Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share 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.