Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

The incorporated speech read as follows

I rise this evening to make some very brief comments on the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006.

Four years ago there was a debate in Parliament on embryonic research and human cloning. At that time there was some extremely strong feelings and debate and it is fair to say that there is still strong feeling on the matter.

The bills that were supported in the parliament in 2002 were designed to deliver a national regulatory system to address concerns about scientific developments in relation to human reproduction and the utilisation of human embryos.

The laws passed in 2002 were in an international sense relatively conservative and they included a provision that the laws be reviewed after 3 years.

Science changes and knowledge grows and presents us with new perspectives. It is right that we revisit issues in the light of new knowledge.

We have done that in this case. The Lockhart Legislation Review was charged with investigating the scope and operation of the 2002 Acts and the Review Committee reached a number of conclusions and made 54 recommendations.

The legislation before us seeks to put into place some of those recommendations.

It is worth noting that the Committee found that “despite the divergent views received by the Committee during the reviews, both proponents and opponents of embryo research agreed that the current system of legislation is valuable. Therefore, the Committee recommended a continuation of national legislation imposing prohibitions on human reproductive cloning and some other ART practices, as well as strict control and monitoring, under licence, of human embryo research.”

In line with that perspective this bill does not alter provisions prohibiting human reproductive cloning.

The existing prohibitions in place to prevent the placement of prohibited embryos in the body of a woman will also be maintained if this bill is passed.

We should be absolutely clear—this bill does not allow the cloning of complete human beings. This is something that the Australian community almost unanimously opposes and there is no intent within this legislation to lessen the prohibition on this.

This bill does however permit Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer—sometimes referred to as therapeutic cloning. This is a process in which stem cells are produced for use in research by removing the nucleus of an egg and replacing it with the nucleus removed from a donor adult cell.

This single cell is then stimulated to allow development into a collection of cells over a short period of time. The bill before us would limit that to 14 days.

At this stage there would be a structure comprising some 100 to 200 cells. The stem cells are then removed and used for research—in the process destroying the embryo.

The goal here is to produce stem cells—not human beings. It also needs to be pointed out that scientists believe that current indications are that blastocysts developed from somatic cell nuclear transfer are very unlikely to develop further.

In any case, this bill explicitly prohibits the implantation of somatic cell nuclear transfer embryos into the body of an animal or human.

Many of the arguments that have been proposed in opposition to this bill are similar to those that were put forward in opposition to the legislation in 2002.

Several arguments have been advanced against this bill. I will address four of them.

The first argument centres around what is life—at what point is human life formed or defined?

Some people believe that a fertilised human egg from the moment of conception has the moral equivalence of a live born child. For them nascent human life—cloned or not—has to be protected. Indeed many of those who object to the changes proposed in this bill object to embryonic stem cell research in its entirety.

Similarly some believe that somatic cell nuclear transfer is sufficiently similar to normal conception with an egg and spermatozoa that a human person also comes into existence during therapeutic cloning. The process of extracting stem cells destroys the embryo.

Personally I do not believe that a blastocyst, an undifferentiated embryonic collection of cells —whether taken from a fertility clinic or made through cloning—is a human life. It may have the potential to become a human life but it is not a conscious being.

While respecting that others have a different view, I see little difference between the creation and destruction of a collection of cells for the purposes of assisted reproductive technologies—or IVF as we commonly call it—and the creation and destruction of those cells for research into treating conditions other than infertility.

If it is acceptable that we create embryos for IVF with the knowledge that many will be destroyed, I can not see why is it less acceptable to create them for the purposes of research which has the potential to benefit so many people.

This is not the same as saying that anything goes. This bill maintains strict controls and regulations around human embryo research. Controls and regulations which are entirely appropriate. This is not a free for all.

Opponents of the bill have also recycled the argument that we should not proceed with embryonic stem cells when adult stem cell research is available.

But it would seem to me that we still do not know which of these techniques will be most beneficial in the future.

Adult and embryonic stem cells are not the same. Nor are embryonic cells from Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer the same as embryonic cells from egg and sperm derived embryos.

The potential of these various forms of stem cells to cure disease is not the same.

It was pointed out during the inquiry that because stem cells developed from Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer processes could be developed from people with identified diseases they would allow for a unique opportunity to look into disease formation—something which is not possible through harvesting stem cells from excess IVF blastocysts.

All of these lines of stem cell research have their place and we will only know what they truly are if we allow all to develop.

Future developments may mean that one line of research will be the more beneficial than the others but at this point in time we do not know if that will be the case. And we certainly do not know which type of stem cell research might be the most beneficial.

Opponents of the bill have argued that there needs to be overwhelming evidence of the benefits of creating cloned embryos for embryonic stem cell research to justify changing the current legislative regime.

This argument is inconsistent with the nature of research. Research is the study of something in order to discover new information. If we knew what we would find we wouldn’t need to conduct the research. If we make research conditional on prior proof of outcomes, we will not be able to conduct any research in this country.

Arguments extolling the need to protect vulnerable women have also been proposed in this debate—much was made of the so-called health risks to women in egg harvesting, as well as the risk of exploitation of women to gain access to more human eggs.

However this bill prohibits the commercialisation of human egg donation. No medical procedure is without risk which is why informed consent is central to all medical procedures. Egg harvesting is a central component of IVF and there is broad community acceptance that women should have access to this technology.

We need to be alert to arguments that make women out to be victims and which may be used by those hiding their religiously based beliefs behind a facade of caring for the health and well-being of women.

I understand that there are people who because of their religious beliefs do not support this bill, as many did not support the bill in 2002.

They are entitled to follow their religious beliefs.

But I do not believe that legislation should be used to outlaw scientific research which is widely supported within the community.

It is the duty of parliamentarians to progress the wider public good.

I will be supporting this legislation because I believe that this bill will benefit the community in the long term.