Judith Troeth (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I inform the Senate that I will support the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. I applaud the work of the Lockhart committee, which is composed entirely of extremely respected scientists. I have taken the central point of my argument from the committee’s point on page xvii of the executive summary, which said:

The Committee therefore agreed with the many respondents who thought that the moral significance of such a cloned embryo is linked more closely to its potential for research to develop treatments for serious medical conditions, than to its potential as a human life.

This is the question that we must consider. I have been very gratified by the support from the Victorian scientific leaders forum on stem cell research, chaired by Sir Gustav Nossal, and I will have more to say later about the position of Victoria. In answer to the very many who have said in opposition to this bill that there is no point in passing this bill because the advances in embryonic stem cell research have been very few, I would like to give them the words of the scientific leaders from Victoria. They say that in recent years there have been great advances in embryonic stem cell research and that sufficient evidence exists in animal models to justify the adoption of recommendations from the Lockhart review to enable the pursuit of this work in human systems. Page 16 of the Lockhart review committee’s recommendations says:

... while embryonic stem cell research findings have not yet translated into any clinical trials or treatments, the use of excess ART embryos to derive embryonic stem cell lines has contributed to progress in the derivation and culture of the cells and in methods of promoting the growth of different cell types ...

Broadly speaking, my view is that we should use embryonic stem cell research for greater medical research into serious human disease. That is my position. I am not a scientist, therefore I do not propose to go into complex scientific questions, but I believe it is the role of the scientists to do that.

Much has been made of what might happen if we pass this bill. As other senators speaking in favour of the bill have done, I will put onto the record what this bill does not support. In the recommendations which are mooted to be passed, this bill continues to prohibit reproductive cloning. It continues to prohibit implementation into the reproductive tract of a woman of a human embryo created by any means other than fertilisation of an egg by a sperm. It prohibits the development of human-animal hybrids. It prohibits the collection of a viable human embryo from the body of a woman. It prohibits the sale of sperm, eggs or embryos. It prohibits trade in embryos.

I regret to say that much of this debate has been made up of scare scenarios, which have been pushed to the absolute limit of science fiction, to try to persuade those who are in favour of the bill not to vote for it. As an educated member of parliament I resent that. I also think that many members of the public have been led astray in their thinking on this by somewhat wild statements. So, once and for all, we should put this to rest. As to what this bill does not do, I have just given you some indications of what is specifically prohibited.

There is no doubt that there is a long time frame for product development in the medical field, and 20 years from the development of an idea to its place in clinical research is not unusual, but the amount of progress that has been made in eight years with human embryonic stem cells is amazing. Australian scientists have been very prominent in this global endeavour, and I fail to see why they should be excluded from the next chapter. I am aware that my home state of Victoria has a particular level of excellence in this field of science, and I am very keen to see Victoria maintain this expertise. So often our scientists have to leave Australia to pursue their area of research, and I would want my country and my state to be a leader in this research.

Most members of parliament are not scientists, and we can only make a decision based on our idea of the common good and our perception of what will advance our country. Looking at the evidence that has been given by eminent scientists through the Lockhart review and by many other bodies of opinion through the country, and looking at the recommendations of the Lockhart review about what should be allowed and what should be prohibited, I can only come to the conclusion that we should pass this legislation. I will vote for this bill.

I would like to congratulate the Lockhart review committee on their many hours of interviewing committees and other constituents, taking evidence and sifting through it to make their recommendations. It is a wonderful body of work which I believe will set the blueprint for research in this area for the next 10 or 20 years. I would also like to congratulate Senator Natasha Stott Despoja for the lengthy attention she has devoted to this issue and the way in which her work has contributed to this bill.

I would also like to thank Dr Mal Washer for the work he has put into the development of the bill. Not only was his general medical knowledge of great assistance in explaining scientific concepts; he was only too willing to share that knowledge with any member or senator who needed more information. I can only hope that the bill will pass the Senate and proceed to the House of Representatives for further reasoned debate.