Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Hansard source

I commend Senator Hogg on his contribution, and I agree with every word of his contribution. I also rise to express my profound opposition to the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006, which, as Senator Hogg said, seeks to permit the creation of human embryos by cloning and to permit research upon such embryos which will destroy them.

In expressing my deep hostility to this activity that is sought to be authorised by this bill, I want to comment firstly on the process by which this bill has come before us. I indicate my strong support for the decision of the federal cabinet, of which I am proud to be a member, not to proceed with government legislation to give effect to the recommendations of the Lockhart review. The Lockhart report should not be considered as some flawless study which sits above question and beyond debate. Professor James Sherley, the stem cell expert who visited Australia from the US last month, observed how, unfortunately, some Australian parliamentarians have come to regard this report as a biblical guide in their deliberations on legislative change. He noted with concern that some of the fantastical promises of cures from cloning promised in the report are premised on an incorrect understanding of cell behaviour.

The cabinet made the right decision that the Lockhart recommendations involved crossing a very significant ethical line in the sand which this parliament had established only four years ago in unanimously adopting the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002. In the cabinet’s view, the Lockhart committee had not produced persuasive arguments that the prohibition on cloning established by this parliament just four years ago should be overturned with respect to human embryos. The cabinet’s view remains very much my view. Nevertheless I respected the Prime Minister’s decision that the government would facilitate the consideration of a private member’s bill to give effect to the Lockhart committee recommendations and that all coalition members and senators should have a conscience vote on this matter. I welcome the fact that that is the case with the Labor Party.

I also confirm my ongoing respect for the proponent of this bill, Senator Kay Patterson, who is a valued cabinet colleague and who continues to make an important contribution to the Senate, to the Liberal Party and to public life in Australia. I respect Senator Patterson’s motives in sponsoring this bill and her commitment to medical and scientific research, which she sincerely hopes might one day improve the wellbeing of mankind. Nevertheless I am deeply disappointed that this bill is before us and I earnestly hope that the Senate will reject it.

The bill raises issues which go to the heart of one’s political and moral philosophy. One’s attitude to this bill requires thoughtful consideration of whether ends justify means and the role of the state in a modern, civilised society. The bill asks us to accept that the end, the asserted possibility that destructive research on cloned embryos will produce cures for a range of diseases, does justify the means. The means in this case, the creation of human embryos deliberately to destroy them in the name of scientific research, was unanimously rejected by this parliament just four years ago. The repugnant and thoroughly unethical and objectionable means to be permitted by this bill do not justify the ends.

Human life is an end in itself. It is not, and should not ever be, an instrument of science or a disposable ingredient for improvements in clinical practice, student training and rudimentary scientific research that is very far from passing the test of proof and perfection even in animal studies. And the ends proclaimed by the advocates of this bill are far from being established as likely to be achieved as a consequence of the repugnant means to be allowed by this bill.

The ‘no’ case presented in the Senate committee report on this bill exposes the utterly tenuous basis for the asserted possibilities of cures for diseases being derived from research on human embryos. May I take this opportunity to commend Senator Gary Humphries on his very capable chairmanship of the inquiry and on his authorship with Senator Fierravanti-Wells and Senator Polley of the persuasive case against this bill.

In 2002, parliamentarians were told by scientists who were leading the charge for embryonic research that they would only need access to surplus embryos from IVF donations in order to conduct research to generate cures. Despite the hype four years ago, there have been surprisingly few licences requested or issued. Of the nine licences issued by the NHMRC, only one licence directly pertains to finding therapies for a disease. The other licences relate to purposes such as IVF techniques, training embryologists, and laboratory culture conditions.

The hype of four years ago has returned. Some supporters of the Lockhart agenda have been raising public expectations that if embryonic stem cell research can be extended to include cloning techniques then researchers will unleash an abundant supply of therapies. Even if we would accept that the ends could justify the means, the available medical evidence does not appear to bear out the promise of a wellspring of treatments for disease and disability. Indeed, there is a strong argument that embryonic stem cells may never yield safe and efficient treatments such as those that are presently under development involving adult stem cell research.

Adult stem cells are the only type of stem cell that is suited to treatment of mature tissues, because the asymmetric cell division process of adult stem cells is stable and designed to achieve continuous renewal of the human tissue. By contrast, embryonic stem cells are designed to proliferate aggressively. Tumour formation is therefore a major outcome from the transplant of embryonic stem cells into animals. These teratoma cancers, which result from cloning, are potentially lethal if undetected. Where teratomas are detected, they could require surgery to remove, which in some cases may be life threatening.

It strikes me as very unsatisfactory that the majority on the recent Senate committee inquiry glossed over the issue of cancer formation in a single paragraph in their report. It is one thing to inflate public expectations of cure beyond what the evidence can sustain, but it is even more egregious to frame the debate in a manner which downplays the significance of a very big risk that is inherent in treatments based on embryonic stem cells.

Professor James Sherley argues that:

The only possibility for development of new therapies based on embryonic stem cells would require that they first be converted into adult stem cells. However, the conversion process is formidable compared to use of naturally occurring adult stem cells.

Likewise, Professor Peter Silburn points out that:

It is simpler, more efficient, proficient, safer and more sensible to use the [adult stem] cells initially.

This debate could be described as a debate about hope. While I do respect the good intentions of those on the opposite side of this debate, I do not believe they have a monopoly on compassion or hope or vision. It is a pity that some proponents of embryonic stem cells have sought to downplay the very significant medical advances being delivered through the rival field of adult stem cell research.

Adult stem cells from numerous sources, such as bone marrow, muscle and fat, have been developed and reprogrammed into a variety of different cell types. They are already being used in clinical trials and they can be patient specific. I believe that it is the advocates and sponsors of adult stem cell research who are giving genuine hope to those who suffer from disease or seek remedy for disability. The undisputed evidence that adult stem cell research is much more likely to produce successful outcomes than embryonic stem cell research should persuade the Senate not to cross the ethical chasm which we are urged to cross by this bill’s proponents.

This bill also goes to the heart of one’s philosophy on the role of the state. My general view—that encroachments on individual liberties can generally be avoided if we work actively to limit the role of the state—is, I think, well known. I almost always regard with scepticism proposals to expand the role of the state. Nevertheless, the state obviously has some fundamental roles to perform in a civilised society such as ours. Probably the most important role of the state is the protection of innocent life. At the heart of our law and our institutional structures is that obligation of the state. I imagine that no-one in this chamber would dispute that primary obligation on the state—to protect innocent human life. To apply that injunction to this bill does require one to decide what is human life that would command the state’s protection. I would not have thought that there was any real dispute about the status of a human embryo created by whatever means.

In the majority report of the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs, the proponents of this bill attempted to distinguish between a cloned embryo and other human embryos on the basis of the method of creation and on the basis that, at present, there is no proposition to implant such embryos in the womb, nor an intention to let them live beyond an arbitrary limit of 14 days. I, for one, do not consider this semantic attempt to distinguish between cloned embryos and other human embryos at all convincing. It is the cellular composition of an embryo that gives it the integrity of human life, not the manner of its inception or the swiftness of its destruction. The dispute between us is whether the state should permit human life to be created by cloning in order to be destroyed for purposes, outlined in recommendation 21 of the Lockhart report, of:

research, training and improvements in clinical practice.

If one accepts that the state’s obligation is to protect innocent human life, that obligation must be triggered at the point at which human life commences. For that reason, I remain strongly opposed to all embryonic stem cell research because it necessarily involves the destruction of human embryos. That is why I opposed the 2002 legislation, and that is why I oppose this even more profoundly objectionable bill, involving as it does the permission of cloning techniques outlawed by this parliament just four years ago.

It is not only innocent life which is at risk thanks to this private member’s bill. This latest legislation gives cause for new ethical concerns about the exploitation of women in vulnerable circumstances. Ms Katrina George from Women’s Forum Australia stated in evidence to the Senate committee:

What we can see from overseas is that it is impossible to obtain near sufficient supplies of ova without offering women some sort of commercial incentive.

Clearly, inducements would be of greater attraction to women in financial need or to women in distressed medical circumstance who are prepared to engage in quid pro quo arrangements. Inducements, in the form of concessional IVF or medical treatment, are not strictly or comprehensively proscribed in either the Lockhart recommendations or the Patterson bill. The Lockhart approach is only to ban the sale of eggs and to leave guidelines for egg donation to the NHMRC. The removal of eggs is medically stressful in itself and not without risk, so it is a concern that this bill leaves a loophole which would allow pressure or inducements to be directed at recruiting women with debilitating illnesses as a source for donations.

I note that clause 23C of the Patterson bill envisages the import and export of cloned embryonic stem cell material, subject to unspecified future regulations to be made within six months. Furthermore, schedule 4 of the Patterson bill deletes key restrictions applying to the export of embryos under regulation 7 of the Customs (Prohibited Exports) Regulations 1958. This existing regulatory framework provides important safeguards which ought not to be removed without close debate or without replacement by an equivalent set of rules. Amongst other things, the regulation prevents the export of embryos if there has been an inducement, discount or priority in the provision of a service to be provided to the relevant woman or to another person but does not include the payment of reasonable expenses incurred by the relevant woman in connection with fulfilling the agreement.

The attempt in the Patterson bill to allow the import and export of embryonic material without guaranteeing to parliament that we retain the safeguards against inducements is only dealt with in a very cursory discussion by the majority report of the Senate committee. I am very concerned that this bill creates a framework that is liable to involve a significant reliance on vulnerable women in Australia or women in developing countries where we have limited capacity to scrutinise compliance with Australian legislative safeguards and clinical practice.

Finally, let me make it clear that I share with the proponents of this bill a desire to achieve medical cures for diseases afflicting our fellow citizens. As a former Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, I have enormous regard for the integrity, skills and expertise of Australia’s scientific community. As the current Minister for Finance and Administration, I oversee considerable public investment in medical and scientific research. Nevertheless, it is the responsibility of the parliament to establish the ethical framework within which medical and scientific research is to be conducted—no matter how desirable it might be, the stated aims of the research or how much the scientists themselves may seek to further their own knowledge. I implore the Senate to demonstrate a consistency of conscience by rejecting this bill, for the reasons I have outlined, thus reinforcing the prohibition of human cloning unanimously set in place by the Commonwealth parliament just four years ago.