Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I must say to the chamber that my initial views on this matter are not where I have ended up. I hold Senator Patterson in the highest regard and I hope she will not take as disloyal what I am going to do when the vote on the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 comes on. In 1996, when I was lying in hospital in Ballarat—I had cancer and I had a kidney removed—Senator Patterson dropped everything she was doing, came to Ballarat and helped run the campaign. So, Kay, I hope you will not view what I am going to do today as being in any way disloyal to you. You are a good friend for whom I have the greatest respect.

Another person for whom I have great respect is Dr Mal Washer, from the other place, an articulate and sensitive man with a medical background. I am also fortunate to have in this chamber another man with a medical background, Dr Alan Eggleston, whom I will be quoting as well. Dr Eggleston wrote a letter to all senators regarding his view on where we should be going. I have taken great note of Senator Eggleston’s views on this matter because he is a man whose opinion I respect.

These debates are always incredibly difficult for someone who was streamed in the humanities in year 10 and remained in the humanities stream until they finished school. I do not profess to have any scientific knowledge; I did not even do basic biology. I am not a man who has in any way studied the sciences. From day one, I studied the humanities. I am not entirely convinced that I am any the poorer for having studied English literature, as opposed to biology, but that is where I finished up.

All senators and members received a letter from Ian Frazer, a former Australian of the Year. It is interesting that we have in this debate such eminent people with such extraordinarily different views on where we should be. In some respects, this marks the debate as being one of great importance. I respect Senator Faulkner’s views about the roles of members of parliament. He is a man of great intellect but, with the greatest respect to him, there are things that we do have to make decisions about. Indeed, we are put in this place to make decisions. As he said, we are not soothsayers; we do not have a crystal ball. But we do have an obligation to the people who put us here to have a look at these issues and make long-term decisions.

I am sure there is not one person in this chamber who would not, as Senator Minchin quite rightly indicated before, do virtually anything to ensure that we give people the opportunity to take advantage of medical advances. Is that to be done irrespective of the cost? I believe not. There are some penalties that I think are actually above that great desire that we all have. We spend every day of our parliamentary lives collectively trying to make things better. We have different approaches to that, but, in nearly 14 years in various guises here and across in the other place, I am yet to meet anyone who is not utterly committed to making this country better. We get there in different ways. We have different philosophical views and we argue those passionately, but I think our desire for a better place actually binds members of parliament as opposed to divides them. Can we take the risks associated with going down the path that Senator Patterson and others have suggested? My view is: no, we cannot. I think the risks are too great.

I was going to quote a large number of articles tonight but, as is my wont, I have changed tack a bit. However, something that does concern me is correspondence that has been flying between Associate Professor James Sherley and Professor Jaenisch—and I hope I have pronounced his name correctly—who are both at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Both these men are presumably sharing similar research facilities, yet both of these men have diametrically opposed views of where we should be going. Is one right to the exclusion of the other? I do not know—but it concerns me when two men from the same institution cannot agree on even the most basic things. That causes me enormous concern.

I believe that we need to give adult stem cell research a chance. If as part of that we let down half a generation, a generation or two generations then I suppose that is something we will have to look at when we leave this place, whenever that might be. I am not convinced by the arguments of where life does or does not begin. I do not pretend to have the answer to that, but I have heard enough to convince me that there is a chance that that small dot, the size of the head of a pin, may be life. Equally, it may not be. But, if it is, I do not think there is a course of action that we can countenance. Senator Eggleston, in his letter to colleagues dated 3 November, stated:

Permitting therapeutic cloning is a threshold which, once crossed, also means de facto enablement of cloning humans, because once the blastocyst created from cloning was placed in a woman’s uterus it would develop into a baby.

I acknowledge that the eminent Professor Trounson says that there is only a one per cent chance of that. I am afraid that I think that is one per cent too many.

I have had the opportunity to look through what I thought was excellent material from the Parliamentary Library. The library is a quite extraordinary resource we are lucky to have in this place, and it did not let me down in relation to this issue. I accept that there is a view that at the moment embryonic stem cell research has identified the potential for therapies. I am concerned however—and Senator Eggleston referred to this in his letter—that they may well be a long, long way off, and I am concerned that, in the desire to make sure that the promises that have been given are kept, the research that has been indicated as going so far but no further may not remain such. A lot of people have staked their reputations on what can or cannot be achieved, and I am concerned that even the best people will be potentially compromised in their desire to push the boundaries even further in an endeavour to obtain the outcome that they so passionately desire.

I am convinced by the argument that the use of adult stem cells does and will provide some, if not all, of the solutions of embryonic stem cells. I am convinced regarding some of the issues that have been raised and addressed. The elasticity of adult stem cells has been indicated as being of concern. There would now appear to be research which would indicate that that is not or will soon not be an issue.

The Parliamentary Library handout indicates that a search of the US National Institute of Health clinical trials for stem cells site reveals burgeoning areas of research. Some adult stem applications include a recent review of research in clinical trials of stem cells used for cardiac repair showing enhanced cardiac repair as an achievable target. By 2002, a patient at the John Hunter Hospital at the University of Newcastle was treated with his own adult marrow cells being injected into his heart to help regenerate heart muscle. It was the first procedure of this type in Australia. There is still controversy about whether blood stem cells from marrow turn into heart cells. It has been suggested that blood stem cells not turning into heart cells may stimulate the development of blood vessels in the damaged area. There are other examples of where this is taking place.

The science is imprecise, but what is precise about this debate is that we do not have the luxury had by those whom we have charged with the conduct of this research in this country—and that is time. Within the next 48 or 72 hours we must make a decision, on behalf of the people we represent, as to what will be our longer term view of this issue. I am pleased that Senator Patterson is now in the chamber and I hope she heard my earlier comments about her. Kay, you have my enormous respect. While it pains me not to be able to support you when you need support, I am afraid I cannot do so on this occasion and I will be voting against this bill.