Ruth Webber (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share 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.