific concepts; he was only too willing to share that knowledge with any member or senator who needed more information. I can only hope that the bill will pass the Senate and proceed to the House of Representatives for further reasoned debate.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to contribute to the second reading debate on the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. At the outset I would like to commend Senator Patterson for bringing this bill to the parliament. I deeply admire Senator Patterson’s compassion and commitment to the health of Australians. This bill is yet another demonstration of that commitment. I would also like to commend Senator Stott Despoja for the work that she has put into drafting her own bill; she is similarly motivated. In light of Senator Patterson’s and Senator Stott’s Despoja’s announcements of their intention not to recontest their seats, I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge their contribution in this place. They will both be remembered as substantial figures of the Senate.

This is a difficult issue for many of us. We are all, I am sure, united in our desire to cure disease. We are all united in our desire to ensure that medical research is ethical. No-one comes to this legislation with anything other than a desire to make good decisions. The Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 and the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002 each required an independent review two years after the respective acts received royal assent. This was as it should be. Consequently, the legislation review committee chaired by the late Hon. John Lockhart QC undertook a review, as required by law, with people chosen by the government and with the agreement of the states. The members of the committee deserve congratulations for wrestling with some extremely difficult and complex issues.

In presenting this bill to the Senate, Senator Patterson is discharging her responsibilities as a legislator and is giving the parliament the opportunity to decide on the recommendations of the review, as I believe was the intention of the provisions in the 2002 act. In considering this bill and the Lockhart recommendations, we each need to determine our own framework for making a decision. We all need a frame of reference against which to judge the issues. We need to determine what our criteria are and what the threshold issues are. It is our duty to do so as legislators. Given the public interest in this legislation, we have an obligation to explain what informs our decisions. I will endeavour to do so.

The report of the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs does a very good job of accurately presenting the arguments on both sides. Senator Humphries brought his usual calm reasonableness to bear on this task as chair. There are 54 recommendations in the Lockhart committee review. Not all of them are contentious and not all of them require legislation. I will focus my comments primarily on recommendation 23. This proposal recommends that human somatic cell transfer should be permitted to create and use human embryo clones for research, training and clinical application, including human embryonic stem cells.

Much of the debate has focused on this particular recommendation. I found entirely unconvincing many of the arguments put both for and against this legislation. I reject the view that the legislation review committee was, to quote one side of the debate in the Senate committee report, ‘stacked’. This claim reflects on the motives and professionalism of the members of the Lockhart committee. The committee comprised people with immense integrity, such as Professor Peter Schofield, whom I was fortunate to have as a scout group and church youth group leader as a teen growing up in Sydney.

I was also unimpressed by arguments which sought to cite quantitative measures of the public mind on these issues, such as reference to the volume of submissions against the legislation. The number of submissions on a subject is more an indication of passion and organisation than of community sentiment. Submission numbers are a very poor indicator of community view. Likewise, arguments on the other side of the debate which quoted research or opinion polls in favour of the recommendations do not sway me. As senators, we are elected to lead debate, to have opinions, to be advocates and to argue our case. It would be sad if our decision on these matters was informed by polling.

Then there is the category of argument on both sides which is, at best, debating points and, at worst, designed to cloud the debate. In this category of argument fall claims such as the risks to women of egg donation. I have no doubt that there are some risks, but they are acknowledged. All medical procedures come with risk. All procedures should be, and I hope are, accompanied by informed consent.

Also in this category of argument is the spectre of cancer formation through the use of embryonic stem cells. Again, this is recognised; it is acknowledged. It is a hurdle to be overcome. But overcoming hurdles in the pursuit of cures is what medical research is all about. On the other side of the debate, I have little time for the argument that embryos created by human somatic cell transfer are not really like other embryos because they are not fertilised by sperm. This line of argument seeks to obscure the fact that the new type of embryo is as much a human embryo as one created with sperm, albeit one that if implanted would be less likely to survive.

Many arguments on both sides are unconvincing and peripheral and are merely used as tactical distractions. As I indicated in the debate in this place on RU486, I very much regretted that in that debate there were some aspects which had taken on the characteristics of a constitutional referendum campaign—there was a ‘yes’ and ‘no’ referendum style approach with associated campaign tactics. Sadly, this has again been the case with this bill, particularly on the part of some of its opponents, and this is regrettable. Such an approach to important legislation does not inform, edify or illuminate debate.

The more useful debate has been around the relative potentiality of embryonic versus adult stem cell research. I have listened to the proponents of both talk about the promises of each, and I have little doubt that both lines of research contain reason for hope. But I have not been convinced that one holds out any more hope or promise than the other. Indeed, even if I had been convinced that one held out more hope or promise than the other, I do not think that this would have informed my decision. Adult versus embryonic is a false choice. The truth is that none of us know which offers the greatest hope and no-one can until hypotheses are proposed, scientifically tested and proved or disproved. The relative potentiality of the lines of research is not a factor in my decision for two reasons: firstly, the potentialities are unknown at this stage and, secondly, there are threshold issues which for me are more fundamental than the utilitarian argument—as important as that is—as to which form of research holds out the greatest prospect for cures. For me, the threshold issues are whether it is right to create embryos with the intention of destroying them through research and whether it is right to clone humans even if they are only allowed to progress to embryonic stage.

Before moving to the substance of the bill, I should place on the record that, had I been in the parliament at the time, I would have voted for the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002 to allow excess embryos created for couples undergoing ART to be used for research. It was an imperfect but a practical and ethical response to a morally fraught issue. Those excess embryos ultimately would have been destroyed whether that legislation passed or not. The view put by opponents of the 2002 legislation—that the embryos would not be killed and that they would merely succumb—was a piece of sophistry. But the reason for creating an embryo in the first place does matter. Excess ART embryos were created with the intent of giving life. The embryos proposed to be created for embryonic stem cell research would be created in all cases with the intention of destruction.

However, Professor Schofield, in a briefing for members and senators, posed a valid question. He asked what the practical and ethical difference was between the destruction of excess ART embryos through research and the destruction through research of embryos created through what is proposed in this legislation. Both are destroyed in the pursuit of good life-giving outcomes. On one side, there is the creation of life; on the other, there is the maintenance of life and the improvement of its quality. The intent at the creation of both sorts of embryos is similar. In one case, it is to give life; in the other, it is to give health outcomes that may maintain life. It is a strong argument. And I can see the ethical inconsistency in opposing one and supporting the other. Having said that, I believe that intent does matter. And I must confess to being troubled by the creation of an embryo specifically for experimentation and destruction rather than as a by-product of a process designed to bring life. I am not indicating that I believe an unimplanted embryo has or should have the same status as a developing foetus in utero. But it is human tissue with the same theoretical potential as any other embryo.

My misgiving on this point, however, is probably not enough in itself for me to vote against the bill, as I can see the moral inconsistency in supporting the use of embryos excess to ART for research but not supporting it in the circumstance proposed in this bill. What troubles me more and what for me is the threshold issue is the fact that the proposal is to create human clones. I understand and accept that no-one is proposing that any of these new sorts of embryos be implanted into a woman. I understand and accept that even if they were they would be unlikely to thrive. But I cannot cross the line to create cloned human embryos that have the theoretical potential to become cloned human beings. I am not convinced that it is right to create human clones even if they are only allowed to progress to embryonic stage.

I am also troubled by recommendations 24, 25, 26 and 27 in the Lockhart review, which seek to allow: the creation of human embryo clones by transferring human somatic cell nuclei into animal oocytes, the creation of human embryos by means other than fertilisation by an egg, the creation of a human embryo by using genetic material from more than two people, and the creation of an embryo using precursor cells from a human embryo or human foetus. Given that I have misgivings about these issues, I cannot in good conscience vote for the bill in its current form. I take no delight in this because I know that the proponents of this bill are well motivated and only want to help those who suffer. I thank my constituents who have taken the time to contact me to share their perspectives, particularly those who are motivated by a strong sense of what it is that makes us human and those who shared with me their hope for research that could cure their disease or repair damage to their bodies. I know that there are many looking for cures who will be disappointed by my vote. I understand that. I commend the mover of the bill and the motives of all who support it, but I regret that I am unable to do so.

Judith Adams (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. In doing so, I would like to thank all those people who have taken the time to write to me or email me with their support for or concerns about the bill. The decision I have made to support this bill has not been taken lightly. It is my decision, and I thank the Prime Minister for allowing all members of parliament to have a conscience vote on this issue. I can assure those who have contacted me that I have thoroughly researched both sides of the debate in order to come up with my decision.

I have probably had an added advantage in gaining more information on this issue. As a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs, I participated in the three-day inquiry which examined the legislative responses to the recommendations of the Lockhart review. I thank those who prepared submissions for the inquiry and those who appeared before the committee as witnesses. As we have heard, almost 500 submissions were received for this inquiry, and many presented a personal perspective of the issue. I was disappointed that a number of submissions chose to cast aspersions on my colleague Senator Kay Patterson for changing her position on the issue and for her decision to introduce this private member’s bill to the Senate. The Senate community affairs committee report on the legislative responses to recommendations of the Lockhart review was tabled in the Senate out of session—so senators have not had an opportunity to speak to the report. The evidence on which my support for this bill is based is contained within chapter 3 of the committee’s majority report, and I would urge those interested in this debate to read it.

It is necessary to understand the history of the Lockhart report and why the Patterson bill has been introduced to debate the issue again. Parliament last addressed the issue in 2002 when it voted to allow excess embryos from in vitro fertilisation to be used for research but to ban the creation of embryos for the sole purpose of scientific research. Since then, 18 new senators have been elected to the Senate and 21 new members have taken their place in the House of Representatives. These people were not involved in the 2002 vote but, as individuals, they have their thoughts as well. So when people say, ‘Nothing has changed since 2002; why should we have another vote on the issue?’ it is important to note that we now have 39 new members of parliament, and I think they are entitled to their view.

The Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 and the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002 each contained a provision that, two years after the act received royal assent, an independent review of the operation of the act had to be undertaken by persons chosen by the minister with the agreement of each state. In June 2005 the then Minister for Ageing, the Hon. Julie Bishop MP, who had portfolio responsibility for human cloning and stem cell research, appointed a six-member legislative review committee to independently review the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 and the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002. The committee was required to report by December 2005, as stated in the 2002 legislation. The membership of the committee comprised a group of six eminent Australians. It was chaired by the late Hon. John Lockhart AO, QC. He was a highly regarded member of the international legal community and had expertise in chairing high-level committees that deliberated on contentious issues.

Other members of the committee were Associate Professor Ian Kerridge of New South Wales, a highly regarded clinical ethicist and specialist haematologist; and Professor Barry Marshall, Research Professor of Microbiology at the University of Western Australia—a highly awarded scientist of international renown who is also a successful community advocate both in Australia and overseas. It is important to note that Professor Marshall and his colleague Dr Robin Warren were recognised in October 2005 when they received the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for discovering the link between the bacteria Helicobacter pylori and gastric ulcers.

Also on the review committee were Associate Professor Pamela McCombe—a consultant neurologist and visiting medical officer at the Royal Brisbane Hospital, who holds the position of Associate Professor, Department of Medicine at the University of Queensland; Professor Peter Schofield—a renowned neuroscientist, whose skills and expertise are in a highly relevant scientific discipline to the review subject matter; and Professor Loane Skene, a renowned lawyer, ethicist and academic who has highly relevant skills and expertise demonstrated through her work and publications in the fields of health law and ethics.

I was most disappointed that those who opposed the Lockhart review recommendations chose to call into question the credibility of the review members and their work. After listing all of those credentials, it is hard to accept the description by Professor James Sherley that the members were a ‘poorly outfitted group’. Professor Sherley’s comments were rejected by five of the eight-member Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs, rejected outright by the majority of witnesses appearing before the committee and rejected by members of the Lockhart review committee, who described the comments as unwarranted criticism. I think his comments sound very similar to shooting the messenger.

The purpose of this bill is to make amendments to legislation last debated in 2002. These amendments reflect the 54 recommendations made in the Lockhart review. One of the most significant changes is to the title of the bill, to the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. The change to the title reflects the fact that the bill no longer prohibits the creation of embryos for research purposes using techniques such as somatic cell nuclear transfer, or SCNT. SCNT is a process commonly called ‘cloning’—a term that I feel brings very negative connotations and leads people to believe that we want our scientists to clone human beings for introduction into our society. That is simply not the case.

It is important to remember that the word ‘cloning’ is used to describe replication of single cells and genetic material as well as whole beings. It is most essential that the different outcomes are clearly acknowledged. In the SCNT process the nucleus of an egg is removed and replaced by one taken from a donor adult cell—for example, a skin cell. This is then stimulated and it behaves like an embryo produced by sperm and egg. While the basic SCNT technique is the same as that used to clone whole animals, there are several reasons why this will not happen. Scientists believe that the current indications are that the chances of these SCNT embryos developing beyond the blastocyst stage are very remote.

The Lockhart recommendations are very clear in stressing that reproductive cloning is unacceptable, and the bill proposes very serious penalties for anyone attempting to do so. All technologies bring with them the risk of misuse, but the National Health and Medical Research Council members are highly qualified to enforce the laws and ensure that community standards are adhered to. The creation of an embryo other than by human sperm and egg will only be permitted under licence and only for up to 14 days. Embryos created using sperm and egg may only be created for achieving pregnancy. Embryos created by any other means will not be able to be created unless under licence. Creation of an embryo by human sperm and egg and involving genetic material from two or more people will be prohibited.

Creation of an embryo by other means, where it includes genetic material from two or more people, will only be permitted under licence. Using precursor cells from a human embryo or a human foetus to create a human embryo will only be permitted under licence, for up to 14 days of development. Creating and developing a hybrid embryo of up to 14 days will only be permitted under licence and in very limited circumstances. If the Patterson bill is passed, the strict prohibition on SCNT embryos being implanted in the body of an animal or a human shall remain. They are also prohibited from being developed beyond 14 days. Under the proposed legislation, attempting to do either of those things, with intent or otherwise, will attract a penalty of up to 15 years imprisonment for the person or persons who tried to do it. If the genome of a human cell is altered in such a way that the alteration is inheritable by descendants of the human whose cell was altered, the person or persons responsible will receive 10 years imprisonment.

Scientists will face 10-year penalties if they act inappropriately with human cells. Some of these offences include: collecting a viable human embryo from the body of a woman; creating a chimeric embryo; intentionally placing a human embryo in an animal; intentionally placing a human embryo in the body of a human, other than in a woman’s reproductive tract; intentionally placing an animal embryo in the body of a human for any period of gestation; intentionally importing or exporting an embryo into or from Australia knowing that the embryo is a prohibited embryo or being reckless in not questioning as to whether it is; intentionally placing an embryo in the body of a woman knowing that the embryo is a prohibited embryo or being reckless as to whether it is; commercial trading in human eggs, human sperm or human embryos; creating a human embryo by a process other than the fertilisation of a human egg by a human sperm or developing a human embryo so created where the creation or development of the human embryo by the person is not authorised by a licence; and using precursor cells from a human embryo or a human foetus to create a human embryo or developing such an embryo. I believe those elements should be prohibited, and they will continue to be prohibited under this bill.

It is very important that we differentiate between adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells. Embryonic stem cells have the capacity to develop into virtually any tissue in the body, given the right conditions. This means that embryonic stem cells could turn into pancreatic insulin-secreting cells, curing diabetes; cardiac muscles, eliminating heart attacks; cells capable of laying down the insulation that surrounds nerve fibres, treating spinal cord injuries; cells making neurotransmitters, curing Parkinson’s disease; and cells that regenerate the immune system, treating immunodeficiencies. The committee received many submissions arguing that adult stem cells have achieved much success in 50 years of research, which is true. But embryonic stem cells offer a world of possibilities like those I have just mentioned.

Research on embryonic stem cells has been under way for just eight years, compared to 50 years for adult stem cell research. A number of scientists agree that the progress made since 1998 in the field of embryonic stem cell research has been nothing short of startling. Rudolf Jaenisch MD, of the Whitehead Institute, wrote to the community affairs committee last week refuting Professor James Sherley’s statement on embryonic stem cell research. Dr Jaenisch stated:

It is fundamentally wrong and disingenuous to claim that adult stem cells are an alternative to embryonic stem cells because they may, at some point in the future, be useful for therapy. Rather, we need to support research in both of these areas as they complement each other.

I strongly believe that we will have to understand the biology of both embryonic and adult stem cells to make progress in transplantation medicine.

It is important to note that Professor Frazer, the Australian of the Year, started his research on the papilloma virus 20 years ago, but it was just recently that his findings were registered to produce a vaccine which is now available to young women and schoolgirls.

One of the review committee members, Professor Barry Marshall, whom I have mentioned previously, while working with Dr Robin Warren, discovered the link between the bacteria Helicobacter pylori and gastric ulcers. This bacteria was first discovered in 1982. It took 22 years for the link between the bacteria and gastric ulcers to be confirmed. Professor Marshall and Dr Warren were recognised in October 2005 when they shared the 2005 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. In presenting the award, Professor Staffan Normark, a member of the Nobel Assembly at Karolinska Institute, said:

Ulcers are one of the most common afflictions of humanity. For a long time, ulcers were regarded as being a result of stress and improper diet. Barry Marshall’s and Robin Warren’s discovery that ulcers are caused by a bacterial infection was therefore completely revolutionary and was initially met by great skepticism.

                 …         …           …

This year’s Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine goes to Barry Marshall and Robin Warren, who with tenacity and a prepared mind, challenged prevailing dogmas.

Galileo is the most celebrated example of where society savagely persecuted those who held views that swayed away from dogmatic views of science. There are numerous examples throughout history that show that if people had not sought to satisfy their own curiosity we would not have cures for some of the most devastating diseases and infections that we have today.

The year 1996 marked the 200th anniversary of Edward Jenner’s first experimental vaccination: inoculation with the related cowpox virus to build immunity against the deadly scourge of smallpox. His research was based on careful case studies and clinical observation, more than 100 years before scientists could explain the viruses themselves. His innovation was so successful that by 1840 the British government had banned alternative preventive treatments against smallpox.

Science must be allowed to progress. Stem cells are not a miracle cure and one will not be found overnight. It will probably take decades rather than years to achieve results. Therefore, the effect of our decisions here this week will take many years to reach fruition. We are not giving people false hope for a miracle cure. Time is an intrinsic factor.

I would now like to focus on the progress made and the changes in technology which have occurred since this debate was initiated. The Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs received a letter from Foursight Associates Pty Ltd. I would like to highlight a few passages from this letter. The authors, Dr Graham Mitchell and Sir Gustav Nossal, state that as chief scientists they have provided commentary on technological developments over the past few years in the field of human stem cells in regenerative medicine. It is their firm opinion that recent advances in this technically challenging, highly regulated field have been very substantial and are worthy of notice.

Dr Mitchell and Sir Gustav Nossal highlighted four main technical developments in the field of embryonic stem cell research since it was first created in 1998 from very early human embryos: a discovery of better methods for growth and maintenance of human embryonic stem cell lines in vitro, including major advances to ensure regulatory good manufacturing practice compliance and even commercial scale production; advances in methods to more reliably drive embryonic stem cells along particular pathways of specialisation—for example, they can develop into cells of muscle, brain or pancreas, a process known as differentiation; demonstration of the medically relevant capabilities of human embryonic stem cells and their differentiated progeny in at least five animal models of human disease; and the isolation of many new embryonic stem cell lines and establishment of international, collaborative cell bans and networks for the sharing of lines and techniques. I seek leave to incorporate the rest of my speech. (Time expired)

Leave granted.

The incorporated speech read as follows—

They also note that:

“The Lockhart Report is a wise, considered, balanced report and its recommendations should be accepted and broadcast.”

SCNT is already permitted in a number of countries, including the United Kingdom, Singapore, Japan, Belgium, Sweden, Israel, Spain, China and some States of America.

I fear that if research on SCNT is stymied in Australia, we will lose many of our brightest and best scientists in this field to these countries. Indeed, some high profile Australian scientists have already left to pursue this cutting-edge technology overseas.

Another report titled “Key Recent Advances in Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research—A Review of Scientific Literature” commissioned by the Department of Innovation, Industry and Regional Development of Victoria confirmed that:

“for a field as new and as complex as this, the rate of progress has arguably been dramatic”.

Advancements over the last four years do not need to be limited to medical science. Look at your mobile phone—how different does it look and how many extra features does it have now, that you didn’t even think was possible four years ago?

At the committee’s hearings in Sydney, we heard from Dr Paul Brock, a witness who was diagnosed with Motor Neurone Disease in 1998.

During his 15 years in the religious order of the Marist Brothers in the Catholic Church, Dr Brock spent six years of solid formal studies in philosophy, theology and ethics.

Dr Brock stated that a large proportion of society is against embryonic stem cell research because of the simplistically asserted grounds that the ‘ends never justify the means’.

Indeed quite a number of submissions the committee received had based their arguments against the Bill on this issue.

Dr Brock said:

Embryonic stern cell research is not the be-all and end-all of hope for this disease; it is but one of a whole range of potential research areas and therapies that may help us understand the cause, help us prolong the quality of life that we have and eventually find a cure. I am a public supporter of adult stem cell research and of all sorts of research which is ethically valid and scientifically justifiable.

Can you imagine looking my 90 year old mum, my 43 year old wife and our 15 and 11 year old girls in the eye and looking me in the eye, a bloke who 10 years ago was running around like a lunatic, playing golf, playing cricket, playing the piano and doing all the things in my life, now reduced to two fingers that move a bit, a brain that still works, a voice which obviously works too much and telling us—using embryonic stem cells is evil? I think you need to support this because it is the right thing to do.

With an example like this, how could one not support this Bill? I fully support this Bill.

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I stand today to oppose the bill that is before the Senate, the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. I welcome the debate and the Prime Minister’s willingness for MPs to have a conscience vote on these important matters. It is healthy and appropriate for each of us in this parliament, and indeed in the community, to dig deep into our hearts, our minds and our consciences. In fact, since I came into the parliament in February 2002, this is the third time a conscience vote has occurred—the first being in 2002, with the stem cell research and cloning bill of 2002, and the second being in the last 12 months, with the RU486 bill.

As a participating member of the Senate committee inquiring into this bill, I appreciated the opportunity to learn more about the science and the ethics of the cloning process. I want to thank Senator Gary Humphries for his chairmanship of that inquiry. My views are essentially set out in chapter 4 of the Senate report. I want to thank all those who made submissions and, indeed, all those who forwarded letters, emails, advice and views. That feedback is appreciated. My summation of the inquiry is that the science does not add up in support of cloning and that the ethics—I think it is pretty much agreed across the board—are controversial. In short, the case for change has not been made.

Dolly the sheep is now dead. Dolly was created using the same cloning techniques to be legalised under the cloning bill currently before the Senate. Good science requires good ethics. It is accepted practice that new scientific experiments are proven in animals before applying the proven outcomes on people. Animal cloning has delivered no safe health therapies.

This week our federal parliament is being asked to take the gigantic ethical and scientific leap which would allow the creation of a cloned human embryo for the purpose of being destroyed—destroyed in the pursuit of knowledge. The knowledge is for the study of disease and not knowledge directly for the creation of therapies or cures. Professor Loane Skene, the acting chair of the Lockhart committee that has reviewed the existing laws, said that cures may not arrive until our grandchildren’s time.

The promise of cures from this new legislation is a false and, at best, flimsy hope that can only compound the misery of those with debilitating illness. All members of parliament are at one in their desire to see the defeat of debilitating diseases. I want to strongly emphasise this point and acknowledge the heart and the desire of each MP to achieve this outcome. This applies to those in favour of the bill and those against the bill. As a person with type 1 diabetes and with a father who died of motor neurone disease, I can relate to this issue.

I want to particularly empathise with the many organisations that represent people who suffer from chronic disease or other debilitating disease who presented before our inquiry and who operate in Australia today. It is because of this empathy and concern that I support adult stem cell research. As many would know, I already have much to do with many of these organisations that help and support people, for example, with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, and indeed people with motor neurone disease.

In terms of the adult stem cell research issue, a key finding of the recent Senate inquiry into the proposed cloning legislation was that adult stem cell research avoids the destruction of a human embryo and is actually delivering, in spades, therapies and cures. Queensland scientist Dr Peter Silburn said:

If you have a galloping horse like adult stem cells, why not pursue that? ... cloning is not necessary.

Professor Bob Williamson, from the Australian Academy of Science, conceded that therapeutic cloning is not of importance in giving cells to treat patients and that these are far more likely to come from so-called adult stem cells. In addition, in his evidence to the Senate inquiry, Professor Alan Mackay-Sim of the national adult stem cell centre confirmed:

It is probable that such (adult) stem cell lines as these will render therapeutic cloning irrelevant and impractical.

Why pursue the contentious practice of cloning when an entirely ethical source of stem cells, superior for both treatment and research, is readily available in our own tissues and in the blood of a baby’s cord?

It was on 14 November 2002 that the Senate voted without dissent to pass the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002. This act prohibits the creation of a human embryo cloned for any purpose, including destructive research. By passing this act, the Senate affirmed the view expressed by the government minister of the day, Senator the Hon. Kay Patterson, who said:

I believe strongly that it is wrong to create human embryos solely for research. It is not morally permissible to develop an embryo with the intent of truncating it at an early stage for the benefit of another human being.

Given this unanimous vote of the Senate just under four years ago, the onus is on the proponents of change to justify why the Senate should abandon this moral principle by allowing in 2006 what it held to be wrong and prohibited in 2002. I accept that there are many members of parliament in both houses who are in fact new to the debate since 2002. Indeed, for them, the proposition is new and fresh, and I acknowledge that.

The Lockhart review, set up in accordance with section 25 of the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act, was required by its terms of reference to consider and report on developments in medical and scientific research and the potential therapeutic applications for such research, and on community standards. Three of the six members of the Lockhart review were already on the record as supporting human cloning for research.

The period of the Lockhart review unfortunately coincided with the six-month period during which a major scientific fraud was perpetrated on the world by Korean scientist Hwang Woo Suk. Submissions to the review from Australian scientists were coloured by the belief that human embryos had been successfully cloned and that patient-specific stem cell lines had been derived from these cloned embryos. Understandably, the Lockhart review accepted these claims and accordingly reported that there had been significant developments in human cloning since 2002. After the Lockhart report was concluded, the Korean research was exposed as fraudulent.

The independent MP Consulting report was prepared for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and released by the Prime Minister on 31 August 2006—just a few months ago. It found:

… on each of these issues—

that is, the definition of ‘human embryo’, the creation and use of embryos for ART research and the creation of embryos for stem cell research—

there has not been any significant change in the state of play since 2002.

That point supports again the argument that a case has not been made for change. Nevertheless, the argument has been put that community standards have changed. But it is curious that the Lockhart review failed to report on an in-depth research study carried out by Critchley and Turney which found that a majority—63.4 per cent—of Australians were not comfortable with obtaining stem cells from cloning human embryos.

In 2002, the federal parliament legalised the use of excess embryos from IVF for research on the basis that those embryos were going to die anyway. But, as noted, we unanimously opposed all forms of cloning because we saw that it was wrong to create a human embryo solely for research. Interestingly, since 2002, although nine licences have been issued authorising research on excess embryos, only one has been issued for research aimed at treating a specific disease.

In 2002, political leaders and others told paraplegics, ‘We’re going to do something for you,’ and had photo opportunity shots taken in spinal injury wards. But there has not been one cure, one therapy or even one clinical trial involving embryonic stem cell research. Over-promising is, of course, a ubiquitous sin in politics. What is the rush to cloning when scientists have not reached first base? If embryonic stem cell research were delivering and cloning in animals were proven safe and effective, the arguments in favour of human cloning might be more persuasive. In short, the ends do not justify the means. In the case of this bill, the desired ends are at best doubtful.

But there is more. The bill not only allows the creation of human embryos for laboratory experiments but also legalises the creation of a human-animal hybrid using eggs from a rabbit or a pig. Thankfully, Australia’s Chief Scientist, Dr Jim Peacock, and many others have opposed this procedure. The bill also legalises the creation of human embryos using ova from cadavers and aborted baby girls. In my view, these proposals turn human dignity on its head.

The bill’s proponents have argued that the human embryo to be created is different because it is not derived from a sperm and an egg implanted in the body of a woman. It is true that the technique for creation is different; however, all scientists agree that the embryo is human, is alive and could, if planted in the body of a woman, become an Australian like the rest of us—remembering that we were all once a human embryo.

We will have two classes of human embryo—an A and a B team. The proponents of the bill say that the B team will be only the size of a full stop, will live in a Petri dish, will bring benefits to the world through research and, yes, will be killed after 14 days. So the usefulness of the human embryo to society outweighs the dignity and respect that all other humans and human embryos deserve. That is a sad, utilitarian argument which sends a terrible signal to the frail, aged, disabled and vulnerable in our society. To say that one life is intrinsically more valuable than another is problematic at best. Once this legislation is passed into law, it is almost a certainty that parliament will be asked in just a few years to extend the life of the embryo from 14 days to 60, 90 or 180 days. Where do you draw the line if it is delivering ‘benefits’ in society?

To achieve the research outcomes, not one scientist could say how many eggs would be needed to clone successfully—and this was the course of discussion for much of the inquiry. There are health risks to women in egg harvesting, as well as the risk of exploitation of women to gain access to more human eggs. Although the bill provides that it is illegal to commercialise the market for human eggs, it is legal under the bill that reasonable transport and other costs can be recouped. It is also noted that, in the UK, discounts at IVF clinics are offered to women who donate eggs and that, in the US, eggs are bought and sold. The exploitation of women for a range of reasons is clearly an issue.

I now turn to two matters that have had little, if any, attention in the course of the public debate on this legislation. The legislation passed by the Senate in 2002, including the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act, was part of a scheme of uniform national legislation agreed to by COAG. The Australian government is a signatory to a COAG agreement that this legislation will not be changed without the unanimous agreement of all the parties. At the most recent COAG meeting, in July, any change to the legislation to allow cloning was not supported by the Australian government or by the New South Wales, Tasmanian, Western Australian and South Australian governments. If the Australian parliament unilaterally amends this legislation to allow cloning, we will certainly have the beginnings of a legal and constitutional quagmire developing. This is not a matter that has gained much attention. Maintaining uniform national legislation in this area is, in my view, definitely preferred. Despite a shared consensus in 2002, there has been instead a sharp divide in 2006 between pro-cloning and anti-cloning premiers. This demonstrates that there is no national consensus to change the ban on cloning universally agreed to in 2002.

In terms of international affairs, although some of the arguments put in the Senate may suggest otherwise, Australia is not alone in its current prohibition on human cloning for any purpose, including research. Over 30 other countries have similar legislative bans, including Argentina, Austria, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany—I particularly take note of Germany and allow other members and the public to come to their own conclusion as to why they have made that decision—Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Panama, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland and the Netherlands.

During its 82nd plenary meeting on 8 March 2005 the United Nations General Assembly approved the United Nations Declaration on Human Cloning. Australia voted in support of this international instrument which solemnly declared:

(a) Member States are called upon to adopt all measures necessary to protect adequately human life in the application of life sciences;

(b) Member States are called upon to prohibit all forms of human cloning inasmuch as they are incompatible with human dignity and the protection of human life;

(c) Member States are further called upon to adopt the measures necessary to prohibit the application of genetic engineering techniques that may be contrary to human dignity;

(d) Member States are called upon to take measures to prevent the exploitation of women in the application of life sciences;

(e) Member States are also called upon to adopt and implement without delay national legislation to bring into effect paragraphs (a) to (d);

The Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 complies fully with this international instrument. If the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 were enacted, it would, from my reading of the United Nations declaration, cause no end of concern and would put Australia in breach of our commitments under this United Nations Declaration on Human Cloning. This is not a matter that has been discussed publicly or debated during the Senate inquiry or to date. In conclusion, my views remain the same as they were in 2002 but my concerns have increased, and with respect to the bill I say this: the kill-to-cure proposal is the foundation of this bill. Passing the bill will launch Australia into a brave new world.

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 and I rise to speak against it, which probably would not surprise Senator Patterson. I spoke against it in 2002 and nothing that has been presented from that period until now leads me to change my mind in relation to the decision that I will be called upon to make later this week.

Like Senator Barnett, I have had my own journey through a difficult period of health. I am a cancer survivor and I have seen the fragilities of life. I have spent time in palliative care wards and I have seen people who have come to the realisation that they are no longer going to live—that they are going to succumb. So I am aware of the difficulties confronting many senators with this legislation. Even though I was unable to attend the inquiry because I had made previous commitments, I did attempt to read as many of the submissions and as much of the literature as I could, and indeed I did read all of the Hansard of the three days of the inquiry.

One of the things that immediately struck me from the inquiry was a quote from Senator Moore. Early on in the inquiry she said:

The degree of strongly held views about scientific evidence is a surprise to us who are not scientists.

During the conduct of the inquiry that view was expressed on a number of occasions. Like Senator Moore, I am not a scientist and, as I went through and read as much as I could in the time I had, a few things struck me. The first was that there were a significant number of scientists, biologists, biotechnicians and engineers who were unaware of each other’s work. The second thing was that they were not prepared to acknowledge each other’s work—and Senator Patterson is looking quizzical there—and that goes for people who were involved in adult as well as embryonic stem cell research. The third thing that struck me was that, if there were scientists who held moral or ethical objections to what was being proposed in addition to their own scientific views, they were somehow to be ridiculed.

Also, during the conduct of the inquiry there was significant debate about the membership and recommendations of the Lockhart inquiry. Many scientists challenged the membership and the qualifications of those reviewers. They challenged the evidence on which Lockhart made its recommendations. A number of eminent scientists claimed time and again that the committee was not qualified to draw the conclusions that it did; that it chose evidence that was subsequently discredited, such as that in South Korea that has been mentioned on a few occasions today; that it relied on an inquiry that was conducted in India; and that it did not, indeed, refer to—and I think I am right in this—the US presidential commissions into bioethics in 2002, 2004 and 2005. It could be argued that, as a result of the membership and the evidence, the Lockhart inquiry would come up with the recommendations that are the basis of the legislation we are dealing with today.

Of course that has been debated somewhat and I am sure that Senator Patterson and others who are proponents of this bill will have the opportunity to get up and refute what has been put forward. But in my reading I did not see any substantial refutation of the points that I have made. They did rely on some inquiries—one discredited, and one in India—and disregard the ones that were in fact not supportive of the position that they would put forward. So of course they would come up with the answer that they came up with.

I also tried to look through the literature, the submissions and the Hansard for what might come out of this. The first point I make—and it has been made today already—is that adult stem cell research has had breakthroughs. Embryonic stem cell research—and it has been questioned—has not been sufficiently tested on animals yet, let alone transferred to humans. In fact, embryonic stem cell therapy produces what are called teratomas—tumours—and is likely to be rejected. In the US Senate, when it was debating a bill similar to this only a few months ago, a proponent of embryonic stem cell research said:

Lord Winston, the most prominent foetal embryonic stem cell researcher in England, said ‘I view the current wave of optimism about embryonic stem cell research with growing suspicion.’

A lot of false hope, pending cures and breakthroughs have been peddled in this debate. Professor Skene admitted in the inquiry that the benefits of this type of research will not be available in her children’s lifetime but might be available in her grandchildren’s lifetime. The proponents of adult stem cell research argued that it presented the best hope for cures. This was presented to the inquiry and it has not been refuted.

During the inquiry, I read Senator Nettle’s concerns. The first of her concerns was whether any breakthrough as a result of this legislation coming into law would be publicly available. The second was whether there would be exploitation of vulnerable women. One of the submitters to the inquiry, Professor Khachigian, under questioning as to what might occur as a result of the bill going through, admitted that it would lead to health and wealth creation in Australia. Mr Acting Deputy President, do you for one minute believe that any breakthroughs that come as a result of this will be widely available? I do not believe it at all; I believe we will see them become the province of the rich and powerful. I believe this legislation will inevitably lead to the opportunity in a few years time for proponents of this research to come in here and say that the only way we can really do this properly is to clone ourselves—to clone humans. They will say, ‘I need that kidney,’ or ‘I need that liver,’ or ‘I need that heart,’ or ‘I need that pancreas.’ It will eventually happen if we pass this legislation. It may take more than four years, Senator Patterson, but it will be here.

Senator Nettle’s second concern was the exploitation of vulnerable women. Evidence was given and not refuted that to successfully conduct the experiments that are required thousands of fresh eggs will be needed. In fact the discredited South Korean scientist, Dr Hwang, used 2,061 eggs from 129 women. Dr Renate Klein, the Australian coordinator of a group called FINRRAGE, which stands for the Feminist International Network of Resistance to Reproductive and Genetic Engineering, gave evidence that frozen material—that is, embryonic material—is always second-rate, that women on IVF programs are usually older and they or their partners have chromosomal abnormalities. She said:

This is not good starting material for your foray into the unknown land of embryonic stem cell research.

She went on to say that the embryonic stem cell researcher needs:

... Petri dishes full of young, freshly harvested eggs from teenage women who have had very few divisions of their egg cells.

In the UK, as has been put forward in today’s debate, women are already selling their eggs at a discount to get access to IVF programs. At the hearing on 24 October, Katrina George, the director of Women’s Forum Australia, said:

... the Daily Mail recently exposed a situation where east European women were actually selling their ova to fertility clinics and some of them had been rendered infertile as a result. So it would not just be the disadvantaged women within our own country but very likely women from developing nations or poorer nations who would be the ones to take up the offer ...

Dr Klein on the same day said:

We know from America, where women can get paid for egg cell donation for IVF, that there are whole websites where eggs from beautiful women fetch thousands of dollars.

These statements were not refuted. As I said earlier, I believe that at the end of the day only the rich and powerful will have access to what may come as a result of the research outlined in this legislation. I am not sure that we are ready to make this momentous decision to leap into the future. I am very concerned about the moral and ethical lines that we will cross as a result of passing this legislation. I am not sure that science and technology should be trusted to allow this to occur.

We are already starting to see the results of putting our trust in science and technology, whether it is global warming or the inquiry that I have just come from, which was into the issue of the men and women who were exposed to British nuclear tests in Australia. We did not know what was going to happen to those men and women, their families or their descendants. It seemed like a good thing at the time, but we did not give it enough consideration.

People may say that this is some sort of contest, as has already been hinted at, between the Dark Ages and the Age of Enlightenment. We do not know what the future holds. We do not know what door we are opening if we pass this legislation. I am very concerned—and Senator Patterson will have the opportunity to refute this—that we will be presented with the ability to clone ourselves in the future, because that is inevitably where this is leading us. I am very concerned that nowhere is it advised that some of the things available under the legislation are in the legislation. I have asked many people if they are aware that, under this legislation, hybridisation—the cross-fertilisation of humans and animals—is being proposed as well as access to human cadavers and, ultimately, the ability to create embryos for research. Many Australians are not aware of what is being proposed here, and no amount of public opinion polling or indeed lobbying of officers would make that available to them.

I feel that old faiths may no longer suffice, but I think we should have new fears about where we are going with this. I have said that, if we pass this bill, in a few years we will be asked to approve reproductive cloning on the same grounds as we are being asked to approve this bill now. I believe our humanity, how we view ourselves, what is important to our being and this dismissal of values as mere products of emotion will return in a terrible, psychological way to haunt us if this legislation is carried.

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise this afternoon to provide some brief comments about the legislation currently before us, the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. I do so because, when a lot of us walk out of this building for the last time and look back on our careers in this place, I think there will be very few watershed moments, signposts of ideas or innovations in this country in which we have been so actively able to participate, and I view this week as one of those moments. Whether or not this legislation succeeds in passing through this chamber is yet to be seen, but I do think that this will be one of the weeks that we look back on and say, ‘I was part of that, and I was able to perhaps influence the outcomes one way or another.’

Although I was the first woman to be elected to the federal parliament from the Northern Territory and I am one of only two senators representing the Northern Territory in this place, I do not come to this debate with a Northern Territory perspective. I do come here, though, representing the views of people in my constituency who have lobbied me in respect of this legislation.

We did deal with these issues in 2002. The question here today, though, I think, is whether or not we take the next step forward with this scientific research. In 2002, the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act outlawed any form of human cloning, whether it was for reproductive or therapeutic reasons. The second act, the Research Involving Human Embryos Act, allowed researchers to access surplus human embryos that were created through assisted reproductive technology, albeit under strict conditions. This allowed embryos created before 2002 and surplus embryos created for IVF purposes to be used with consent.

As we know, the Lockhart review committee arose as a result of the requirement for this legislation to be reviewed independently and for that review to be submitted to COAG within three years of the legislation receiving assent. The Lockhart committee, which of course we have heard lots of comments about this morning, was appointed in June 2005 and presented its report in December 2005. It had 1,035 submissions and, if you have a look at the work that the review undertook, there were extensive consultations around this country.

It was known, and there were comments made at the time, that the Lockhart committee was conservative in its make-up and in its views of the ethics around this matter, and there have been claims of bias. My colleague Senator Stott Despoja outlined some of the criticisms that have been made of the Lockhart committee. Nevertheless, the committee has made significant recommendations, proposing that the research in this area should not only continue but be extended. The legislation framed by Senator Patterson seeks to address the recommendations of the Lockhart review, which have required extensive examination by those of us in this place who take such reviews seriously and seek to translate such a review into legislation and into reality.

The decision I have come to today has not been easy, despite the expectations of some of my colleagues. I have taken quite a long time to come to an understanding of exactly what this legislation would mean both scientifically and ethically. I have taken the time to actually read the Lockhart review report. I did not participate in the work of the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs, but I have certainly read, where I could, most of the transcripts of the hearings and the report of that committee.

I want to take the opportunity to thank the Parliamentary Library for the work that they have done. Those of us who operate in this place on a day-to-day basis know exactly what work the library does and what it means to us, but I think that in this case their work deserves a significant reference. I want to mention Roxanne Missingham and the lecture series that was undertaken by the Parliamentary Library, including the cases for and against this legislation. Having the ability to download those lectures and stick them onto an MP3 player assisted people like me. I spent many of my journeys between here and Darwin in the last couple of weeks listening critically to both sides of the argument. Also, the papers titled, ‘The pros and cons of therapeutic cloning’ have assisted me in coming to the decision that I have come to today. I also want to mention the staff in Julia Gillard’s office and recognise the work that they did in providing us with time lines and descriptions of some of the scientific terms that we have encountered on this journey.

I do not intend to go into the scientific details of what is being proposed; nor do I want to be emotive or irrational about the issues that are under debate. These are not simple matters to come to grips with, and this legislation does have vast complications and ramifications. But for me, in the end, it is a matter of deciding whether the next step in the scientific research is warranted and whether or not we should allow the advancement of science to unlock another mystery or a discovery about future prospects relating to people’s health.

Senator Judith Adams outlined in her speech a whole range of areas where, in the past, scientists and probably the general population have questioned whether they were on the right road. The Galileos and the Aristotles of the world have asked questions like, ‘Is the world round or flat?’ Smallpox vaccinations and the work related to vaccinations for cervical cancer must have, at some stage, caused scientists and the community to ask themselves: ‘Are we doing the right thing here? Are we investing in scientific research that is actually going to provide a benefit?’ Of course, you do not know until you take the first step. But for me this is about providing some medical hope or experimenting beyond our means. Should we allow that to happen? The conclusion I have come to is that I should not be the person who stands in the way of this scientific advancement.

I do not think this is about control or empowerment. I know exactly what the ethical considerations are now, although I have to say that it has taken me some time to get my head around exactly what the opponents of this legislation are arguing in not supporting it. I do know that there are ethical questions in this legislation that need to be considered, and I know that colleagues of mine in this chamber have thought long and hard in arriving at decisions.

The Lockhart review showed that the legislative and regulatory regime is working well. The controversial recommendations allowing therapeutic cloning and a range of new procedures for the creation of embryos recognise the role of these technologies today and in the future and the need to bring them all under an effective national licensing and regulatory regime.

I believe that the central question today is: exactly what is an embryo? Perhaps the whole debate centres on this definition. Those whose ethical beliefs and strong religious convictions are different from mine will no doubt have a different definition from mine, and I respect this variance of views. I understand that, for some, an embryo is an embryo. But for me, a cell that is fertilised using somatic cell nuclear transfer is intrinsically different from one that is fertilised by a sperm. Some would not see any difference in the embryos, which they would regard as having a moral potential to be a human life. As we know, this legislation does allow the deliberate creation of embryos, and I believe that the use of this term scientifically, not ethically or morally, should be considered.

Professor Bob Williamson argues that somatic cell nuclear transfer does not create an embryo. He would argue that it has no genetic identity or social context and so does not represent an ethical hazard. I believe that the potential research warrants serious consideration about the use of embryos. Embryonic stem cells have two important properties in that they are generic and any cell type can be produced reasonably easily, and they have the capacity to multiply indefinitely. Some people argue that we should continue to use adult stem cells and that we should, in fact, have more use of adult stem cells before we embark upon this path, but I believe that this is limiting. My understanding is that these embryos do not have the same potential as other embryos. Professor Williamson gave as an example the fact that they do not have the ability to form heart muscles. I think that Senator Adams outlined some of the benefits of embryonic stem cells and the limitations of adult stem cells. There is potential to find out more about how early embryos are created, and these need to be created if we want to look at diseases, rather than using healthy embryos created for IVF purposes.

I am convinced that this legislation contains enough safeguards for retaining the existing prohibitions on the use of this research. We know that you need a licence in order to continue or to commence this research. We know that since 2002 only nine licences have been granted, and most of those have been for fertility treatments. We know that researchers must report on and justify why there is a need for these embryos. We know that in this country you are not allowed to buy and sell human organs and tissues, and that will remain. We know that there is a ban on human cloning and duplicate people. In other words, these cells will not be implanted in a woman, and there is not—and I do not think there ever will be—an intention to do that.

We do not know how many eggs are needed, and scientists have raised this issue when arguing for this legislation. Whether we need one, 10, 100 or one million, that question cannot be answered because they simply do not have the key to unlock that mystery. In my heart, I do not believe we would need an excessive number but, if we did, there would be a means to use them. I do not believe that women would be coerced into providing their eggs for money, and it would be prohibited under this legislation anyway. However, there may be women who would willingly donate their eggs to further this research. As a woman I feel that, if that is their choice, if they know the risks and they want to do it, so be it. They should have the choice to put up their hands and say, ‘I want to donate my eggs for that purpose,’ just as I may want to donate my organs when I die so that someone else can benefit from them. That is my choice, and I believe that into the future that will also be a woman’s choice.

I believe that the safeguards are there to the extent that scientists will have too much to risk if they fall outside the regulations and the safeguards. Fifteen years imprisonment is a lot to risk if you have put your life into studying this sort of research and you are keen and enthusiastic to make changes and improvements.

In the past Australia has taken a leading role in this area of research—for example, in the IVF discoveries in previous years. Our scientists should be able to participate at an international level. If we leave this debate where it is now and we do not move forward, we will be left behind internationally. However, that is not the one and only reason to support this legislation. I will refer to some of the comments of a man I highly respect, Sir Gustav Nossal. The Victorian government has commissioned a report into further legislation to facilitate stem cell research, entitled Key advances in human embryonic stem cell research: a review of literature, which was commissioned by the Department of Innovation, Industry and Regional Development. In the report, the Chief Scientist, Sir Gustav Nossal, and Professor Mitchell made the following recommendations:

In the opinion of these reviewers, and in the current and appropriate cautious and regulated environment, a broad SCNT approach is required for stem cell based regenerative medicine to achieve its undoubted promise. On the specific question of whether the field has actually progressed in a technological sense, we can respond unequivocally in the affirmative.

They continue:

Australian scientists have been prominent in this global endeavour [research with human stem cells] and should not be excluded from the next exciting chapter involving SCNT-ES [embryonic stem cells from cloned embryos].

The essential question lies in the potential use of this research. We know that medical research has a long lead time and that community attitudes do change. Unlike my colleagues, I have not been lobbied to a great extent to vote against this bill—to be honest, the lobbying has been particularly minimal compared with what we receive on some of the legislation we deal with in the Senate—but, surprisingly, in the Northern Territory I have been urged to support this legislation by people I meet at the football and in the supermarket, by doctors, medical professional people, constituents and those who have been affected by lifelong or life-threatening debilitating diseases.

I received a letter from a woman who I will not name here—she knows who she is—whose granddaughter has cystic fibrosis. I met a couple on the weekend whose child died from leukaemia. I see images of Michael J Fox struggling with Parkinson’s disease and making an effort to campaign in the US elections to be held this week. I see people who are suffering. I cannot vote against this legislation, which provides them with a little chance or hope. They know there will not be a cure for them. They realise that—they know that cures are probably decades away, maybe even half a century away—but they are all saying to me: ‘You have to take this next step. You have to give scientists the key to unlock this door so that they can try to make life for people on this earth just a little better than it is currently.’

This research will possibly be useful—we do not know—but I feel that I need to give the scientists the key that can unlock the answers that we are all looking for today. I do not believe the legislation will create false hopes. I do not believe it makes promises to people that cannot be kept. I believe that those people who are suffering understand that cures may never come or may take years, but I know they are looking for some sort of future and some sort of hope.

Different views can coexist, but the bottom line is whether scientists should be stopped from doing this research. The answer for me is, no, they should not. I do not believe, after examining the research and having talked to people who oppose or support this legislation, that I can come to any other conclusion. I am well satisfied that very safe regulations and safeguards will ensure that this scientific research cannot be abused or misused. I support this legislation. I do not seriously believe I can look somebody in the eye who is suffering or has a child or grandchild who is suffering and say to them, ‘I stood in the way of scientists possibly finding an answer and a cure to your lifelong debilitating disease.’ This is a very exciting week. If we give scientists in this country the chance to take the next step, I trust the scientists will do so wisely and genuinely. I think we should allow that to occur.

Jeannie Ferris (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This week the scientific eyes of the world are focused on Australia as we grapple with a question as important to them as it is to us. That question relates to whether we are to take a very important scientific step forward which will keep Australia at the forefront of stem cell research. For American scientists, a pandemic of politics was enough to cause some of their eminent researchers to abandon their laboratories and their lives’ work. As Christopher Scott revealed in his book Stem Cell Now, it took scientists with a steely resolve to remain and to try to find a way around the barriers.

Without doubt, in Australia we have some of the most talented researchers supporting this new and exciting scientific work: Nobel prize winner Ian Frazer, eminent international scientist Sir Gus Nossal, Professor Bernie Tuch and the very talented young scientist Dr Megan Munsie, who conducted the first proof of the principle of therapeutic cloning in an animal model in 2000. Each of these eminent men and women, together with Australia’s Chief Scientist, Dr Jim Peacock, unanimously agree on the fundamental issue that we are debating here today—that is, that our country’s researchers should be given the scientific support and legislative protection needed to take the next step in stem cell research.

This is not a simple issue. It is not an easy issue. I certainly respect those in the chamber who have a different view. Few of us are scientific experts. Notwithstanding my five years as an employee with CSIRO, many of us need to rely on others to fully inform us and to clarify our thoughts as we work through the difficult issues arising from this bill. However, one thing is for sure: the Australian community is ready to take the next step. More than 80 per cent of them, when asked in a recent Morgan poll whether they approved of stem cells being extracted from human embryos to be used in the treatment of many diseases and injuries, answered with a resounding yes. In fact, 87 per cent of those aged between 14 and 17, and 25 and 34, answered yes. They were, of course, answering a hypothetical question because we currently do not carry out research on embryos unless they are surplus to IVF requirements and have the appropriate family consent. Until now our scientists have not created fertilised eggs specifically for research purposes, unlike at least seven other countries where this work is now undertaken and where, unfortunately, some of our scientists are now working.

I am unashamedly a supporter of the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. Over the past year, like so many witnesses to both the Lockhart committee and the Senate inquiry, I have benefited from medical research which has developed new treatments for illnesses and diseases. However, there were witnesses appearing before the committee who were less fortunate. Their appearance and their contribution on the debilitating injuries and chronic diseases that have affected them were particularly courageous and especially moving.

This is, of course, a debate about an important scientific principle and whether our scientists are responsible enough to be given the task of unravelling it—of building a new research platform in this country, equally as important as the discovery of penicillin, the transplant of organs or the mapping of the human genome. I ask the chamber: is there any recent evidence of scientific misadventure in Australia under our framework of careful regulation and with our scientists, like most of those around the world, driven by a fine balance of curiosity and acting for the greater good of mankind? Sadly, some opponents of this view have allowed the debate to be largely taken over by interest groups and the religious, often generating more heat than light. To suggest, as some of them have done, that supporters of this bill cannot at the same time be Christians is deeply offensive to both those who support and those who oppose this legislation. In any case, different religions have diverse views about when life actually begins. It is not any group’s exclusive territory. It is not a matter that is in the exclusive realm of any of them.

There are other key arguments associated with this bill, and I propose to deal with each of them very briefly. First, the slippery slope: the suggestion that animal-human hybrids will be the next inevitable step, that babies will be born on laboratory benches or that, as a newspaper advertisement disgracefully claimed last week, there will be ‘cloned foetus farming’. This is abhorrent. These baseless accusations against our scientists are, of course, easily answered. The proposed legislation allows only for the use of the outer case of an unfertilised embryo to create stem cells; there is no sperm involved. The process is not the same as IV. This legislation will ensure that any of the illegal scary science remains a criminal offence punishable by a lengthy prison sentence.

Then there is the ‘adult versus embryonic’ argument about which of the stem cells will have the greatest potential for stem cell application. The truth is: nobody is sure. This journey of scientific discovery has just begun and it would be quite irresponsible to rule in or out either pathway. To borrow the words of Sir Gus Nossal, we must ‘leave all the cell doors open; the two lines of research should progress together’. The British Nobel laureate Sir Paul Nurse told me in a recent interview: ‘It would be utterly irresponsible not to investigate both options when the research is at such a tentative stage with very significant potential.’

Another line of opposition suggests that embryonic stem cells have been oversold as a possible remedy for a range of diseases and illnesses, and that those who support their use are filled with hype and hubris and giving hope to the hopeless. How dare we tell thousands of Australians who suffer from inherited diseases that they know will be their grandchildren’s tragic legacy that they have no hope and that they should live each day in the knowledge that their disease will have no early cure. How dare we say that even a glimmer of hope, however fleeting, should be denied to them. Or worse still, how dare we say that, if a treatment or therapy is developed in Singapore, they should move there, or to Britain or Sweden or California, so that the treatment can be delivered to them there—at whatever cost. What audacious arrogance; what selfish simplicity. How pathetically patronising it is to these debilitated people. If we deny hope, why do any medical research? Surely to offer hope is to offer the chance to look forward with desire and reasonable confidence and it should never be denied.

Last but not least is the argument that the process embodied in this bill creates life to destroy life. As I said earlier, this is not an egg that becomes a baby as we know it. There is no sperm involved and the law will not allow the egg to be implanted. It cannot by law be allowed to exist for more than 14 days. Let me emphasise here the questions asked by one of the team at Stanford University working on stem cells. He said:

Do you truly believe that these eggs, which despite dire predictions have not been developed into a human, are the same as a living person, deserving of the same level of treatment? Do you truly believe that these eggs, which cannot be used after 14 days and are banned from implantation, enjoy a human status?

I do not. I accept the human status of an IVF embryo because it could develop into a baby, but I also accept the right of those families to determine the future of these IVF embryos. Informed consent is as important to those men and women as it is in the transplant issue.

Since Christiaan Barnard’s groundbreaking transplant work, thousands of lives have been saved or improved by the generosity of individuals and their families who have taken part in this selfless program of organ transplantation. This ethical issue we are debating today is, to me, incomparable with that. To me, an egg, which is not fertilised by sperm, will not be implanted, will not be used after 1 4 days and has not been scientifically demonstrated as being able to become a human baby, does not enjoy the status of a living human being.

Finally, let me briefly canvass the utterly abhorrent suggestion that women will ‘sell their fresh eggs’ or the even more objectionable suggestion that ‘female cadavers will have their eggs removed’. These arguments are as patronising as they are specious. They suggest that a woman has no control over her body, is driven by money and greed, will willingly take medication to stimulate egg production in return for payment and will jeopardise her health and potentially endanger her life. There will be no opportunity for this. The law will prevent it in this country and those opponents well know it. Moreover, these accusations are deeply offensive to women—indeed, they should be to men too—and it is particularly unfortunate that they were put to some of our most eminent research teams to try to substantiate a very offensive argument. Surely we think more of the intellectual capacity of our scientists and of our female population.

In conclusion, can I once again make my position clear: this bill, carefully developed by colleagues Kay Patterson and Natasha Stott Despoja, and reflecting the sensible recommendations of the eminent group known as the Lockhart committee, is worthy of my support. Let me quote the words of that very courageous Australian Dr Paul Brock who in evidence to our committee said:

Can you imagine looking my 90-year-old mum, my 43-year-old wife and our 15- and 11-year-old girls in the eye, and looking me in the eye, a bloke who 10 years ago was running around like a lunatic, playing golf, playing cricket, playing the piano and doing all the things in my life, now reduced to two fingers that move a bit, a brain that still works, a voice which obviously works too much and telling us it is evil?

I cannot, I will not, and the Senate must not.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Urban Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to say a few words about the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. I reject the notion that has been put to us in so many different forms that only the religiously devout are able to operate in a moral or ethical framework when it comes to considering questions of this type. As a humanist, I am not much impressed by the more extremist religious hysteria that has been associated with opposition to this bill. The emotive and often irrational anti-scientific fundamentalism that has been thrown up at members of this Senate is not a fair basis for assessment of the merits of this particular bill, which seeks to legalise medical research and in my judgement may well do more than any other piece of legislation that we have considered in recent years to enhance human dignity.

In my view, the passage of this bill is crucial to the future of health and medical research in Australia. More importantly, the passage of this bill is essential so that Australian researchers can lend their internationally renowned excellence and expertise to the humanitarian task of finding cures for serious and debilitating diseases that affect children and adults all over the world. So it is not only a national obligation but an international obligation.

I want to begin with that latter point, because finding cures for disease is what I believe this legislation is all about. In Australia, almost 92,000 people suffer from type 1 diabetes. That is 0.5 per cent of the total population. It is a very serious disease and, at the moment, lasts for life. It severely affects the quality of life and it can lead to many grave complications and poor health outcomes. It is the type of diabetes that often strikes in childhood. In 2004 almost 1,000 Australian children under the age of 15 years were diagnosed with type 1 diabetes. At the moment, they will have that disease for life. It will, on average, shorten their lives by 10 to 15 years. Of course, around the world, these figures are magnified many times over. In Australia, around 3,000 people are living with the severe disease cystic fibrosis. The average life expectancy for someone with this disease is the mid-30s.

I could go on with details about cancer, heart failure and the many other life-threatening diseases that potentially can be cured through therapeutic cloning. Type 1 diabetes is the fastest growing chronic disease amongst Australian children. The incidence has almost doubled in the last 20 years. I do not know about other senators, but I want to be able to say to the thousand kids who are diagnosed with type 1 diabetes every year that we as a society are doing our best to help them find a cure. I want the scientists to be given the best opportunity to fulfil that moral obligation. As legislators, we have to make it possible for them to be able to do that.

Some people argue that we do not need stem cell research or, more particularly, research into somatic cell nuclear transfer—dubbed by its opponents as human cloning—to find cures for these serious diseases. They point to research into adult stem cells and say that it has shown equal potential. There are a couple of things that I would like to say about that argument. Firstly, there are currently significant limitations on the potential for adult stem cells to do what the use of embryonic cells seems to be able to achieve. A report recently commissioned by the Premier of Victoria, Steve Bracks, and his Minister for Innovation, John Brumby, makes the point quite succinctly. Professor Gus Nossal and his colleague Professor GF Mitchell—both extremely eminent scientists in their field—concluded:

In regard to adult stem cells, some studies have demonstrated greater developmental potential than previously thought but generally with more limited potential than [embryonic stem cells] ... Growth to required quantities is a major limitation in adult stem cell R&D.

There are good reasons to keep working on adult stem cells, and no doubt many of Australia’s best scientists will endeavour to do so. We must leave no stone unturned in our quest to rid the world of the kinds of diseases and medical conditions that such work might be able to help cure. We should be exploring every chance to end human suffering.

That brings me to my second point. In the end, what is important is that we seek to end the suffering. The world needs stem cell research, including that involving and refining somatic cell nuclear transfer. I say that because we need it to ensure that its significant potential for success is realised. Professors Nossal and Mitchell, the experts who advised the Victorian government, spoke about this. It needs to be remembered that they are sober scientists who are highly regarded internationally—and they are very careful in the words that they use. They say:

We have mentioned the long time frames for product development in the medical field; 20 years from discovery to clinical practice is not unusual. In that context, the amount of progress that has been made in a scant 8 years with human [embryo stem] cells is breathtaking.

They used the word ‘breathtaking’. In that context it is important to appreciate that, firstly, they are making a comparison with progress in adult stem cell research and, secondly, they are comparing somatic cell nuclear transfer, SCNT, with other forms of embryonic stem cell science. These other forms use the technique of transplantation of embryonic stem cells into laboratory animals or, theoretically, into humans. The big problem here is rejection. That is the major hurdle. There is also the issue of guiding the stem cells down the right path to become the kinds of specialised cells that we need.

The stunning thing about somatic cell nuclear transfer, or SCNT, is that it overcomes these problems. Effectively, it has the potential to personalise the cells by using the patient’s own skin cell. There is already much evidence that this can work in laboratory animals. The technology required for this procedure is similar to that used in reproductive cloning, but we are talking about therapeutic cloning and not reproductive cloning. The distinction has to be made, both legally and scientifically. In my assessment, this legislation does that. We do not permit reproductive cloning of humans. I think that the idea would be morally repugnant to everyone in this chamber. But a firm prohibition on this kind of cloning should not stand in the way of developing a field of research that bears the potential to save so many lives and improve the quality of so many lives. As Professors Mitchell and Nossal pointed out:

... in the current and appropriate cautious and regulated environment, a broad SCNT approach is required for stem cell-based regenerative medicine to achieve its undoubted promise.

Diseases that take life and chronic diseases that severely restrict people’s quality of life ought to be fought with all the resources that we have available. This is the 21st century, and I think we should take a 21st century approach to these matters. We are fortunate enough to have a basis of medical and scientific knowledge that has been built up over a thousand years. It is now time to move that forward. Some of that knowledge has led to the development of exciting new techniques and processes that carry the potential to rid the world of a great deal of suffering. To say that we cannot follow that particular path simply because it shares some features with another path which we do not want to follow—that is, reproductive cloning—is, quite frankly, superstition. I would have thought that in the 21st century, superstition is not a basis for legislation. And, given what is at stake, it is cruel and life-denying superstition.

Scientists in several other countries are already working on the development of clinical treatments based on therapeutic cloning, or somatic cell nuclear transfer. They are doing so in the United Kingdom, Singapore, Japan, Europe and some states of the United States. Australia has been in the vanguard of research in the broad field. We have in the past been able to lead the way. Now it is time for us to ensure that we are part of international developments in this area. It is now time for Australian scientists to be able to tell the rest of the world that we are going to play our part in ensuring the dignity of life for human beings. It is not appropriate to say, ‘Sorry; we cannot continue to make a contribution.’ It is not the time to do so because, now that this field is beginning to take off and to gain strength, we need to be part of the new frontier of world medical science.

Steve Bracks in Victoria and Peter Beattie in Queensland have said that they are prepared to go it alone if the Australian parliament votes to ban therapeutic cloning. These Labor premiers understand the potential of this research in terms of its value to human life. Both understand the potential of Australia’s outstanding scientists to contribute to this great international humanitarian endeavour. I, for one, am with them all the way. All power to them. But I want to see Australian scientists in New South Wales, Tasmania and elsewhere also able to make a full contribution to this work. Nothing could be clearer than the fact that it is desperately needed. Nothing is more important than the saving of lives and finding an end to suffering. That is why I am wholeheartedly supporting this particular bill and therapeutic cloning. That is why I urge my colleagues on both sides of the chamber to do likewise.

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Sport and Recreation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will be supporting the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006, as I believe the public benefits of regulated research utilising therapeutic cloning will have a positive benefit for society. I also believe that it will improve the chances for finding a cure for a range of diseases afflicting many people. I believe that the medicinal and health benefits that this research will provide are undoubtedly in the best interests of all Australians. Limited embryonic stem cell research in countries such as Britain and the United States has shown immense potential for curing diseases that, until now, have had no known cure.

Research has shown that further development in therapeutic cloning may lead to cures for diabetes, osteoporosis, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, multiple sclerosis, heart disease and many other conditions. When one takes into consideration that approximately one million Australians suffer from diabetes alone, the merit of further research in this field becomes readily apparent in our own domestic circumstance. In coming to my decision, I have also taken into account the report of the Lockhart review. As senators are probably aware, the Lockhart review committee was formed in 2005 to assess the Commonwealth legislation that regulates human embryonic research. The committee report recommended that human embryonic stem cells be allowed for research purposes under supervision and a strict ethical code.

There are concerns that research involving the insertion of human tissue into an ovum from another species could lead to human-animal hybrids. This is just not true. The process used in therapeutic cloning begins with the removal of genetic material from the donor egg. All that is left is like a shell. The patient’s own genetic material, or somatic cells, is then inserted into the space vacated by the original genetic material. This is the somatic cell nuclear transfer. This new environment then ‘resets’ the cell so it can begin to behave as though it were a cell in a newly forming embryo. It ceases to be a skin cell—or whatever the genetic material of it came from—and replicates as a stem cell. In this way, the use of the word ‘embryonic’, as I see it, is like an adjective describing the cell’s behaviour, not its ultimate potential or form. This is a method of tissue culture used for copying cells that must be used or destroyed after 14 days.

I would also like to address specifically the issue of permitting the use of animal ova in research. This seems to be causing some concern. As I have described, the egg environment is what is used—not the genetic material. I will share a little history for the information of senators. I thought it useful to list some of the original sources of hormonal or endocrinal treatments to demonstrate the extent to which animals have benefited scientific advancement in the treatment of human ailments. Corticosteroids were extracted from ox and sheep bile and the adrenal glands of slaughtered animals. Insulin was originally extracted from the pancreas and liver tissues of slaughtered cows and pigs. Thyroid extract came from the dried and ground thyroid glands of cows and pigs, and oestrogen came from premarin extracted from pregnant mares’ urine.

In 1796, the first vaccinations were being experimented with. Tissue from cowpox was used to inoculate against the smallpox virus. I quote from information provided by the Jenner Museum:

People quickly became fearful of the possible consequences of receiving material originating from cows and opposed vaccination on religious grounds, saying that they would not be treated with substances originating from God’s lowlier creatures.

Indeed, the term ‘vaccination’ actually comes from the Latin word for cow, ‘vacca’, and is used in reference to the origins of this form of treatment. I cannot imagine a world without vaccinations.

The fact is that bio-engineering has led to the development of safer, cleaner, affordable and consistent medicine. The use of animal ova in the context that we are currently debating is not so new and different. It is important to regulate—of that I am certain—but it should not be regarded as something to be feared or reviled.

I would also like to make some points about embryonic stem cells vis-a-vis adult stem cells. Embryonic stem cells behave slightly differently to adult stem cells, such as those collected from bone marrow. These latter, more mature stem cells have been shown to have the potential to treat various conditions, but they may not always be a treatment option. For example, a leukaemia patient may have had all their own bone marrow ‘killed’ by chemotherapy, and, while it is possible for this patient to undergo a bone marrow transplant, there is the very real possibility of developing graft versus host disease. This condition sees the bone marrow rejecting the body into which it has been transplanted. GVHD can be, and often is, fatal. The use of the patient’s own tissue to create embryonic, or embryo-like, stem cells does away with the risk of rejection and GVHD. This is a very important development.

I would also like to discuss the issue of juvenile diabetes. In the years before 1921, a diagnosis of juvenile diabetes, or diabetes mellitus—type 1 diabetes—was a death sentence. Those with the condition could expect to live no longer than 18 months, while their families watched them slowly starve to death in the midst of plenty, their bodies unable to metabolise the food they consumed.

In 1921, insulin was finally identified and isolated at the University of Toronto. It was then that work began to extract it from the pancreatic tissues of animals and transform it into a product that could be administered to human patients. This was an enormous achievement in the field of medicine and one which would later earn the Nobel prize. However, it was not enough to treat the global population of diabetics. The challenge was to purify the treatment, mass produce it and then distribute it to all those who needed it—a massive task for both the state-of-the-art technology and the logistics of the period.

In early 1923, the University of Toronto granted pharmaceutical companies licence to produce insulin free of royalties. This generation of insulin was extracted from the livers and pancreatic tissue of slaughtered livestock, mostly cattle and pigs. It worked well and saved millions of lives. However, it was not an exact match for human insulin and could cause side effects, which occasionally resulted in the loss of tissue at the injection sites. It was also an expensive process and the quality of the extract was not consistent.

In 1978, a start-up American bio-engineering firm began experimentation with recombinant DNA. Their work saw the design and creation of an E. coli bacterium which produced human insulin as one of its natural by-products. This was the first patented living organism. This insulin product was released onto the market in 1982, some 2,500 years after the disease was first described in ancient Egypt. In comparison, the period of research into stem cells in Australia—the last four years—does not seem terribly lengthy.

It is important to note that insulin, with its interesting story of development, is not a cure for type 1 diabetes. It allows diabetics to live, but patients are still at risk of blindness, kidney failure, loss of limbs, impotence and infertility, amongst other negative outcomes. All of these eventualities require treatment in addition to the use of insulin and all have a substantial impact on the quality of life.

Parliamentarians were starkly reminded of the daily pain and suffering of type 1 diabetes sufferers when parliament hosted the now annual Kids in the House event. Hundreds of type 1 diabetes sufferers converged on Parliament House and implored their elected representatives to make a commitment to finding a cure. I feel that by supporting this legislation I am making good my commitment. I will never forget their stories. If therapeutic cloning can help to find a way to cure this tragic disease then every opportunity must be provided to facilitate it. This is the real hope with therapeutic cloning. It offers us the possibility of cures. Current treatments may ameliorate an existing condition and perhaps slow its progression, such as using interferon treatments for multiple sclerosis. What they do not do is repair the damage that has already been done to the patient or prevent further damage from occurring. While it cannot be promised that such cloning research will yield cures, it cannot be said that there is no such potential. That is why this research needs to be able to proceed.

I would like to focus just for a minute or two on the cruel disease of multiple sclerosis, or MS, for which there is no cure. Senator Humphries and I are co-patrons of MS here in the ACT and we co-chair the parliamentary supporters group for people with MS. According to an Australian website about this disease, there are 12,000 to 15,000 Australians with MS.

I would like to read an extract from an article published by the Research Defence Society, or RDS, which is the UK organisation representing medical researchers in the public debate about the use of animals in medical research and testing. The article concludes with this paragraph:

A completely new type of therapy may be possible using stem cells, possibly produced by cloning techniques. Stem cells are embryonic cells that have the potential to develop into all cell types found in the body. Transplanted into the brains of mice lacking myelin-producing proteins, these cells developed normally and secreted myelin, which began to cover nearby nerve fibres. The characteristic tremor disappeared in over half the treated animals.

Similarly, frozen human cells taken from nerve tissue have restored the nerve function in rats with the disease. This research is ongoing and clearly makes a positive difference to people’s lives. I believe it would be negligent not to continue and, for many, such neglect would constitute moral decline. If there is knowledge and understanding in scientific research, how can you choose not to help?

I note with interest the concern expressed regarding the potential exploitation of women. One senator cited a story of a woman being offered a discount for IVF treatment in return for donated ova in the UK, if I heard correctly. This example was used to illustrate how vulnerable women were to, I presume, being enticed into parting with their eggs. Under this legislation, women will not be permitted to sell their eggs. They can choose to donate them. This is akin to deciding to donate one’s organs—a practice I also fully support.

I also note that many senators who claim the rights of women are undermined by this bill are the same senators who have opposed the use of IVF and indeed the right to choose to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. There was no such respect for the rights of women in either circumstance when the opportunity was provided via other legislation debated in this place. The hypocrisy is noted.

I have listened carefully to the contributions of others so far who have formed a view to oppose this legislation. I am surprised at the level of reliance on thin end of the wedge arguments that evoke fear of the unknown. I obviously disagree and believe that the level of regulation this bill puts in place is both practical and workable. I do trust that the NHMRC will ensure that the prohibitions are adhered to. I reject arguments that this law will not be able to be enforced, as some senators have claimed. There are strong penalties and they are clearly described. Our health and medical researchers deal with complex ethical and moral issues concerning treatments and fields of study on a daily basis. They are professional and are experienced in the standards and behaviours expected of them. We should allow them to get on with their job.

I was saddened to hear some wildly inaccurate and sensational speculation about this legislation—that it will lead, somehow, to genetic designer children, the growing of foetuses to harvest human body parts and the prospect of creating chimeras, or half-animal, half-human entities. It is disgusting to mislead and create fear in this way, through some imagined extrapolation of where this research may end up in years to come. It is highly irresponsible and completely unhelpful to the tenor of this debate. This is precisely why the Lockhart review was commissioned: to ensure that there was a credible perspective on the real science behind therapeutic cloning. I do respect that religious and ethical views will differ. There is no shame in saying, as many have done, that it is outside your realm of beliefs, religious or otherwise, to permit this kind of research. Creating irrational fear does not have to be part of it.

I would like to acknowledge the work of my colleagues through the Senate inquiry process, particularly Senator Patterson and Senator Stott Despoja for taking the initiative. This bill has my full support. I would like to thank everyone in the ACT who contacted me about this issue. Predictably, there are wide-ranging views across both sides of the debate. I have tried to reply to most of them—although I think we are still working through our emails, so it might take a little while yet.

I think a great deal of work has been put in place on this issue. I would like to acknowledge the very hard work of scientists from all over Australia who have helped us, as legislators, to get a greater understanding of the scientific implications of this bill. Like most of my colleagues, I am not a scientist. I do not purport to be one. I have relied on the work of others in making my contribution today. I hope that in the course of this debate we become a little more enlightened as to what the scientific reality is when it comes to the use of therapeutic cloning. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Family First wants cures as much as anyone else. Family First wants scientists to find cures to all manner of debilitating diseases. I cannot stress that enough. However, it is wrong to peddle false hope to some of the most vulnerable members of our community that cures are imminent. And it is disturbing that so many people are doing so. As world-renowned stem cell expert Professor James Sherley said recently:

The idea that research on human embryos will yield an amazing medicine chest of new cures for debilitating diseases of children and adults is a myth. Nothing could be further from the truth.

We need to inject a serious dose of reality into this debate on the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006a debate which is about cloning, not embryonic stem cells, because the law already allows research on human embryos. It is not a debate about the promise of miracle cures from cloning.

To properly examine this issue we need to focus on the scientific facts. It is clear from evidence presented to the Senate committee that cloning human embryos will not produce the cures we all desire. A number of scientists gave evidence that embryonic stem cells from cloned embryos will not be able to be used for cell therapies. Only adult stem cells can repair adult tissue.

Another aspect of this debate is the ethics around cloning. It is right for parliament to set ethical boundaries around science to reflect medical standards and community concern. In summary, Family First strongly opposes cloning human embryos for research for three reasons: firstly, the science, which tells us this will not produce the much hyped miracle cures; secondly, the exploitation of Australian women where there are health dangers for women whose eggs will be needed for cloning; and, thirdly, the fact that cloning human embryos crosses a major ethical line because, for the first time, we would be deliberately creating a human being with the intention of destroying it.

I will now expand on these points. Firstly, the science tells us that cloning human embryos will not produce the cures we all desire. Scientists revealed to the Senate inquiry that to use human embryonic stem cells in therapies you first have to turn them into adult stem cells so that they can work in an adult or a child. Professor Sherley says:

... embryonic stem cells cannot fulfil the job of adult stem cells and mature tissues because they were designed by Mother Nature to work in the embryo and not in the adult.

Not only is there a lack of evidence that embryonic stem cells from cloned human embryos can produce cures; here we have evidence that they cannot be used unless they are turned into adult stem cells. Surely the best option is to put all our effort and all our money into adult stem cell research, which we know works.

Speaking of adult stem cells, Professor Sherley also tells us that they are:

... the only type of stem cells for which there are current clinical treatments. Transplantation of bone marrow ... to restore blood cell production is a well-known adult stem cell therapy.

It is worth noting that the advice to government from MP Consulting was that, since changes to the law in 2002, there have been no scientific advances that would justify the ban on cloning being lifted. The only advance the Lockhart committee could point to was the embryo cloning work done in South Korea, which was later found to be a complete fraud.

To those who claim Australia will go backward if we do not allow cloning, I again turn to Professor Sherley, who said:

Stopping the production of cloned embryos for research will not deny Australians the opportunity for benefits in the form of new cures ... because embryonic stem cells provide no path at all.

Frank Brennan, a Jesuit scholar and professor, emphasised that nothing has happened since 2002 to justify a change. Professor Brennan said:

The science has not changed, the moral arguments have not changed, community standards have not changed. It should take more than a handful of scientists seeking out more value free research environments for our politicians to change their conscience vote.

I will now turn to the issue of the exploitation of Australian women. To clone embryos, you need a supply of eggs. The only source of human eggs in Australia is from the ovaries of Australian women. I must stress that we are talking here about the need for thousands and thousands of eggs. The discredited Korean cloning research team used more than 2,000 eggs for no result. It took 277 attempts to clone Dolly the sheep, who then had to be put down because she was defective. Clearly, taking large numbers of eggs from Australian women poses dangers to their health, and we must remember that such invasive procedures have no direct benefit for the women involved.

As the Women’s Forum Australia told the Senate inquiry:

It is irresponsible and premature to allow research cloning without identifying a viable source of ova that is safe for women.

                 …         …           …

Only a few years after the legalisation of research cloning in the UK, the licensing authority has begun to authorise commercial incentives for supplying ova for research ...

In other words, we know that deals are being done in the United Kingdom—deals between scientists and women—to extract women’s eggs in return for all manner of rewards. Surely we cannot say yes to such a trade in Australia. Family First acknowledges that our legislation prevents payment for women’s eggs, but the UK started out that way as well. It would be so wrong for this parliament to give a green light to a process that will inevitably lead scientists to bargain for Australian women’s eggs.

Finally, I will turn to the ethics of the cloning debate. As Dr Megan Best explained:

Ethical boundaries in medical research have not caused medical research to stop progressing, but instead have moved it forward by promoting creative solutions ...

While we know that politicians have a habit of quoting polls that suit them, we might have expected more from the Lockhart committee, which was established to provide what we had hoped would be unbiased advice. It is unfortunate that members of this committee ignored the only poll on Australian attitudes about cloning published in an academic journal, which showed that a majority of Australians did not want embryo cloning, and instead focused on polls which supported cloning.

While our media have featured stories of sick people living in hope of cures from cloning, it is important to point out that not all people suffering from illness have swallowed this pill. James Kelly, a US man who is wheelchair-bound following a spinal injury, opposes cloning. He said:

I’m paralysed from the chest down, with my life and dreams depending on the successful, efficient use of medical research resources. So it’s not in my interests to grab at straws instead of looking at scientifically proven facts ... The simple truth is that therapeutic cloning is a colossal sham designed to draw crucial research resources down a fruitless path with no end in sight.

The case for overturning the ban on cloning embryos has no scientific legs. Family First urges senators to vote against this legislation.

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the senators who brought this debate to the parliament. In particular, I thank Senator Webber, Senator Stott Despoja and Senator Patterson, whose bill, the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006, we are considering today. The bill arises from the Lockhart committee review of the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act and the Research Involving Human Embryos Act. I also thank the members of the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs, who conducted the inquiry into the Lockhart review, the exposure draft bill and related documentation and who presented us with the comprehensive and thoughtful report entitled Legislative Responses to recommendations of the Lockhart Review.

The report and the process that led to it are yet another example of the immense benefit of the system of Senate committee inquiries into important issues and legislation. I am sure that the committee would have preferred to have more time to conduct its work and I appreciate what they have done in such a short time. As we know, the majority decision of the Senate committee was to support the so-called Patterson bill which gives effect to the recommendations of the Lockhart committee by either maintaining prohibitions recommended by the Lockhart committee or making alterations to the current legislation as needed to implement the recommendations of the Lockhart committee.

In making its decision, I believe the Senate committee reflects the views of most Australians who also support the intent of this bill, which are, broadly, to allow scientists who may apply to undertake certain types of research using embryonic stem cells, and that persons undertaking that research must be licensed to do so and must do the research within a strict legal framework that reflects community standards of responsibility and accountability in scientific endeavour.

Obviously some people do not support this bill and probably did not support some or all of the original legislation that this bill now seeks to amend. Like all senators, I have read the arguments and submissions of those opposed to this legislation, and I thank them for taking the time to contact me with their views. Clearly, for some people this is a very emotive issue. That has been demonstrated by the well-organised campaign against this bill and it has also been recognised by the fact that senators and members will be exercising a conscience vote on these amendments. I respect the views of those people who are opposed to these amendments and acknowledge that, in the main, opponents of the bill have put their views in a measured and respectful way, although unfortunately that has not been the situation in all cases. I do not think those opponents of this bill who resort to hysterical and inflammatory language do their cause any good.

But as I said, this is an emotive issue for some people. There are, I believe, more important and potentially more ethically challenging issues that the parliament and parliamentarians have to deal with—issues that are definitely, immediately and forever going to change the lives of most Australians—and our children—for the worse or for the better. For example, there is climate change and its effects. What do we need to change in our way of life to stop the devastation of our environment and the potential detriment to our economy as a result of that devastation? What should be the role of the government in that and how far do we interfere in the freedom of the individual in order to ensure the wellbeing of the majority? When and how do we extract ourselves from the war in Iraq and what will be the consequences, if any, for the Iraqi people? How do we resolve the world’s energy needs, knowing that nuclear energy can be used to generate power but also to kill people and cause genetic mutations in future generations? Where is the moral borderline between respect for and the protection of human rights and the restrictions and laws that we need to put in place to protect our nation from acts of terrorism? Why is it that last year 3.1 million people died from AIDS related illnesses, more than half a million of them children under 15 years of age? These are just some of the issues that bring into play our individual moralities, our different religious and ethical viewpoints, our need to consider the immediacy of action, the results of inaction and what we will forgo or reap if we are too timid or too bold in our legislation.

These are some of the considerations relevant to this debate too. By saying these things, I am not trying to diminish the importance of the debate we are having on this bill. I am certainly not wishing to diminish the work of the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs, the Lockhart committee or the senators who brought this matter here. I do believe we need to get things in perspective given that every day there are many issues of great import, of far-reaching and immediate impact, that the nation’s parliament could well justify spending a whole week considering, but time to debate those issues of national and international significance is a rare thing.

With regard to this bill, I can comfortably make my decision based on the findings of the Lockhart committee review, the facts presented to the Senate community affairs committee, the presentations I have attended and representations from both supporters and opponents of this bill. I will give my reasons why I support the bill shortly, but I have not been swayed by the opponents of this bill because I do not think they have made their case, and what case they have made is, in the main, based on beliefs and convictions that I do not share.

Some people say this bill enables scientists to create life with the intention of destroying it. I disagree with that proposition. I do not accept that this legislation creates what we can properly consider a living being. Of course, we already do create embryos with the intention of creating a human life, and I am sure there are many senators who, like me, have shared the joy of people who have become parents through participation in assisted reproduction programs. We have also seen participants in those programs who have had to make the decision about what to do with their unused embryos, and I am sure for some people that is a difficult decision. But it is a fact that we have allowed science to develop to a stage where we create and destroy, or experiment upon, human embryos already and the world has not descended into a maelstrom of immoral scientific extremism because of the ability to create human life in a test tube.

Others say this bill will lead to cloning human beings in the sense that we can replicate or make a person that has predetermined features or attributes. This bill does not allow that. The legislation in place specifically precludes that. It is a repugnant idea and it is disingenuous to try to claim that this bill will somehow or other lead to reproductive cloning.

One argument espoused by opponents of this bill is that research using adult stem cells is sufficient for our needs and that we therefore do not need to amend the current legislation. That is not a view supported by the objective scientific literature which explains clearly, even for a layperson like me, that different types of stem cells—adult and embryonic—are different and have different potentials. This bill is about giving science the opportunity to realise that potential.

Some people say that this bill will open the door to unacceptable scientific experimentation and that scientists will be lured into commercial arrangements and find it irresistible to conduct research that is outside the bounds of what the community approves. It is a fact of life that private for-profit organisations fund scientific research with a view to making money. It is what happens in a capitalist economy. It is one reason why we need to regulate scientific endeavour with legislation such as the current legislation that this bill amends. This bill has punitive provisions—up to 15 years in jail—to prevent unacceptable use and abuse of the privilege of undertaking scientific research. Apart from those punitive legislative provisions, we should remember that by far the majority of scientific researchers and practitioners are honest, ethical people with a genuine commitment to using their talents and opportunities to improve the lives of all people. This is what science has done for centuries and I am confident that noble and ethical pursuit will continue to be the imperative for our scientific community.

Some opposition to this bill has been along the lines that women will somehow be coerced or forced into giving up or selling their ova to satisfy the needs of unethical science. Apart from the fact that there is no evidence at all to support that proposition, we should acknowledge we already donate all manner of body parts for science and medical procedures. We already donate organs, tissue, blood and sperm, amongst other things. I am unaware that this has led to any unethical or exploitative trade in body parts in this country. On the contrary: it has been conducted under rigorous government control and has contributed to alleviation of illness, remedy and prevention of disease, and has provided children for infertile couples.

The committee report notes that the bills:

... prohibit the commercialisation of human egg donation and insertion of any cloned human embryo into the body of an animal or human.

Possibly the crux of this debate is as described in chapter 3 of the committee report where it says there are those:

... who believe that the intrinsic value of the SCNT embryo is equal to that of an embryo created through natural fertilization using egg and sperm.

The report goes on to say that people in favour of this bill:

... did not think that this belief should outweigh the potential to help living people with the possible understanding of disease process, therapies or drug testing the resultant SCNT cells—

that is, embryonic stem cells—

... may be used in finding.

And that is the reason why I support this bill—that is, it may bring about further medical advances, changes for the better, and changes that have the potential to improve the health and wellbeing of not just Australians but people all over the world. The benefits of scientific discovery do not have to be confined within the borders of the country where those discoveries are made. Beneficiaries of scientific endeavour that produce vaccinations, therapies or other solutions to problems can be anywhere. It will only be science that halts the deaths of those half a million children each year from AIDS related illnesses.

But as the committee notes, and as the Lockhart committee noted in its findings, the proponents and supporters of this bill are not promising any miracle cures—especially no miracle cures in the near future. All proponents of this bill caution that we should be realistic about what to expect if changes to the legislation are allowed by this parliament. We know, from the measured advice given to us by scientists and experts in this field, that nothing may come of the research techniques that this legislation may allow. SCNT may be superseded by some other technology or may not deliver any useful result. But how can we forgo the opportunity to find out what the potential is? How can we know what the potential is if we do not allow the research to occur?

This bill will give Australia’s scientists that opportunity. It will give them the opportunity to conduct work collaboratively with scientists in other nations where embryonic stem cell research work is already being undertaken. It will give them the opportunity to apply for a licence to do that research in their own country instead of having to relocate to countries where such research is allowed.

As I said earlier, this bill implements the recommendations of the Lockhart committee review of existing legislation. That review was undertaken by a group of eminent Australians, experts in various fields, who worked to the review framework set by the parliament in 2002. In their own terms, the Lockhart committee came up with a range of middle-of-the-road recommendations that took into account developments in technology in relation to assisted reproductive technology; developments in medical and scientific research and the potential therapeutic applications of such research; community standards; and the applicability of establishing a national stem cell bank. As also required, the Lockhart committee consulted widely within the Commonwealth and the states. There has been some criticism of the members of the Lockhart committee—unfair criticism—but, unfortunately, it is typical that when critics do not like the message they attempt to shoot the messenger. I am confident that the committee’s recommendations were rational, objective, informed and sensible.

This bill and the legislation it amends reflects the sensible and cautious approach of the Lockhart committee. It maintains the restrictions that the parliament agreed to in the original legislation and includes punitive measures for breaching those restrictions. It requires a further review of this field of scientific endeavour, and that is an entirely appropriate and responsible legislative mechanism. Most importantly, it gives our scientific community the opportunity to undertake research that has the potential to improve the lives of all Australians. Surely there can be no better goal for a member of parliament than to do what we can to improve the health, wellbeing and future of our people and therefore, as a member of parliament, I am pleased to have been given the opportunity to support this bill.

John Watson (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In 2002, I voted for the Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002 and supported the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002 as, I remind the Senate, did the majority of the members in this place. At the time, given some high-powered and persuasive arguments, my reasoning for supporting the research involving human embryos bill in 2002 was that I felt that important research could be undertaken that would benefit human society.

I remind the Senate that the system the parliament put in place in 2002 is still working. Scientists who wish to undertake research on embryos in excess to the IVF process can do so under licence from the National Health and Medical Research Council. The scope of allowable research is quite generous. But creating a human embryo for research is a significantly different matter, and I believe that this should remain prohibited.

I remind the Senate that an opportunity was given in 2002 for limited experimentation with human embryos. Unfortunately, the recommendations made in the Lockhart report opened that door far too wide so that the negatives would outweigh the benefits and, in so doing, would introduce wider fundamental ethical issues.

I would now like to acknowledge Mr Jim Wallace AM of the Australian Christian Lobby, a person who has a close association with the Parliamentary Christian Fellowship, of which I am a member. Mr Wallace has been working very hard in this area, and I think his efforts are commendable.

I remind the Senate that one of the better comments in the Lockhart report is this:

… the higher the potential benefits of an activity, the greater the need for ethical objections to be of a high level and widely accepted in order to prevent that activity.

The absence of any demonstrated potential for cloned embryonic stem cells except in the discredited Korean results, on which I believe the Lockhart report is based, means that the 2002 decision should really stand. The fact that some are seeking to do cloning not four years after the original legislation is evidence in itself, I believe, that the ‘slippery slope’ is very real. From a practical point of view, stem cells can be obtained from the umbilical cord of newborn babies and either used immediately or stored for further research. The diseases that scientists claim they will research using embryos in the first 14 days will not manifest themselves in that time, making a subsequent request to extend the experimentation time inevitable—in the same way this request has come so quickly on the heels of the last, less than four years ago.

It is interesting to look at what the Lockhart report said about the creation of human-animal hybrids:

The Committee noted that there was strong community objection to the implantation of such prohibited embryos into the body of a woman or to their development in any other way beyond 14 days. The Committee sees no reason to depart from this strong community objection.

I would imagine that this strong community objection would apply to their creation and development at all, not just whether they were allowed to develop beyond 14 days.

I take some inspiration from the Catholic Health Australia chief executive, Francis Sullivan, who said the report showed that scientists were ‘far from settled on even the need to clone embryos’. A Catholic Health media release states:

The Report does canvass many issues but fails to face head-on the fundamental issue at stake: … that scientists wish to deliberately create human life to directly destroy it.

The Lockhart report itself acknowledges:

The creation of such embryos is widely accepted for helping people who would otherwise have difficulty having a family, but there is little general support for the creation of such embryos for research purposes—

which this bill wants. The report also deals with another cogent argument, saying:

… because the technology is the same as that used for reproductive cloning, allowing cloning to extract stem cells would inevitably lead to its use for reproduction.

Finally, I do not feel that these additional changes to the act are justified. We gave scientists the ability to do limited research involving embryos, as I said earlier, just four years ago. I do not think they have exhausted all avenues, nor do I think it is prudent to continually relax legislation in this area just to keep up with other, less ethical societies. For these reasons, I will not support the legislation before the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Minchin) adjourned.

Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour.