Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am standing here this afternoon in strong support of the private member’s bill moved by Senator Patterson, the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. At this stage I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the work done by Senator Patterson and also that done by Senators Webber and Stott Despoja to bring this issue before us, because this bill needs to be before the parliament. To fulfil the responsibilities that we were given by this same place three years ago, when the original discussion was held, we need to have this bill back in this place. And it was not only a debate at that time.

I do not often quote members in the other place, but Mr Kevin Andrews, who chaired the 2001 House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for its inquiry and report, Human cloning: scientific, ethical and regulatory aspects of human cloning and stem cell research, concluded in the foreword of that report:

These are not matters to be decided behind closed doors by scientists or lawyers, however expert and sincere, without widespread community consultation. Nor are they matters that can be resolved by doing nothing.

As a society we are confronted with profound issues that require ongoing attention and discussion.

Accordingly, when we had extensive debate in this place when the previous bills were brought to us, a decision was made that there would be ongoing review. The minister of the day, Minister Bishop, appointed a committee to go away and look specifically at the issues that were put into the terms of reference: ‘developments in technology in relation to assisted reproductive technology, developments in medical research and scientific research and the potential therapeutic applications of such research, community standards and the applicability of establishing a national stem cell bank’.

They are all issues that were strongly debated in this place, when we heard from the various proponents who held strong views either for or against the legislation. The Lockhart committee, which was determined by the minister of the day, was made up of people who were widely respected in their professions. The committee was made up of not just scientists but lawyers and ethicists—people who were prepared to take up the very strong duty that was given to them by the minister and to come back and make recommendations. That is what they did. They came back with over 50 recommendations, and it is our job to consider those recommendations. Indeed, the legislation that is before us is formed in such a way as to put those recommendations in place. That is not to say that it will be straightforward. We know that is not true, because these issues generate strong views. And it is not going to be easy to come up with a common response. However, that is our job.

I believe that the Chair of the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs, Senator Humphries, talked this morning about the effort that was put into reviewing the bill by the committee. As usual, the committee did not have long enough to consider the range of views presented to us, but it worked very hard—again, with the strong support of the secretariat—to condense the key issues for us in this place. There could not be agreement, but in the majority report we said that, on balance, having regard to the evidence from the scientific community and from the community at large, and having regard to the views expressed by people to their elected representatives, we would support those recommendations.

The major reason for that was an acknowledgement that the Australian scientific community has a strong and noble reputation. Our existing system is not just one that values science; it also values appropriate regulation. The existing regulatory framework offers an environment in which people should feel able to strongly investigate and do research, and be able, without fear, to put forward their views. This is where science is great. And there is no result in the scientific industry that is straightforward or simple; we know that. In fact, for me, as a member of the committee who was looking at the wide range of evidence presented to us, I think the most overwhelming evidence was the genuine request by the scientific community that we, as elected politicians, allow them to have the opportunity to do their job; that we should allow them the opportunity to move forward, with appropriate regulation.

I have been quite angered by the attempt to demonise science in this debate. There have been allegations that if you do not stop scientists they will move forward quickly, there will be no restraint and there will be a rush towards creating things that move well beyond that which the community wants or deserves. I found no evidence in support of those statements. I found no evidence from the scientists who appeared before our inquiry or from the professional organisations that represent the scientific community. Even those scientists who spoke most strongly against this proposal talked about the responsible professionalism of other scientists.

However, it was disappointing that, in some attempts to promote one position or the other, people who were not supportive of embryonic stem cell research felt that they needed to attack the credibility of scientists who were putting forward the alternative view. In evidence given by the large majority of other scientific people who appeared before us, they talked about the need for scientists to work together. They said that there was not going to be a single, magical way to develop the kinds of research technologies and the kinds of developments that we all hope will be the result of an effective scientific research base in this country.

It is possible that effective scientific research will be able to respond to a range of horrific conditions in our society—illnesses and the results of accidents. There has been an outcry that we need to move forward to see whether we can access possible cures or therapies to respond to these terrible things that people are suffering from. However, at no stage in the evidence given to the committee did we hear any wild, exaggerated expressions that things would happen quickly or that there would be an immediate response or an immediate result. There was an effort made to impress the committee with the need for long-term progress, with the need to work together cooperatively, in order to enhance the industry.

Embryonic stem cell research is but one aspect of an ongoing research need in our community. It does surprise me that, instead of celebrating the advances achieved by the scientific world, we feel the need, if they do not follow the methods that we personally support, to attack. I asked some of the people who appeared before the committee whether they were surprised by the degree of attack in the wider community regarding what they were saying, in particular by people holding particular religious views. To a person, they said they were not surprised and that this was something which they were very familiar with in their daily work. I find it very sad that, instead of being able to respect the views of others—to respect their work ethic and professionalism, and to respect the fact that there is a wide range of community responses—sometimes there is an attempt made to denigrate others’ views or opinions. There is an attempt made to attack and to label people, and to claim some kind of superiority of view because you have a certain faith base or a certain values base. I do not find that acceptable. I have said that on numerous occasions. I respect people being able to work effectively and cooperatively when there is a great difference of opinion between those who support this kind of research around embryonic cells and those who do not. They should be able to acknowledge that difference openly and to identify that that is the problem, rather than trying to dress it up in some other way to make it more palatable to the wider community.

We questioned people from the Lockhart committee during our inquiry. I asked Dr Kerridge about the processes that were going on. He said that their committee:

... did not seek to dissolve moral disagreement about the status of the embryo. That has not been possible in 2,000 years. We thought it was very unlikely we would do it in six months.

The committee that was looking at these issues at the parliament’s request acknowledged that this was an issue about which there would be no agreement, and throughout the printed Lockhart report that is stated several times. I think that we need to understand that the committee members did not dismiss views with which they did not agree. In fact, they reiterated during our inquiry and also in various public forums during the last few months that they did not have preconceived ideas or beliefs around the task for which they were given responsibility. They came to the Lockhart committee to do a job. They received a range of submissions—several hundred—there was a wide range of public consultation reflecting on the issues raised by Mr Andrews in his 2001 statement and they talked with people from a wide range of community views. The Lockhart committee did that task and put to the government a range of recommendations, and I am proud that the legislation in front of us is attempting to put those recommendations into place.

There was considerable debate about why, when our last round of discussions in this place on these issues was so recent, we are bringing it back to this place again. Are we rushing too much? Will we be opening up doors in the future such that we will have to continue doing this kind of review of what is available to the scientific community and what is not? Of course we will continue to have these debates, because that is our job. Our job is to consistently review what is happening in the community, to review what is available and what is not and to see what we as the elected representatives of the country believe should be effectively moved forward in our legislation.

It is not unusual that legislation or ideas come back to this place after a time. I will quote Dr Paul Brock. Many people in this area have been quoting him, and a few of the quotes I wanted to use have already been used by other senators, and I will not state them again. I want to quote to the Senate the response Dr Brock gave to our committee when I asked the question about why, as a number of people have asked, we are looking at it so soon. Shouldn’t we let things happen more in the community and in science before we bring it back? He said:

That is the story of public policy. We do it in climate change; we do it in the economy; we do it in education. We constantly re-examine policy issues further down the track in parliament in the light of experience, new knowledge and changing circumstances. Why should this issue be any different from any other issue of public policy?

That is exactly why we need to continually look at what is being asked of us, look at the range of progress and experiences and then, using that knowledge, having talked to the people who are working in the industry, effectively frame legislation, being absolutely aware of community attitudes and of the existing regulations, and make a decision about whether or not we think it is appropriate to change. And that is what is before the Senate this week.

My strong hope is that senators in this place will listen to the range of evidence about why it is necessary and possible now to take another step and will listen to the voices that said that we in this country are ready—that the scientific industry in this country is ready—to move forward and use skills and technologies that are available overseas. I think that is important to note. Whilst I do not get into the argument about people leaving Australia and going elsewhere, I do accept the really big question, which was raised consistently in our inquiry, that if this technology is available overseas and if advances are made then how can we as a community possibly stop Australians in our community having access to successful scientific advances that were achieved overseas.

I have not been able to get a clear answer to that question, except from the Catholic health services, which were very clear that they would not allow any such technology or any such medical advances to be used in their services, and I respect that. I think it was good of them to be very clear on the record that that is their position. But I am struggling that we as politicians and, more than that, we as human beings living in our community could just say no to any possibility or hope, through this form of research—which is only being done by people who are of goodwill, who have professional skills and who are the strongest regulators of their own work—of being able to have any advancement in some of those conditions, which we have all seen.

There is absolute agreement in this place and in our committee that all of us want to see effective cures and therapies formed. None of us believe that it is going to happen immediately. There is no false expectation in this place or amongst the range of community groups that work with people who have Alzheimer’s disease, motor neurone disease and the range of others, sufferers of which felt confident enough to come forward to our committee and share their experiences. Those groups all gave support to a framework of regulated scientific advancement that could at some time down the track look at some form of success.

I think that we as politicians should listen. It is not automatic that we would agree. It is also not automatic that because we do not agree we do not respect the other view. On a number of occasions during our inquiry we had evidence from people who felt that their views were not being given significant respect because they had a religious focus. I can assure you, Madam Acting Deputy President, that our committee gave full respect to all of the evidence that came before us. The members of the Lockhart committee went to great lengths to ensure that their integrity of listening to all evidence with respect was absolutely made public. Again, any attempt to demonise them should be removed from the public debate.

I think that this kind of process, where we are able to have the evidence before us, to listen to it and to hear from the people who may benefit from any scientific discoveries should be the way that parliament operates. These decisions should not be taken elsewhere; they should be taken in this place on this wide range of developing legislation and also developing appropriate regulation. The responses we had were that there is genuine faith in the regulatory frameworks that the Australian community has in place. What we are asking through the Lockhart report and also through Senator Patterson’s bill is that we allow a move forward and that we allow another form of technology. This is not to say that we do not respect and understand the views of people who are opposed to that. What we are saying is that we should be able to move forward.

In the short time I have left I want to make some comment about some of the comments that have been made about exploitation of women in this whole activity. I find it offensive that the people on our committee or on the Lockhart committee would in any way be looking at any form of scientific advance that would exploit women. We were informed that through the current NHMRC and TGA processes that would not be allowed. But I also, once again, want to quote Professor Kerridge. He acknowledged that there is a question about the research of women’s eggs in this process and said:

The question for us, though, is: is that significant enough to require prohibition by law—in other words, to stop women from being able to make an informed choice about their oocytes donated for their families or others or altruistically for research? We did not think that was a very convincing argument...

Once again—and this is such a significant point—the committee were not ignorant of the concerns. The committee were very much aware. They understood the worry and were able to look at a way into the future that would put their recommendations into place. That is what we ask. I strongly support these recommendations, and I ask that senators listen, that they look at their own consciences, because that is the process we are using, and move this debate forward.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have been following the debate on the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 with interest and have noted that many senators have seemed to agonise over this bill. I have carefully considered the content and the effect of the bill, but I have not agonised over it for a single second. This is because every time my children contract one of the many childhood diseases I give thanks to those medical and scientific pioneers that made treatment and cures possible and available. Every time my children receive a vaccination against some of the most horrendous and debilitating diseases—diseases which have killed and maimed millions of human beings—I give thanks to those scientific and medical pioneers who made these vaccines possible and available.

And, while I am presently in good health, the future is unknown. I would hope, if I am injured or ill, that there will be a treatment or cure for my illness and, if it is not available, that it would eventually be available to my children. And when my children have children of their own, and the cycle of injury and illness starts again, I hope that they will have access to future treatments and cures made possible by research undertaken by the medical and scientific researchers of today: research made possible by this bill.

History has shown that we continue to move forward through pioneering advances in science. Our current society has benefited immeasurably through the knowledge gained through all the generations of humanity, and we have an obligation to future generations to ensure that such gains in knowledge continue. I will not vote to deprive our children and subsequent generations of future treatments and cures by restricting the medical and scientific pioneers of today unnecessarily. Unashamedly I vote for our children, and I at least will put families first. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Senate is debating the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. The name of this bill should really read ‘the allowing of human embryo cloning bill’, for that is the central plank of this private member’s bill. It legalises human embryo cloning. All senators must ask themselves: once this is opened up, where will it end? It is significant that this is not a government bill. It asks senators to make an enormously significant decision but does not carry the authority or weight of official government backing. The cloning bill has arrived in the Senate as the result of one senator’s private opinion: that Lockhart recommendations should be given legislative force. The Lockhart review was commissioned to look at the scope and operation of the original legislation. The Lockhart committee ended up using this brief to advance the cause of human embryo cloning, of human-animal embryos. I note that neither was specifically mentioned in the terms of reference for the Lockhart committee, yet their report is written as though their brief was to lobby for human embryo cloning.

It is important to look at how the existing legislation that allows embryonic stem cell research has worked: something the Lockhart committee was supposed to focus on. Senators will recall the urgency and intensity of the earlier debate, when many agonised over whether to support research on excess IVF embryos. Basically we were given a long list of diseases that we were told would benefit from the research. Understandably, that persuaded many senators to vote for the original legislation in 2002. Everyone was very careful then to draw the line at creating embryos for research—even the mover of the bill before us now. The thinking was: ‘These IVF embryos are excess to requirements. They would succumb otherwise, so why not put them to a good cause and get wonderful results in the long, long list of diseases which need cures?’

How many senators are aware of what has happened since? Surely we could have expected a long list of studies into various diseases using the excess IVF embryos. Surely we could have expected many licences issued, many applications sought and great gains on the road to cures for the long list of diseases held out like a cart of carrots to get the votes for the original bill. As was made clear by the NHMRC in answer to the Senate committee on the bill, only one licence has been ‘issued for the generation of embryonic stem cell lines aimed at treating a specific condition. To date, 30 of these excess ART embryos have been used, resulting in the production of the stem cell line Endeavour 1.’ One licence, 30 embryos and one specific condition target downstream is not much of an innings since 2002. Now the same people who urged us to vote for embryo research in 2002, the same people who put forward a long list of diseases but have yet to research them, are coming to us again and saying we need human embryo cloning so we can research this long list of diseases. The question is: what have they been doing since 2002?

Surely we are entitled to see something significant on the table before we take the huge step of allowing human embryo cloning. No matter what your ethical background, everyone agrees this is a major step. Otherwise there would not be such serious penalties, like 15 years jail, in this bill for its abuse. Therefore, as legislators, we are entitled to know just how much evidence there is to support such a huge step being taken. If we measured the progress of the research by the height of this chamber, embryonic stem cell research would reach the desktop, adult stem cell research would reach the press gallery and the skylight would be the ultimate goal of disease cures. So we have a long way to go. Even Lockhart, on page 42, describes the progress this way:

Since 2001, most of these trials have involved AS—

that is, adult stem—

cells because, at this stage, ES cell research has not reached the stage needed to start clinical trials (ie proof of principle of a safe and efficacious treatment in animal models).

The other thing is that the existing embryo research legislation allows enormous progress to be made without changing the regulatory environment at all. So under the existing legislation we could actually get embryonic research much higher up without needing the cloning bill at all. The Senate committee heard evidence from scientists on all sides of the debate that bears this out. Embryonic stem cell researchers told the committee that work can and must go on on things like proof of principle, animal studies, the instability of embryonic stem cells and their inherent capacity to form tumours, and even learning whether cloned embryos will actually be of help to science at all. All this can be done under the current laws.

For all this hype about cloning, no-one has yet actually produced a human embryo clone, let alone developed embryonic stem cell lines from it. The South Koreans told the world they had done this but that research was found to be totally fraudulent. The lead researcher is now in court confessing to dealings with the Russian mafia to get animal tissues for his lab. The Lockhart report relied heavily on the Korean studies in the section on developments in human cloning. Three published papers were cited in that section. Two were from the discredited Koreans.

To recap, we are being asked to sanction human embryo cloning to cure a long list of diseases that we were told in 2002 would benefit from the original bill. Since that time, there has only been one licence given with the eventual aim of treating a specific condition. The existing legislation allows Australian scientists to do major research without changing the legislation.

I would like now to move on to another key argument which is absolutely vital to confront. If we allow human embryo cloning, we allow the development of a technology that can be used to clone human beings. It is, after all, the same process used to create Dolly the sheep. Former Queenslander of the Year, Professor Alan Mackay-Sim, told the Senate committee:

I do not see a distinction in the technology between making a blastocyst one way going to therapeutic cloning and one way going to cloning human beings. I think that process is the same, and I think that is the ethical decision that is being made. If you go by the history of technology, that technology will be used for purposes for which it was not intended in the particular jurisdiction—that is, to do therapeutic cloning.

Professor Mackay-Sim was asked whether there is anything being proposed in the new cloning legislation that would prevent Australian technology on cloning being used by someone overseas for reproductive cloning. He answered:

Not that I am aware of; as soon as something is published, either in a paper or in a patent, it is in the information cyberspace.

The salient point is that, regardless of the heavy penalties imposed in Australia to stop human reproductive cloning, we cannot stop Australian made cloning technology from being used overseas for full human being cloning. Science is international. Once research is published, it is in the public domain. We cannot honestly stand up here and say it is okay to allow human embryo cloning because we will not be allowing reproductive cloning. Of course we will be. We will be signing off on the research that someone somewhere outside Australia will use for reproductive cloning. There will be nothing we can do to stop that cloning technology being used elsewhere for reproductive cloning.

The bill before us limits the life of the embryo clones created in Australia to 14 days. No doubt in a few years time the same people with the same long list of diseases will want to extend 14 days to 28 days and so on. Having accepted 14 days, how can we argue that this time should not be extended in the future? I am disturbed by how far the goal posts have been moved since 2002. It seems that we are being asked to judge these terribly significant questions based on hope and faith alone—hope and faith in the people armed with a long list of diseases who have as yet failed to deliver on the 2002 gift that this parliament made them.

Some scoff at the so-called ‘slippery slope’ argument. Have they read the guidelines issued by the International Society for Stem Cell Research, which is headed by an Australian and has several Australian office-bearers? The ISSCR is not 100 per cent opposed to full human cloning. It qualifies its opposition by saying: ‘Given current scientific and medical safety concerns, attempts at human reproductive cloning should be prohibited at this time.’ Professor Paul Simmons appeared before the Senate committee as a consultant to the Australian Stem Cell Centre. He is also President of the International Society for Stem Cell Research. When questioned, Professor Simmons tried to explain it this way:

Input to that was sought from more than 20 countries. And you have to appreciate that in those countries guidelines vary enormously around the stem cell arena. You can appreciate the difficulty. It is a jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none problem. You have to try and represent the views that many research scientists around the world in this area are trying to put forward. In the end, that is what they came up with.

So we have a situation where not even an international society advocating human embryo cloning and led by Australians can get its members to be resolutely opposed to reproductive cloning into the future, but only ‘at this time’, given ‘current scientific and medical safety concerns’.

And it is not just overseas that there is resistance to an outright ban on human reproductive cloning. Here in Australia we have a learned paper from a Melbourne university academic calling for a debate on public funding of human reproductive cloning as a means of procreating for singles and homosexuals. Daniel Elsner wrote an article entitled ‘Just another reproductive technology? The ethics of human reproductive cloning as an experimental medical procedure’, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics in October this year. He states:

There are other people, also desiring genetically related children with minimal “foreign” DNA, for whom HRC—

human reproductive cloning—

could also be the desirable method of procreation, for example, single people or homosexuals.

People wishing to reproduce by cloning should be able to do so, provided that there is no reasonable alternative, and trials of HRC as an experimental medical procedure should not be prohibited.

So there is someone from Australia putting that point of view. The point is: if there are already Australians arguing for this, and if the international body for stem cell research can only give qualified support to opposing human cloning, how long will it be before this chamber is confronted yet again with a bill to allow human reproductive cloning by the same people with the same long list of diseases?

I do not believe that science should be unfettered in this way. Every activity in our society is regulated to some degree. Research projects are assessed according to criteria and merit. Hurdles have to be overcome. Proponents have to prove their worth to justify grants and access to resources in medical research. The time-honoured way is through peer review publication, animal studies and so on up to the clinical stage. The cloners are arguing that, while they do not yet have the science to prove what they are saying—no embryonic stem cell clone has been created, nor have stem cells been derived from it—they deserve to be let off the leash because of the hope they offer to cure a long list of diseases.

There comes a time when you just have to deliver on some of those promises, and I would suggest that that time is now. If you cannot, then it is time to go back to the drawing board, using the existing legislation, and get on with some hard scientific work. It is surely right that, after all the pain we went through as a parliament in 2002, we should at least see something for it before we are asked for a much more serious thing: human cloning technology. It is just too far, too soon, on too little evidence. There are so many scientific arguments to chase down in this debate and there is so much division between scientists, which I would argue is a point against this bill. When you are considering such a significant thing as human embryonic cloning, I would think it almost mandatory to have scientific agreement on it—and there most certainly is none of that. Even our Chief Scientist, Jim Peacock, is at odds with the Lockhart committee over the use of animal eggs in embryonic cloning. This bill today asks us basically to pass a vote of no confidence in Australia’s Chief Scientist, because it rejects his call for the ban on animal eggs for cloning. If there are major splits like this within the scientific community then I think that makes it particularly impossible for us lay men and women to judge where the true science lies.

A reasonable alternative is to adopt a wait and see approach. Wait and see what the current legislation delivers. They have only given out one licence for research aimed at a specific condition. Let us see some further progress before giving the green light to human embryonic cloning, because if we give it a green light in Australia and our scientists deliver then we will be giving the green light to human reproductive cloning somewhere in the world. I simply cannot give that green light.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Senate is debating the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. This bill seeks to amend the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002, which was unanimously carried by this parliament some four years ago. It also seeks to amend the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002, which was regrettably carried by the parliament, albeit with substantial disquiet.

At the time, some four years ago, I opposed human cloning. Everyone else in this place did as well. The speeches in both houses those four years ago on human cloning make for very interesting reading. A substantial number of us at that time also considered the destruction of human embryos in the name of research as unacceptable. The argument in favour was dressed up around the proposition that the only embryos to be destroyed were those that were ‘excess’ or ‘leftovers’ from IVF treatments. ‘They had no use.’ ‘They would succumb in any event, and therefore they might as well be used for research on the way through.’ So the argument went: ‘It really wasn’t that bad after all.’

My comments and those of my colleagues those four years ago on this utilitarian approach to human embryos remain. My conviction that what we agreed to then was wrong remains. During that debate, a colleague for whom I have a high regard but with whom I vehemently disagree in this debate had this to say:

I believe strongly that it is wrong—

Kay Patterson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Patterson interjecting—

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You have identified yourself. I did not want to make this a personal debate, Senator Patterson, and that is why I deliberately did not identify you. But Senator Patterson said:

I confess to being one of those described as ‘disingenuous’. Indeed, I did claim that passage of the legislation then would lead to further consequences. The proposition before us today highlights how quickly we as humans become desensitized once we overstep the mark of respecting human life. As soon as we countenance the commoditisation of human life for utilitarian reasons, we are on a slippery slope. And today we are presented with a proposition that is a lot further down that slope than we were willing to countenance only a short four years ago.

Make no mistake; other attempts will be made in the future to further loosen the controls. You see, once we countenance the destruction of human embryos for research, albeit restricted to a specific class, we countenance the deliberate destruction of human embryos. It then becomes a small step to extend the proposition by extrapolating that if it is not absolutely morally repugnant to destroy human embryos for research, then why would it be wrong to create human embryos to destroy them—once again, of course, in the name of research? Some were cajoled into voting for the Research Involving Human Embryos Bill 2002 on the so-called ‘strong’, ‘ironclad’ prohibitions that would never allow the deliberate creation of human embryos for destruction, no matter how allegedly worthy the cause. But, of course, regrettably that is the very proposition in the bill before us.

To overcome this obvious stark reality, proponents of the change are now, if I may use the word, ‘disingenuously’ changing the terminology in the hope and belief that it will miraculously change the unavoidable fact. You see, a rose will continue to have a soft, sweet scent, even if I decided to call it by another name, such as ‘somatic cell nuclear transfer’. Hence the old truism remains today: a rose by any other name smells just as sweet. I say to senators: human cloning by any other name, such as ‘somatic cell nuclear transfer’, should still be prohibited, as we decided in 2002. The reality is that an embryo created by the fusion of an egg and sperm is an embryo just as much as if the embryo were created by somatic cell nuclear transfer. An embryo is an embryo is an embryo.

We will be told no doubt that it will be illegal to implant this cloned embryo or allow it to develop beyond 14 days. But I ask two questions. Why this prohibition? And what do we do if it does actually happen?

Why these restrictions unless they are human embryos? The very nature of the restrictions cries out in acknowledgement of their humanity. Do we put these restrictions on animal cloning? No, we do not. The conclusions are inescapable: the human embryos created by cloning are not ethically or morally different from those created by an egg and sperm. Just as much as Dolly the sheep, originating life as she did as a cloned embryo, was accepted as a sheep, called a sheep, had the characteristics of a sheep and looked like a sheep, similarly a human embryo is just that irrespective of the method of its creation. The simple question is: if a cloned human embryo were implanted into a woman’s uterus, would we call the resultant birth anything other than a human? Would that person not be entitled to all the human rights we enjoy, or would the resultant child be considered a lower life form or a lower being? I trust they would not be so considered. That answers fully, in my respectful submission to the Senate, the issue of whether the human embryo produced by cloning or somatic cell nuclear transfer is morally and ethically different from that created by an egg and sperm. Clearly it is not. To seek to differentiate and argue a qualitative difference for cloned human embryos as somehow being less worthy is unsustainable and untenable.

I now turn to the practical consequences of the proposition before us. For human cloning to be possible, it would require lots and lots of human eggs. Women’s eggs would need to be harvested and, presumably, fertility manipulated to make the harvesting process worthwhile. To commodify human fertility in this way is unconscionable. The manipulation of fertility and the harvesting of eggs would be utterly unrelated to the medical needs of the woman or a desire to fall pregnant. In short, it is demeaning of women and their fertility.

So why is this impractical and unethical proposition being promoted? It is being promoted on the basis of some potential miracle cure although no evidence of a breakthrough is to hand, even during those four years of destroying the so-called surplus embryos. False, cruel and heartless hopes have been raised in those suffering from debilitating diseases. Overwhelmingly, however, adult stem cells are proving to be and are providing exciting developments without the attendant ethical issues.

I accept that, in the purist sense, embryonic stem cell research adds to our total body of knowledge in an abstract sense. But to justify scientific research, we need a moral construct. It simply is not good enough to say that a course of action would add to our body of knowledge; otherwise, we can justify the type of experimentation in the name of science that occurred under national socialism. Science is not an end in itself; it needs to exist in a moral and ethical construct, and the ethical construct suggested by the Lockhart review is unacceptable. Human life, in the form of an embryo, is unfortunately now to be considered as a commodity for public use. This may sound harsh, but page 3 of the explanatory memorandum to this bill tells us exactly that. It says:

In summary, a person may apply for a licence to:

• create human embryos ... and use such embryos.

What a cold, callous, unfeeling and ugly approach. Here we are creating human embryos for one purpose only, in the words of the explanatory memorandum—to use them. Of course the term ‘use’ is just a euphemism for destroying.

We are to legalise the deliberate creation of human embryos only to destroy them in the name of science and in the hope of some unknown miracle cure. To me, that is repugnant to every instinct within me. And the so-called safeguards are meaningless. Really, they are worth nothing. If it is right to destroy an embryo up to 14 days old, why not when it is 14 days and one second old or 14 days and one minute old—or, for that matter, 15 days old or, indeed, 20 days old? What is the moral, ethical difference? There is none other than that the embryo would simply be even further developed. There is no material, ethical or moral difference.

Once the destruction of human embryos, deliberately created for destruction, is justified then the 14-day limit will be seen as simply irrelevant and extended in the name of so-called scientific progress. As an aside, I note the substantial body of scientific opinion as to the absence of any likely benefits of human cloning and the waste of research funding, denying needed funds in areas where research has actually delivered—for example, with adult stem cells.

Before concluding, I will briefly deal with the issue of public opinion and some polls. As parliamentarians, we are engaged in the act of persuasion. All of us would have experienced walking into a meeting where people had a particular mindset; yet, after listening to the debate in detail, they have acted differently to that which was anticipated. Similarly, opinion polls can show us interesting things, but they do not tell us if people are able to be persuaded. And in any event, we, as parliamentarians, have a duty to make the right, sometimes tough and unfashionable decisions. We cannot outsource that duty to opinion polls or, for that matter, to Lockhart reviews.

In short, the bill fails on many grounds. No coherent case has been made as to why the change is necessary, especially given our unanimous view on cloning only four years ago. The moral and ethical issues are insurmountable if any intrinsic value is to be placed on a human embryo. Frankly, how a human embryo comes into being is irrelevant to its intrinsic value. Further, there is no real indication that this proposed experimentation will in fact lead to any medical successes. On all those counts the bill should fail.

I will close with a quote from a letter to the editor from this morning’s Examiner newspaper in my home state of Tasmania by Father Terry Southerwood of Launceston. He says:

Human life should not be created in order to be destroyed in research programs. Our whole Australian community will be grossly damaged if these bills are passed.

I fully agree with Father Terry Southerwood, and I will be opposing the legislation.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have listened with great interest to my colleagues as they have shared their thoughts about the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. I have been struck by the earnestness of the contributions from both the proponents and the opponents of this bill. However, as befits matters of conscience, in this debate no one argument can lay claim to the absolute truth. Every contribution and viewpoint has been balanced by the beliefs and circumstances that contribute to each person’s personal faith and moral code. Every opinion shared in this chamber is as valid to the speaker and their cause as any other. However, the attempts by both sides to support their position through the selective quoting of eminent Australians or research scientists has only reaffirmed my belief that scientific researchers also have disparate opinions on human cloning.

So who is right? Although it may surprise some of my colleagues to hear it, that is not really the question that we should be pondering. As legislators, the real question we need to resolve is a rather more simple one, and I propose to return to that very issue in a moment. Before I do, there are some immutable facts that must be entered into this debate and they simply cannot be disputed using any rational or honest argument. One of these facts is that an embryo, at any stage of development, is the beginning of human life. This is a fact supported by the Lockhart report. It is a fact supported no less passionately by the response of every woman hoping to have a baby upon discovering that she is pregnant. Also beyond dispute is the fact that cloned embryos could ultimately result in cloned human beings. It is a case of simply adding a womb and hoping for the best.

Also beyond dispute is the value of science to humanity. Scientific research has eradicated smallpox, it has saved millions from tuberculosis and it has given hope to everyone diagnosed with cancer or similar debilitating illnesses. Science has the proven capacity to improve lives and to cure disease, and it gives hope to a secular world. Australia is an acknowledged leader in scientific research and, hitherto, we have done it in an ethical and respectable manner. One example is the 15 years of research it took Professor Chris Parish and his team from the John Curtin School of Medical Research to develop a drug that could stop a cancerous tumour from growing by starving it of blood supply. As a nation, we can be proud of our contribution to science and to the improvement of human life.

But some scientists have also been known to have pushed ethical or community boundaries to further their own knowledge or aspirations. There are numerous historical examples of actions taken in the name of science that have led to morally questionable outcomes. Take for example the scientific epiphany of Darwinian evolutionary theory that developed into the science of eugenics. Sadly, this purported breakthrough led to alarming levels of racism. It led to forced sterilisations on the grounds of racial hygiene. Handicapped people were euthanased in the mistaken scientific and social belief that it was in the best interests of the human species. Incredibly, some of these horrors were not limited to a few despotic regimes. Over 64,000 individuals were forcibly sterilised in the United States under eugenics legislation between 1907 and 1963. Of course, these scientific and social theories were never intended to cause such horrific outcomes. However, the very fact that humans were evaluated according to their materialistic and evolutionary value meant that their innate worth as human beings was cast aside. Individuals suffered from the worst form of degradation as a result and society suffered, but it ultimately saw the light.

Let us not make a similar mistake with this proposal to disregard the value of human life in the name of scientific research. The justification given for research such as that advocated by this bill is often the benefit or potential benefit to mankind. Whilst it is human nature to challenge and to strive for achievement, we are also the only species that is capable of fully comprehending the implications of such research. We as a society need to be aware of the potential costs of what we are debating. The costs to which I refer are not financial costs but rather the unknown costs to the human condition, and these costs are extracted through a process of desensitisation. Just as we have become desensitised to an increasing level of violence in movies, just as we have become desensitised to an increasing level of bad language in our music and just as we are becoming increasingly desensitised to the use of quasi-pornographic images in advertising, so too are we becoming desensitised to the creation of human life for the sole purpose of medical experimentation.

There is clear and demonstrable evidence of this. When the cloning of mammals was considered impossible, human cloning was the preserve of science fiction. However, with the creation of Dolly the sheep, the world rushed as one to prohibit human cloning. The horror of what might eventually evolve from this extreme science was recognised as a clear affront to mankind. Then the desensitising process began. What was initially considered an outrage suddenly became an opportunity with amazing potential. The scientists said, ‘We just need a few stem cells to experiment with.’ But, despite the promise shown by stem cells given voluntarily by adult patients, this was not good enough. Lawmakers were encouraged by the scientific community to make concessions for research involving embryonic stem cells.

Just four years ago, this parliament made the first concession to researchers by allowing experimentation on surplus embryos within the IVF program. The key justification at the time was that surplus embryos were set to be destroyed anyway and in this way their demise could benefit mankind. Then it was clearly and unanimously agreed by this parliament that the cloning of human embryos was ethically and morally unacceptable. Now just 48 months later we are being asked to support the cloning of human beings and the creation of life for the sole purpose of medical research. That is the next step in the desensitisation process, and if this bill fails I am in no doubt that another variation of it will be presented to this parliament in future years. However, should this bill pass, the process of desensitisation will begin again and further bills will seek to extend the creation and cultivation of human life for the simple purpose of harvesting the result.

This bill reduces the human species to just another species amongst species. Human embryos are not the same as chickens, dogs or monkeys. Human embryos are special for exactly the same reason that we all are. Like us, they are special because they are human, and they deserve to be valued as more than just another part of the animal kingdom.

There are a number of eminent scientists who are trying to suggest that embryos are not really human life—somehow they are regarded as lesser. Somehow we are expected to believe that an embryo at 14 days is less valuable than one at 15 days, 21 days or 28 days. How else can we hope to understand the logic of their limiting the experimentation to embryos of less than 14 days? Creating human life, no matter how basic the cell structure, for the purpose of destruction or experimentation is just wrong. This bill is another example of the process of desensitisation that presents a clear danger to our society.

Even the supporters of this bill acknowledge that there are dangers. They acknowledge that it is dangerous for women, who may be encouraged to supply eggs. And in her speech Senator Stott Despoja said that if there were not enough women to donate eggs for the research to continue then, tough, the scientists will have to learn to do without. I would suggest to Senator Stott Despoja, and those who support this bill, that we should adopt this exact same approach with regard to those who say that the more than 104,830 embryos currently available for embryonic stem cell research are not enough.

But for many scientists when is enough ever really enough? During this debate we have heard examples of how women in the UK and the United States are being offered incentives to submit themselves to egg harvesting. This bill is the first step in the human spare parts industry. This industry begets the question: do the means justify the ends—the end being a cure, or a treatment, to ease the suffering of thousands of people afflicted by terrible diseases and conditions? And this is a noble end. The desire to heal another’s suffering is indeed a righteous one. It is the proper and fitting purpose of all medical research.

However, what of the means? It is the means that is creating this moral and ethical quandary for our parliament, and for our country. The cloning of human embryos may indeed lead to amazing advances in the treatment and cure of disease. Or it may simply be another mirage giving false hope.

So who is right? Well, as I said at the commencement of my address, this is not about who is right; this is about what is right. Creation of human life for the purpose of experimentation is simply wrong, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Senate is debating the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. There are decisions that are made a priori—that is, before an action—and there are decisions that are made a posteriori—that is, after an action. If the waves of misfortune are to throw a person on the rocks where they have to deal with a pregnancy unplanned, that decision is after the issue, which is a posteriori. This debate deals with the full knowledge before fertilisation so it is a priori. So this debate is definitely not the abortion debate and we should not connect the two.

I refer to repeal of subsection 20(1) of the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002, and substitution that includes precursor cells from a human foetus. This subsection deals with the use of ovaries from aborted foetuses and, as such, brings forward the concept that an aborted child will have its ovaries surgically removed, with all the ethical connotations that has. Under extension of the 14-day rule, a person could be the grandchild or child of someone who was never born. However, this does prove that they were quite obviously alive. The quandary is, of course, about a person of full rights whose progenitor had none—in fact, who never took a breath.

This debate does more harm than any other to those suffering the afflictions of type 1 diabetes, Parkinson’s disease and spinal cord injuries, because it distracts funds and resources from proven technology and advancements in adult stem cell technology and directs them to the hypothetical and acquisitive aspirations of predominantly pharmaceutical manufacturers.

How can you look a child in the eye and suggest you have a cure for something when you know you have not? Well, results would suggest that you are doing just that when you place hope in embryonic stem cell research that has not been proven in animals. The mirage of embryonic stem cell research has absorbed a budget of $3 billion in California, $30 million for the disgraced and discredited Professor Hwang in South Korea, and immense budgets elsewhere around the world—including, unfortunately, here, where the majority of $100 million has been allocated to the National Stem Cell Research Centre. The funding is there worldwide, with no tangible embryonic stem cell results. I do not think we should feel left out if we fail to catch up in the subsidisation of the non-delivery of embryonic stem cell extravagance.

As recently as last week a liver was developed by a team led by Professor Colin McGuckin, in Newcastle, England, using stem cells from umbilical cords. This is non-controversial, factual and current, and we are thankful that he was not distracted by the hypothetical results of embryonic stem cell research in this crucial development. The supposed benefits that have been inspired by research on embryonic stem cells—the treatment of type 1 diabetes, spinal cord injuries and a range of other maladies—are belied by the fact that embryonic stem cell therapies cannot even be proven in animals.

Professor Itescu, Director of Transplant Immunology at New York’s Columbia University Medical Centre states that much of the understanding pro-cloning advocates hope to acquire could come from animal work and that:

... returning to this approach would take all of the ethical drama out of the discussion and lay it back on strong scientific foundations.

That is, if we go back to animals, we can lay the scientific foundations that proffer the case of so many who support these bills. Surely this would seem the reasonable first step, unless there is another motivation as to why we wish to work on human life now. Another issue is that, on passing this legislation, we are agreeing with the argument that is put forward in the Lockhart report that:

... embryos formed by fertilisation of eggs by sperm may have a different social or relational significance from embryos formed by nuclear transfer.

That is stating that human life created by this technique has no rights because it has no social or relational significance. With regard to the word ‘may’ how can it be that it may have rights if its purpose is to be destroyed? Refugees have no social or relational significance. So are we by default now presupposing that they have no rights or have we come to the conceit that we can pick and choose our moral premises which can fluctuate as required from issue to issue? Do you have a basic right that others without fault do not have, even in this nation? If the embryo created was allowed to grow, would he or she be something akin to a slave, a person of no social or relational significance or would it be that a slave would have more rights because they may attain these rights whilst those conceived under this legislation would be defined as having none and no prospect of attaining any? Do we implicitly, by association in legislation, say that ovaries are now commercial property disassociated from the person and as property can be extracted from prisoners in China or aborted foetuses in Australia? These so-called ‘useful parts’ will be used in their thousands as test materials for the effects of drugs on human life.

Fast forward from 2002 to 2006 and we are now engaged in another stem cell debate but this time it is about deliberately creating new embryos by the method of somatic cell nuclear transfer, SCNT, or cloning to obtain their stem cells. All of the same reasons for lifting the prohibition on frozen embryos are being used again to argue for the lifting of the prohibition on cloning. Only this time we are told the impediment of tissue rejection can be solved through harvesting stem cells from a cloned embryo of the patient.

As the Lockhart review process was in its early stages, some politicians and members of the media began to talk about the need to legalise the process called somatic cell nuclear transfer as a new way of deriving rejection-free stem cell lines that could lead to the much talked about potential miracle cures. The use of such technical terminology had the potential to effectively expunge the words ‘embryo’ and ‘clone’ from the debate, sidelining opponents with ethical concerns. However, it soon became clear that SCNT was the same process used to create Dolly the sheep and numerous other animal clones.

To its credit, the Lockhart committee recognised that SCNT did in fact create a human embryo. Lockhart chair Loane Skene did not seek to hide this. On Friday, 20 October, she told the Standing Committee on Community Affairs inquiry into the legislative responses to recommendations of the Lockhart review:

Other people have said to us that what we are talking about today, a somatic cell nuclear transfer embryo, is better not being called an embryo. We did not shy away from calling it an embryo because it is conceivable, as happened with Dolly the sheep, that if that entity were put into a woman, after a lot of care, it could in fact develop into a foetus. So we did call it an embryo.

The only difference between Dolly the sheep and Lockhart style cloning was it would be illegal for the cloned embryo to be allowed to live more than 14 days and to be implanted in a womb. Unlike Dolly the sheep, Snuppy the puppy and Matilda the cow, Billy the human clone will never be born if the Lockhart recommendations are followed. For the first time in our history, we have proposed a law that creates human life and then mandates its destruction. To get around this inconvenient truth, Professor Skene says an SCNT embryo has a ‘different moral status’ from those created in artificial reproductive technology programs.

The Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs majority report into Lockhart goes to great pains to distinguish between an egg and sperm embryo and an SCNT, Dolly style, embryo. While the words ‘embryo’ and ‘clone’ were allowed, other linguistic techniques are used in the majority report to set our minds at ease. We are asked to believe that there is a difference in the ‘intrinsic value’ between a cloned embryo and an egg and sperm embryo, justifying its destruction. We are asked to consider that an SCNT embryo is not ‘equal to’ a naturally fertilised embryo, that now we are differentiating between what is equal and what is not equal in human life.

Did the living Dolly the sheep have a different moral status from Mary’s little lamb because Dolly grew from a cloned embryo? Sure Dolly died prematurely wracked with arthritis and other genetic defects, but she baaed like a lamb, ate grass like a lamb and grew wool like any other lamb. Just because Dolly was disabled as a result of scientists messing with her DNA, does that mean she was of less intrinsic value, of different moral status or less equal to all the other little lambs?

History is littered with examples of relegating various genetic forms of human life to a subgroup of the species. Knowing from the cloned animal models that a cloned human is a real scientific possibility, if we then buy in to the idea that these clones are somehow less human than the rest of us, we have no choice but to be intellectually honest and accept the case for reproductive cloning. If the embryo created through SCNT is of less ‘intrinsic value’ and not ‘equal to’ an egg and sperm embryo, why should this parliament maintain a barrier to reproductive cloning to solve our chronic shortage of transplant organs?

Why is the line drawn at 14 days? It is only because it is ink on paper: we have said 14 days—why not draw the line at 14 weeks, 20 weeks or whatever level you consider relevant? Surely a foetus that develops from an embryo that is subhuman maintains that different moral status Professor Skene talks of. In calling for reproductive cloning, Melbourne’s Professor Julian Savulescu is just following through with the logical extrapolation of the ethical jump this parliament is considering. Writing in the Journal of Medical Ethics he says:

It is morally required that we employ cloning to produce embryos or foetuses for the sake of providing cells, tissues or even organs for therapy, followed by abortion of the embryo or foetus.

Perhaps this is the ultimate form of ‘therapeutic cloning’. For those who cross the ethical Rubicon before us this week, the intellectually consistent position will be to join Professor Savulescu in saying it is not only permissible to clone embryos, grow them in a womb and then abort them for their tissues and organs, but it is morally required. At least the professor has the intellectual honesty and the courage to acknowledge that this is where his ethical position on human life takes him—a place we are all headed if we vote for this.

I asked a question of Mick Keelty, director of the AFP, in Senate estimates last week. Do we torture anyone and, if not, why not, as it could achieve attaining a great deal of information? The reason we do not is that, though the outcome could possibly be relevant, the process is anathema. Why do we get so shocked by the statements of Taj al-Din al-Hilali? We do not seriously believe that he has an intention to rape or that he is inspiring people to rape. His statement of culture is repugnant, as he diminishes our basic view on what we believe our value position in Australia to be. The action of rape is not required for the ethos alone to be repugnant. The fact that we are about to legislate the differentiation in the value of human life is repugnant to me.

What does the word ‘conservative’ mean? I always presumed it meant that caution should always prevail when manipulating the fundamental philosophical compass points in our society. Trying to avoid harm is the noble arm of where I believe conservatism in any party should be. Conservatism appears to have descended to mean a belief in fiscal rectitude. When we iron out all the social contours, is this what we are left with to inspire—a fanatical belief in fiscal rectitude? We should maintain the belief in the deeper philosophical guidance that precludes a change of our society that is unwarranted. As there has been billions invested elsewhere in the world to no effect in embryonic stem cell research, I think we can safely say that embryonic stem cell research in Australia is unwarranted.

That we are content with the status quo and are not willing to meddle with the known compass points if it affects the fundamental belief structure that underlines our current freedoms is, in my belief, the foundation of what we are as Australians. This is one of the last contours in Australian ethical debates and takes us to the position that an amorphous and nebulous paradigm of beliefs can sustain the strength of the nation in the threat of future cultural and ethical challenges. Nature abhors a vacuum, and when we legislate away our belief structure do not think for one moment that the position is final. New beliefs will take the place of our current lack of them and fanaticism will walk unimpeded into a new chapter of Australia in the next 50 or so years.

The call we have to make when removing our social and moral contours is: can we instil a belief in our nation, whose strength will be gained from issues such as fiscal rectitude? Will our evolved belief structure be strong enough to impede the growth in the dynamics of other cultures in our nation?

So to those among us here who pride themselves on social justice, I would love to see the passion that is so often extended to other issues delivered to inhibit the creation of stateless, valueless human life in Australia. I implore you to look at maintaining the wider sincerity to your defence of the rights of all Australians. If you believe in the equality of a person irregardless of age, race, sex, religion or other issues then how can you abscond from the defining of a relevant argument as to what stage in your life these inalienable rights descend on a person and why? This argument has been avoided in this debate like the plague: when do we attain rights? By endorsing this bill you acknowledge that there are those in our nation without rights, as there has never been given the clear argument as to why embryos are not human life.

Grant Chapman (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The debate we are engaged in today on the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006, in essence, is to decide whether any legislative changes are required, in response to the legislative review committee, also known as the Lockhart committee review, to the 2002 laws prohibiting human cloning and regulating research on human embryos. The Australian parliament first considered legislation on cloning and embryo experimentation in 2002 on a conscience vote. The Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 and the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002 were the result of many hours of parliamentary debate in this place.

When those bills came before us no parliamentarian spoke in favour of creating embryos for the purpose of research and experimentation. The point of division between parliamentarians at that time was whether experimentation on excess embryos produced during in-vitro fertilisation and other procedures for artificial reproductive technology should be permitted with the consent of the donors. The laws were reviewed three years later by the Lockhart committee. This review made a number of recommendations, including continuing the ban on reproductive cloning and the creation of hybrid embryos. The Lockhart committee has recommended lifting the ban on human embryonic cloning for research, clinical and training purposes, including deriving stem cell lines for possible therapeutic purposes, providing such embryos are not implanted into the womb and are not allowed to develop for more than 14 days. The bill we are debating today gives effect to these recommendations.

It is at this point I have to take issue with arguments I have heard by supporters of the legislation during my intermittent monitoring of the debate during the day. Senator Webber, for example, asserted that opposition to this bill was based on the slippery slope argument that this legislation would pave the way for further changes later, reducing embryonic protection. Let me say that this is not a point I had considered in reaching my position on the bill, and therefore I had not planned to include it in my remarks. However, given that Senator Webber and subsequently Senator Stott Despoja have raised it, let me say that the very fact that we are debating this bill proves the veracity of the slippery slope argument. As I said, four years ago we debated and the parliament passed the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 and the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002, which at the time, it was claimed, went as far as we should go and needed to go on this issue. Yet here we are barely four years later debating another bill to remove restrictions contained in that earlier legislation. I say the slippery slope case is proved. How long before we will be back here again in the name of science removing the very limited protections claimed to exist in this bill?

Senator Stott Despoja also claimed that there would be a lot of misleading arguments put by opponents of the bill in this debate. However, in her remarks she failed completely to detail the misleading nature of those arguments that she mentioned. Senator Adams justified support for the bill partly on the grounds that there are a number of new senators in this place since the last debate took place. However, unless there have been substantial changes in the science or ethics over those four years, that does not justify a change. In fact, such an argument raises the suspicion that people are coming to this debate with predetermined views rather than seriously examining whether any substantial change has occurred in the facts of the science or the ethics over the last four years.

Neither the bill before us nor the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 nor the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002, as is commonly believed, regulate stem cell research. But they do regulate activities that involve the use of human embryos. The special character of embryos warrants a strict regulatory regime for research involving excess IVF embryos, and this is provided by the current legislation—namely, the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 and the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002. However, indirectly, the laws, including the bill before us, will impact on stem cell research by regulating a possible source of stem cells—the human embryo.

What we are considering today in essence is the fundamentally significant ethical challenge of the creation of embryos for the purpose of research and experimentation. The issue of research involving stem cells derived from human embryos increasingly is the subject of national debate and indeed dinner party conversation. The issue is confronted every day in laboratories as scientists ponder the ethical ramifications of their work. It is agonised over by parents and many couples as they try to have children or to save children already born.

Recent developments in human stem cell research and human cloning have underneath them the profound question of the human embryo. There are many and varying definitions of the embryo in medical, biological, botanic, historic and legal fields. The lack of scientific rigour in definitions renders it difficult to sustain much of the argument in favour of this bill today. On the one hand we hear regularly of the alleged great potential benefits which lie in these areas of research. On the other hand is the great question that is posed right at the starting gate: is it right to engage in research that involves the human embryo? That is the issue that must be addressed and should be the focus of our attention today.

The meaning of an embryo in past debates was considerably simpler than it is today. Five or six years ago one might have said that the embryo was a simple fusion of sperm and egg. Of course, that would have left out Dolly, the product of cloning. Some would say Dolly was never an embryo and question whether she was ever a foetus and perhaps debate if she was even a sheep. These are just a sample of the conundrums arising because of the advances in technology. Let us not overlook that we are not looking at botanic or indeed animal embryos today. One of the consequences of this bill is that it is challenging the very concepts that we have of the entities involved, and the entities in this particular instance are human beings.

One of the things that we do know is that at one time all of us that are here in this chamber were embryos. All of us were fertilised two-cell, four-cell and eight-cell embryos. If the embryos had been destroyed, we would not be here. Some proponents of the destructive embryo research as provided for in this bill try to deny moral status to all early human embryos. They have coined the term ‘pre-embryo’ to describe human embryos in the first two weeks of their development, seeking to justify destructive experimentation during this early stage. However, the term and concept of pre-embryo has never been accepted in international health, medical or ethical debate and is rejected by contemporary textbooks on embryology.

What is indisputable is that a new human embryo, the starting point for human life, comes into existence with the formation of the one-celled zygote. That is the sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm with a secondary oocyte, the ovum, and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei—the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilised ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being. The embryo formed by the combination of 23 chromosomes from each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote, which now exists as a genetic unity. In somatic cell nuclear transfer, also known as SCNT, the egg cell’s single set of chromosomes is removed. It is replaced by the nucleus from a somatic cell, which already contains two complete sets of chromosomes. The resulting embryo contains both sets of chromosomes and also forms a genetic unity.

It is a fact that the nuclear transfer group of cells constitutes an embryo. There is the very fact that Dolly was born, and the many species afterwards in which that was done. Accepting the fact that it has a high attrition rate and it has other problems, the fact that it is capable of happening renders the SCNT outcome an embryo. Although produced in a new and bizarre manner, a cloned embryo grows and develops as a living organism in the same way as one produced by fertilisation. The only difference between fertilisation and SCNT lies in where those two sets originated. In both cases, the embryo formed has the potential to grow into a complete human being. It is known as ‘totipotent’ because its potential is total.

After fertilisation or nucleus transfer, the cell is dividing to form a ball of cells. These cells start to differentiate and become specialised a few days after fertilisation. Before they start differentiating, though, each of the cells already contains all the genetic code needed to grow into a foetus; therefore they are all totipotent at this point.

Those supporting this bill attempt to rationalise embryos with less than 14 days of life as being ‘pre-embryonic’ and available for experimentation and destruction. Make no mistake: that cluster of cells is the same way you and I, and all the rest of us, started our lives. Experiments which subject the zygote or embryo to any significant risk are the ethical equivalent of the infamous medical experiments that were inflicted on unwilling and uninformed victims in Nazi death camps. Ends do not justify the means. Thus, no matter how helpful embryo research might claim to be, it should not be undertaken if the embryo is eventually killed or subjected to a significant risk. A human zygote and human adult have equal ‘humanness’. To destroy the zygote is to destroy an actual human being, not a potential human being.

I cannot support legislation which devalues life, and which callously disregards the right of human life in its earliest stages. I find it alarming that the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs, in its final report, considered that embryos formed by fertilisation of eggs by sperm may have a different social or relational significance from embryos formed by nuclear transfer, and hence justified its recommendation to use not only SCNT but, more alarmingly, animal eggs to form hybrid embryos with the nucleus of a human cell.

Proposals to use nucleus transfer techniques in human stem cell research raise a further set of concerns in addition to those of the created embryo. Appropriate sourcing of the thousands of eggs that are needed for SCNT research and experimentation is the first of these concerns. SCNT requires human eggs, which can only be obtained from women. The most common source of these eggs today is eggs that are produced and are in excess of the clinical need during IVF treatment. The IVF egg harvesting procedure in itself carries some health risks—and even the risk of death.

Ovarian hyperstimulation is an extremely painful and risky egg harvesting procedure that millions of women will be required to undergo for embryonic stem cell research to be used widely. It is estimated that the lowest number of women required in order to use embryonic stem cell treatments for diabetes in America—just one disease—is 29 million women. The process of ovarian hyperstimulation involves an intense regimen of hormone shots followed by an extremely uncomfortable egg-harvesting procedure and poses the risk of impaired future fertility, stroke and death.

The question is: how is it that large numbers of women will be enticed to part with their eggs, given those risks? It follows that egg harvesting will result in the commodification and commercialisation of women’s ovaries, and the exploitation of women with financial difficulties, those from a lower socioeconomic background, with lesser education and without the opportunity to fully comprehend the risks and give informed consent. According to the World Health Organisation, these deaths are rare and occur about once in 50,000 treatment cycles. However, if we consider the ratio of the millions of women from whom eggs would need to be harvested for just one disease, that would translate into hundreds, even thousands, of deaths.

Let me now turn to the arguments, firstly, that there are no good alternatives to embryo research and, secondly, the great potential benefits that are going to come from embryo research, meaning the development of all kinds of products which will help to save the lives of millions of people. Apart from the veracity of that claim, it raises another issue which I believe does not get the important attention it deserves in this debate—that is, the question of who is going to benefit. We already know of many examples around the world where people have diseases that we can treat now, with our existing medical technology, but they do not benefit because they do not have access to those known treatments. We also know that 11,000 children die every day from a lack of clean water, yet often you hear in this debate how this is going to be good for our children. We may well ask: which children are those?

Claims made by those proponents of a looser regime on embryonic stem cell research and experimentation—that is, those who do not see a problem with killing human life at its earliest stages—reveal a pattern of public, deceptive hype. The advocates of embryonic stem cell experimentation list a large number of conditions to support their rejection of ethical concerns and list exaggerated promises of dramatic cures for cancer, Parkinson’s disease, diabetes, kidney disease, multiple sclerosis, macular degeneration and a host of other diseases.

I do not question the use of adult stem cells in the treatment of current conditions, but the fact remains that there is no evidence of any therapies for any of these diseases becoming available in the near future from embryonic cells. The California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, the world’s best funded stem cell institute, predicts that there will be no cures for at least 15 years from embryonic stem cells. In the five years since human cloning to generate stem cells was legalised in the United Kingdom, no clinical therapies have emerged or even seem likely. Indeed, the natural propensity of embryonic stem cells to exhibit chromosomal abnormalities and the abnormalities of cloned mammals act against any future likelihood of success.

The hype and misinformation surrounding the false claims of the potential benefits of embryonic cell research are no justification for the creation of embryos for the sole purpose of conducting scientific experiments. It must not diminish our moral responsibilities in relation to the embryo. Indeed, I draw on the Lockhart committee’s own words on page xiv of their report where they state:

Conversely, where benefits are not yet established, or where there is widespread and deeply held community objection, then total prohibition through the legal system may be justified.

This is precisely what is before us—benefits which are neither clinically nor therapeutically evident, nor likely in the foreseeable future, and, judging from the volume of correspondence to my office, research which is objected to by a significant section of the community. It simply does not follow that the Senate committee should conclude that our community standard has so changed in three or four years that it be reflected in the finding that the creation of embryos specifically for experimentation and destruction is permitted, provided only that the experimentation is aimed at improving the lot of humanity.

Equally abhorrent is the recommendation of the Lockhart committee that animal-human hybrid clones be produced. It states on page 172 of its report:

In order to reduce the need for human oocytes, transfer of human somatic cell nuclei into animal oocytes should be allowed ...

This is an unacceptable alternative to mass harvesting of eggs from women. Stem cells can be derived from sources other than embryos—from adult cells, from umbilical cords that are discarded after babies are born and from human placenta, bone marrow and other adult tissue. Research on these types of stem cells is promising and is delivering results. Many patients suffering from a range of diseases are already being helped with treatments developed from adult stem cells. Other methods of harvesting stem cell lines where embryos are not destroyed are just as effective at producing stem cells and should be fully explored as the first option. There are no specific and credible reasons why Australia needs to approve therapeutic cloning. Recent international scientific developments report ‘reprogramming’ of adult cells to work virtually as embryonic stem cells for the generation of patient-specific cell lines for transplantation or for modelling different diseases.

I am a strong supporter of science, technology, research and development, and I certainly want biomedical research to produce cures for terrible diseases. But there are alternatives to creating embryos for experimentation and research. We should not abandon respect for life by denoting embryos as a means to an end or by creating them with the intent of rendering them less equal by virtue of the nature of their creation. My position on this bill is that of being pro human values. I cannot support any legislation that gives science the justification to create human life only so that it might be experimented on and destroyed without respect for the dignity of that potential human life. I opposed the Research Involving Human Embryos Act in 2002 as a bridge too far. This bill attempts a bridge even further and I reject the bill in its entirety.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak briefly on the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 because I believe that I have an obligation to let the Senate and my fellow constituents know why I am taking the position that I am in relation to this bill. I did not find this a difficult decision to make. Many people did, but I did not. As a matter of fact, I must be one of those ‘rebel conservatives’ that I read about a couple of weeks ago in the Financial Review, which was making comment about a document that was supposed to have been leaked to the Financial Review. I must be one of those ‘rebel conservatives’ because I intend to support the bill.

There are a number of reasons why I intend to support the bill, but I preface those remarks by saying that I am a Christian and a regular churchgoer—not quite as regular as I should be, perhaps, but regular nevertheless. One of the things that I took into consideration was that on the Lockhart committee there were also a number of regular churchgoers who came to the unanimous position that they did at the end of their deliberations. As far as I am concerned, this is not a matter of a Christian or a Christian church having a singular view. There are many views amongst people who count themselves as Christians in our community. There are probably many views amongst those who belong to other religions as well, but in this case I will be supporting the bill.

Thirteen years ago my eldest daughter was diagnosed with MS. I do not expect that the research that would be entered into by the passage of this bill is likely to bring a miracle cure; no-one expects miracle cures. But if through the passage of this bill we could give scientists the ability to find a cure for many of the diseases which are now incurable I would never forgive myself if I voted against the bill and did not give medical research the extra possible opportunity to succeed in finding a cure for some of the terrible diseases which are now incurable and which afflict so many in our population. And so I did not find it a difficult decision at all. I have intended to support this bill from the very minute that it was proposed by Senator Patterson.

I also want to talk about the use of this sort of research in other countries. If we in Australia decide that we are not going to proceed down this line of medical research, it is not going to stop the use of embryonic stem cells in research in other countries around the world. Belgium, China, Israel, Japan, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom and South Korea are all countries which, in some form or other, allow the creation of embryos both by fertilisation and by nuclear transfer. This is certainly the current position for research in the United Kingdom, Belgium and China.

If we do not proceed along this line in Australia, it does not mean that it will not take place. It does mean that many of our brightest and best in the research field might have to go elsewhere to pursue their careers, but it does not mean that it will not take place. I certainly believe there are those in the past who have managed to come up with cures for many of the diseases which terrified the world for a long period of time. Just think of the effect that smallpox had in the 1700s and 1800s. Just think of what the discovery of penicillin did for a whole range of other infections. Just think of all the research that has taken place, many of it by Australian scientists, who are regarded amongst the best in the world. I see Senator Bob Brown in the chamber. I am sure, Senator Brown, that as a medical doctor you would know of the enormous ability of Australian researchers and the amount of work that they have put into medical research, sometimes coming up with cures for diseases which have never been found in other countries. So we have all these other countries in the world which currently allow this sort of research. The United Kingdom has permitted the creation of embryos via somatic cell nuclear transfer since 2001. Canada permits the use of embryos excess to IVF needs. I have not got a list of all of the countries, only of some of those countries that are currently benefiting from the ability to use this research.

I looked at the committee’s report on the Lockhart review recommendation. I noticed the quality of people who were part of that Lockhart review—a review commissioned by the government. The Lockhart review came up with a number of recommendations to the government, and then the Senate committee has looked into that review in having an inquiry into the bills that were put forward by Senator Patterson and Senator Stott Despoja. I looked carefully at the prohibitions that they had included in their recommendations, and the prohibitions that they have placed on this bill are sufficient for me to support the bill because they have put safeguards to the extent that I do not believe that anyone involved in medical research will be able to misuse the ability to do research that the passage of this bill will provide for them.

These are things such as a prohibition on the implantation into the reproductive tract of a woman of a human embryo created by any means other than the fertilisation of an egg by sperm. That has been prohibited in the past and will continue to be prohibited. It is obvious from the six or seven prohibition clauses in the recommendation that the committee has looked very carefully into the provisions of the private member’s bill proposed by Senator Patterson. And it has decided that putting these prohibitions in place will take care of many of the fears some people may have had about the passing of this bill allowing this research to take place.

As I said at the start, it was not at all a difficult decision for me. I know some people have agonised over which way they should vote on this, and I may be voting in a different way from how many of my colleagues and also many of my friends would expect me to vote. But I do so with a conviction that we should give medical research every opportunity it can possibly have to try and rid this world of some of the terrible afflictions that young people today have to live with. You only had to be in the House the other day with the kids with juvenile diabetes to know that they are pleading, ‘Please find a cure.’ They are pleading with research to find a cure for this disease which at times afflicts children from such a young age.

In my personal case, with my daughter with multiple sclerosis, as I said I do not expect miracle cures to come from this. But if a cure can be found—and I hope that one can be—as I said from the start, I would never be able to forgive myself if I did not support a bill that would give medical scientists every chance to find a cure for these diseases.

Sandy Macdonald (NSW, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Senate is debating the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. I will not be supporting Senator Patterson’s bill, although I understand the considerable amount of work and the good intent of her and her supporters. I remember the debate we had on embryonic stem cell research in 2002. It was a very difficult debate, and the parliament was divided on the issue. However, we were not divided on the issue of cloning. There was no voice raised in opposition to the prohibition of human cloning at that time. There was no voice raised saying we should allow the creation of embryo clones for research. Now it is 2006. We are not having the stem cell debate all over again. We have embryonic stem cell research in Australia. It is already happening. Today we are simply having a debate about cloning. And I have to say that I have not seen sufficient evidence to make me change my opposition to creating embryo clones for research or reproduction.

It is a huge proposition to put to me that I should support human embryo cloning. It is a major step to go from using excess IVF embryos for research to creating embryos that are the clone of a human being and then using them for research. You would need ironclad guarantees that it was going to solve all the woes of medical research in order to go ahead. And they are not there. No-one has even created a human embryo clone yet. No-one has derived stem cells from one, and no-one has proven that the technique will be therapeutic in any way. I need to see a lot more evidence of benefits than I have seen so far in the four years since 2002. As Professor John Martin submitted to the Senate committee:

Any move towards the deliberate manufacture of human embryos for research purposes constitutes a major elevation in the ethical barrier, and the standard of proof required for a positive outcome of that research becomes all the higher.

I was astonished to learn from the NHMRC that only nine licences have been given since the 2002 debate. Only four of these relate to deriving embryonic stem cells and only one—imagine that: only one—has been given with the aim of treating a specific condition. What did we go through all that debate for last time? It makes me extremely wary of listening to the claims by the same people this time around for cloning.

We are legislators. It is our job to allocate resources across competing interests. It is our job to make tough decisions, and, frankly, this one is not tough. 2002 was tough. But human embryo cloning is a no-brainer in my view. Creating human embryos with eggs from cadavers or animals is not a process I would be proud to endorse. Surely there is a lot more to do under the existing regime before we need to go down that road, if we go down it at all. We are not being asked to sign off on a routine medical procedure or a straightforward research proposal here today. We are being asked to sign a blank cheque on an unknown and unproven theory, a hypothesis that one day in our grandchildren’s time might—might—lead to cures for diseases.

I am also very put off by all the division within scientific ranks over the cloning hypothesis. Frankly, I do not understand why we are even considering a proposal for human-animal hybrids when Australia’s Chief Scientist, James Peacock, has called for the banning of animal eggs in therapeutic cloning. Why is this bill running contrary to the advice of Australia’s Chief Scientist?

Amongst all the conflict and division of the experts as they faced the Senate committee hearings, I was struck by the unanimity of one line of reasoning. Everyone seemed to agree that there was a lot that could be done under the present regulatory environment, which was installed after the 2002 debate. I would like to demonstrate this by reading a few quotes from the Senate Committee Hansard. Senator Polley asked in one of the hearings:

... does the current legislation environment allow further human embryonic stem cell research into the areas of proof of concept of treatment in animal experiments, overcoming their teratoma cancer problem and the instability of human embryonic stem cell properties and learning whether disease-specific colonial embryonic stem cell lines will be helpful? Can all of these things be studied now without changing the law?

The reply from Dr Sidhu, the Manager of the Embryonic Stem Cell Group at the Prince of Wales Hospital, was:

Absolutely; we can do that with the existing legislation in place.

Professor Mackay-Sim, a former Queenslander of the Year, was asked a similar question on whether the current legislative environment allows for much further work to be done using embryonic stem cells without cloning being required, and he responded:

That about sums it up, yes.

Professor Tuch, Director of the Diabetes Transplant Unit at the Prince of Wales Hospital, was asked at the Senate committee hearings:

Would you agree that there is still a lot that you could do within the parameters of the current regulatory regime?

And he replied:

The answer to that question is: absolutely yes, of course; under the current situation, yes.

Dr Munsie is the Scientific Development Manager at Stem Cell Sciences Ltd. She reported to the Senate committee on the objectives of a research project currently underway under the existing legislation:

At the moment we are going to learn how to grow embryonic stem cells better, and the crux of this project is exactly that: how to grow them and then how to direct their fate—how to direct them into nerves—so that ultimately we can treat diseases where there is damaged tissue, such as a cardiac infarct or a Parkinson’s disease patient. But we are not at that stage yet.

I think, as Professor Martin Pera previously indicated, there are many hurdles to overcome and we want to address these responsibly. The first is how to grow the cells without animal products. We want to be able to grow cells that are of an acceptable clinical grade. The second issue is how to direct their fate so that we are putting back cells that are going to be beneficial to the patient and that do not have a risk of tumour formation. I think we are a while away.

The point is exactly that—these researchers are a while away from anything conclusive. They are busy doing lots of important things and have lots of other important things to do, all of which can be done under the existing legislation. I think we should let them do just that—get on with the job of proving up their science. They have the tools, including the regulatory environment of 2002, which still has a long shelf life, according to even the most ardent pro-cloning scientists. (Quorum formed)

Alan Eggleston (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 before the Senate today, put forward by Senator Patterson to permit somatic cell transfer or cloned embryos to be formed, is to enable, among other things, hybrid animal-human embryos to be created. I am opposed to this legislation because I believe that the Senate is yet again being rushed into enacting laws to suit the interests of the biotechnology industry before there has been time to fully appreciate the implications of these proposals and give adequate consideration to whether changes are needed for the regulatory regime surrounding stem cell research. I am also deeply concerned by the observations of both the Chief Scientist, Professor Jim Peacock, and Associate Professor Sherley, who are on opposite sides of the debate, that federal parliamentarians did not appear to be well informed about the science of stem cell research or the ethical and regulatory considerations needed to surround the use of such technology.

The Senate first debated the issue of the use of stem cell therapy four years ago, in 2002, when a bill was put forward to permit this research to be carried out on human embryos. At the time, quite striking claims were made about the possibility of being able to provide cures for such problems as juvenile diabetes, Parkinson’s disease and motor neurone disease and to repair the injuries to the spinal cord caused by accidents, within a short period of time. For example, the public were told by Bob Carr, the then Premier of New South Wales, that such treatments would be only four or five years away if stem cell research were permitted to go ahead.

But, as of course so often happens in medical research when miracle breakthroughs are claimed, the reality was not quite so simple. This was conceded by the panel at the forum arranged in Parliament House by the supporters of this legislation a few weeks ago, when it was said that the expectation of when stem cell therapies would be available and the extent of them had been overstated in the hope of attracting support from the federal government and others for such research to be permitted and go ahead.

Today it is recognised that the time frames involved for the development of therapies from stem cells are very long indeed, because there is a great deal of basic research to be done before treatments can be considered, much less used, in human patients. At that meeting in Parliament House some weeks ago, Professor Ian Frazer—who, as you would know, was the Australian of the Year—said that therapies could not be expected to be available to treat patients for at least 75 years. And in a personal conversation I had only last week with Professor Alan Mackay-Sim, from Griffith University in Queensland, he said that the amount of basic research which needed to be done meant that treatments were decades away.

As a doctor, I would of course be delighted if stem cell research were to provide a means of treating some of the serious illnesses which afflict mankind, such as juvenile diabetes and Parkinson’s disease. But also, in this context today, more importantly as a legislator, I am profoundly concerned that the problems associated with the development of stem cell therapies are being glossed over in the haste to enact this legislation before the Senate. For example, it has emerged in the last four years that there is a great deal of uncertainty as to whether embryonic stem cells or adult stem cells have the most potential in providing the basis of further research for the development of therapies for human illnesses. Four years ago we were given the impression that embryonic stem cells had the greatest potential and that adult stem cells would be of very limited value in developing therapies. However, recently, here in Parliament House, we have heard from Professor Sherley and Professor Mackay-Sim that this assumption is far from being the case, and the balance is now tipping towards adult stem cells having the most potential to benefit mankind in treating illnesses.

Likewise, four years ago an impression was created that it was going to be a relatively simple matter to use stem cells to create new tissues to replace diseased ones by simply implanting a stem cell into the appropriate organ of the human body. It is now also clear that there are in fact some very major hurdles to be overcome before stem cells can even be considered for use in treating human illnesses.

Firstly and most basically, it is apparent that no-one has discovered how to reliably trigger stem cells to grow into specific organs such as heart, brain or pancreatic cells. In fact, I have been told by Professor Mackay-Sim that this question of reliably inducing stem cells to differentiate is proving very difficult and that no-one has succeeded in developing a method of consistently getting a stem cell to differentiate into a particular type of organ cell. Again, there is a related question regarding limiting the growth of stem cell implants which in effect could become a tissue culture in the body and keep on growing in the patient’s body, which would be quite catastrophic to the patient. Then there is the fact that stem cells from any person other than the patient would be subject to a rejection reaction just as organ transplants are.

Most importantly, cancer formation in stem cell implants is a problem. It has been confirmed that embryonic stem cells have a propensity to form a highly malignant tumour called a teratoma in 25 per cent of implants. This issue was raised by Professor John Martin, an emeritus professor of medicine at Melbourne University—as reported in the Sydney Morning Herald on 11 October this year—when he said that the risk of cancer from stem cell implants was being glossed over. He criticised the Lockhart committee for failing to highlight the risk of tumours and of genetic defects arising from the use of stem cells. Having cancer form in as many as 25 per cent of stem cell implants is a very serious limiting factor to the use of stem cell based therapies and may mean that it will be impossible for stem cells ever to be used therapeutically. Professor Sherley was quoted in theSydney Morning Herald on 11 October as saying:

“Some might say we can solve the tumour problem. It is equivalent to saying we may solve the cancer problem.”

In other words, it is a very elusive objective.

Turning to another basic issue, I would question why human tissues are being used at all in stem cell research when usual medical practice is to carry out basic research on animal models first. I have not been able to obtain a satisfactory answer from any of the stem cell scientists I have spoken to as to why animal models are not being used to conduct this research. If animal models were used there would be none of the moral and ethical issues which at present surround stem cell research, leaving the scientists to quietly work to find answers to the very significant problems needing to be solved before the use of stem cell therapy in humans could even be considered as a realistic possibility.

I am deeply concerned by the observations of the Chief Scientist and of Professor Sherley that our federal parliamentarians do not appear to be well informed about either the science of stem cells or the ethical and regulatory considerations needed to surround the development and use of this technology. An example of this is the emphasis some colleagues seem to place on the fact that sperm are not involved in the creation of a cloned embryo, apparently not understanding that sperm are just a vehicle to transport nuclear material and that they play the same role as the glass pipette in the laboratory in making an embryo.

I strongly believe that we have got a long way ahead of ourselves on this matter of stem cell research and of the potential of stem cells being used for treatments. The best thing we could do is stop and take a deep breath and realistically appraise where we really are at with stem cell research and where we are going. Today in the Senate we have before us a bill which would take the boundaries of stem cell research out much further than what was previously regarded as wise by permitting therapeutic cloning and the formation of human and animal hybrid embryos.

I am particularly concerned about the question of permitting therapeutic cloning because allowing therapeutic cloning is a threshold which, once crossed, also means the de facto enablement of cloning humans. This is because once a blastocyst is created from cloning if placed in a woman’s uterus it would develop into a baby. Senator Patterson and the supporters of this bill will say that such cloning of human beings will not occur because it will be prohibited by this bill. However, I believe the proposers of the bill are extremely naive to imagine that such a ban on cloning humans could not and would not be broken. For example, one of the leading medical scientists in this field said to me late last week, ‘Inevitably some medical scientists will not be able to resist the temptation to produce a cloned baby,’ and Professor Sherley is quoted in the press as holding a similar view on the grounds that scientists would become excited by the prospect of cloning a human being and would want to try to do this.

In developing my views on this matter I recently read a book entitled Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution by Francis Fukuyama. Mr Fukuyama wrote:

Cloning is the opening wedge for a series of new technologies that will ultimately lead to designer babies. If we get used to cloning in the near term, it will be much harder to oppose germ-line engineering for enhancement purposes—

that is, of human babies—

in the future.

What Francis Fukuyama is referring to is that the ability to clone humans, coupled with genetic selection technology, will open the way to developments such as designer humans, in which case Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World would no longer be so far fetched. I am sure that none of us in the Senate today would want to open the way to a society that in any way resembled Huxley’s Brave New World, where humans were all clones, developed in vast incubators in which intelligence and other abilities were predetermined by genetic modification and by nutrients given to embryos.

Among those who are urging the passage of this legislation are those interest groups which have consistently sought to minimalise the very real fundamental problems which need to be overcome before stem cell therapies can even begin to be considered. In my view, it is time that we as legislators of Australia called a halt to the false air of urgency surrounding this debate and gave ourselves time to consider more carefully the implications of this legislation. It seems clear to me that the only conceivable beneficiaries from rushing this legislation through the Senate are those in the biotechnology industry. However, as Francis Fukuyama says in his book:

It is important to lay down a political marker at an early point to demonstrate … that societies can take some measure of control over the pace and scope of technological advance.

In conclusion, I urge all senators to give full consideration to the implication of the Patterson legislation, permitting therapeutic cloning and animal-human hybrid embryo formation. I urge you all to reject this legislation on the ground that insufficient time has been given for senators to become fully aware of the actual state of play in stem cell research or of the need for basic problems to be overcome before consideration can be given to developing clinically useable stem cell based therapies, much less the need to permit therapeutic cloning and the creation of animal-human hybrid embryos with all the implications such a decision entails.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to incorporate speeches by Senators Allison and Milne. I would like it to be noted that Senator Milne will be voting no to the legislation.

Leave granted.

Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to 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.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The incorporated speech read as follows

Does the Future Really Need us? was a profoundly challenging article written and published in Wired magazine in 2000 by information technology master Bill Joy who invented Java software and who was Chair of US President Clinton’s Information Technology task force. He suggested in this ground breaking article that technology was moving so fast that ‘with the manipulative advances in the physical sciences and the new, deep understanding of genetics, enormous transformative power is being unleashed. These combinations open up the opportunity to completely redesign the world, for better or worse: the replicating and evolving processes that have been confined to the natural world are about to become the realms of human endeavour’.

He argued that an intelligent robot was not too far off with computing power making it possible by 2030. “And once an intelligent robot exists, it is only a small step to a robot species—to an intelligent robot that can make evolved copies of itself.” He says that it is a dream of robotics that we will gradually replace ourselves with our robotic technology.

This is already happening with the implantation of computer and nano-devices into the human body. The human and the robotic are merging. But can we achieve near immortality by downloading our consciousness, as Ray Kurzweil details in The Age of Spiritual Machines.

If we are downloaded into our technology, what are the chances that we will thereafter be ourselves or even human? Will we define a homosapien as a carbon based anatomy? Will we survive our own technologies or will they make us extinct?

Joy argues that we need to stop and think about the synergies between the new technologies before we proceed. “If our own extinction is a likely or even possible outcome of our technological development shouldn’t we proceed with great caution?” he asks. “Knowing is not a rationale for not acting.”

“The nuclear, biological and chemical technologies used in 20th century weapons of mass destruction were and are largely military, developed in government laboratories. In sharp contrast the 21 Century Genetic, Nano, Robotic technologies have clear commercial uses and are being developed almost exclusively by commercial enterprises. In this age of triumphant commercialism, technology—with science as its handmaiden—is delivering a series of almost magical inventions that are the most phenomenally lucrative ever seen. We are pursuing the promise of these new technologies within the now unchallenged system of global capitalism and its manifold financial incentives and competitive pressures.”

“This is the first moment in the history of our planet when any species, by it s own voluntary actions, has become a danger to itself as well as to a vast number of others.”

Incredibly for someone at the forefront of his Information Technology and computing field he is thinking in the same way that David Suzuki did about genetics before he (Suzuki) abandoned it.

Joy said, “Software is a tool and as a tool builder I must struggle with the uses to which the tools I make are put. I have always believed that making software more reliable, given its many uses, will make the world a safer better place; if I were to come to the opposite, then I would be morally obliged to stop this work. I can now imagine such a day may come.”

Stephen Hawking recently posed the question on the internet “In a world that is in chaos politically, socially and environmentally, how can the human race sustain another 100 years?” After a month or two he wrote... “I don’t know the answer. That is why I asked the question, to get people to think about it, and to be aware of the dangers we now face.”

He then outlined the dangers as he saw them. The danger of collision with asteroids, nuclear war, climate change and the accidental or deliberate release of genetically engineered virus... “Each time we increase our technological powers, we add new possible ways in which things could go disastrously wrong. The human race faces an increasingly dangerous future. There’s a sick joke that the reason we haven’t been visited by aliens is that when a civilisation reaches our stage of development, it becomes unstable and destroys itself. In fact, I think there are other reasons why we haven’t seen any aliens, but the story shows how perilous the situation is. The long-term survival of the human race will be safe only if we spread out into space, and then to other stars. This won’t happen for at least 100 years so we have to be very careful. Perhaps, we must hope that genetic engineering will make us wise and less aggressive.”

It is sobering to think that two of the greatest thinkers in and around science are contemplating the extinction of the human species.

It is in this context of whether or not the human race will last the next 100 years or whether we will destroy ourselves that we are now debating the question of whether to permit further research and development of human cloning. Without this context cloning is part of modern reductionist science which deliberately separates everything from everything else, doesn’t feel compelled to identify the risks to any other species or life support system. This is completely the opposite to nature in which everything is interconnected. You cannot talk about one of the parts without considering the whole. Cloning must be debated in the context of all the other rapidly advancing technologies and its benefits and dangers must be seen in an holistic way. We have to think about science as well as within science.

Under the proposed legislation human cloning will only be permitted in Australia under strict conditions for research and experimentation and not human reproduction. But it is nevertheless advancing the science of cloning: the capacity to replicate a human being. It is wrong to say that just because there is no sperm involved in creating an embryo, it is not a proper embryo. It is. It is exactly the same process that created Dolly the Sheep.

If we do not think it is appropriate to clone a human being, if we cannot answer such questions as whether a clone, a copy, is fully human and equal to the person from whom he/she is copied, should we proceed to perfect the process? How does cloning generate the essence of a person, sometimes described as soul and if it can’t, then are we not creating a lesser human, or soulless category?

It is naive to believe that once mastered, this capacity will not be tested in conjunction with the other technologies to improve the cloned person or manipulate the cloned person for military or other purposes. Imagine an intelligent clone who has had the section of the brain that triggers fear suppressed. Imagine that clone with a nano skin the pores of which close when it senses toxic gas. Would that clone be regarded as human or a machine for warfare? Would his/her rights be equal to those of his/her inferior original stock? Will the enhancing of human performance exacerbate the gulf between those who will be improved by technological convergence and those who will remain unimproved by choice or social economic status? Will we think it is okay to experiment with enhancing a clone in a way that we would not experiment on a human created with egg and sperm?

Respect for human life and dignity is at the heart of our legal and moral code. Equality is the basis of our democracy. We are putting in place a regime that does not respect a SCNT embryo in the same way that we respect an egg/sperm embryo and nor do we consider it equal. By differentiating between SCNT embryo and an egg/sperm embryo we are undermining our own legal and moral code and creating two classes of embryo, defining the difference between them on the spurious grounds of the relationship we have with one of them.

In their report to the United Nations entitled, Science Faith and New Technologies: Transforming Life, The World Council of Churches asks, “What will happen to the unimproved? Will physical enhancement become a social imperative as well as an enforceable legal one? In 2004 a US Court ruled that prison officials were allowed forcibly to medicate a death row inmate to make him sane enough to execute. In a world where human improvement or enhancement becomes a technological imperative the rights of people who do not meet the norm, for example people with disabilities, will be further eroded and impairments or disabilities will be perceived as technological challenges rather then issues of social justice. How long before democratic dissent is viewed as correctable impairment as well?”

The argument that this will not occur does not stand scrutiny. Scientists split the atom for peaceful purposes but it was not used that way. Our society has come to accept almost without question new scientific breakthroughs without realising their potential synergistic consequences.

We now have convergent technologies enabled by means of computer mediated technologies. The National Science Foundation explains, “The phrase convergent technologies refers to the synergetic combination of four major NBIC (nano-bio-info-cogno) provinces of science and technology, each of which is currently progressing at a rapid rate: Nanoscience and nanotechnology; biotechnology and biomedicine, including genetic engineering, information technology, including advanced computing and communications and cognitive science including cognitive neuroscience.”

Let me give you an example of a world we hardly know exists and has been approved by authorities supposedly acting in the public interest. Researchers in nanotechnology are seeking to exploit the Periodic Table of elements. Whilst they cannot patent an element found in its natural form, they can patent a purified form of it that has industrial uses. “Whereas biotechnology patents make claims on biological products and processes, nanotechnology patents may literally stake claims on chemical elements. ”(Transforming Life)

In Hong Kong silver nanoparticles, highly toxic to pathogens and bacteria are being used to disinfect the Metro. But this could have a devastating effect on bacteria in natural systems and has already been shown to be toxic to mammalian cells. They damage rats’ brains and liver cells but are already in use in Hong Kong and are being considered for use in the London Underground.

In Hong Kong also, in spite of the dangers, nano silver has been approved as a base for a spray on female condom and was released commercially last year. No woman purchasing this spray could be deemed to have given informed consent.

As a concerned citizen opposed to cloning and increasingly concerned about the capital and military application of science, I need to know who will benefit and who will bear the risk of cloning experiments.

Whilst much has been said about embryonic cloning, it is adult stem cells that are providing real promise of breakthrough and cure without the vexatious, practical and ethical problems of SCNT. The claims in the media of safe and efficacious cures from embryonic stem cells are not borne out in the Biotext literature review conducted for the Lockhart Inquiry. The Korean research into embryonic stem cells has been proven to be a fraud and much of what has been written, including by the Lockhart Inquiry was based on that work.

The people who will benefit immediately are the drug and pharmaceutical companies and the people who are at immediate risk are women.

As the Gene Ethics Network argues, “The precautionary principle requires any review of the costs and possible benefits of a new technology, to consider both present proposed uses and also all reasonably predictable or foreseeable future uses including all future uses that would become feasible if further development of the technology were permitted now.”

The cloning research that is proposed can go nowhere without women. Women’s bodies are required to provide ova. The procedure has risks both long term and short term. It is clear that women will not provide ova without incentive either financial or preference in IVF or in the belief that it is altruistic. All involve exploitation. There is not a sufficient supply of eggs for this experimentation and will not be without payment or inducement or criminality involved.

The fact that Britain began with a ban on financial incentives and is now removing it because of a lack of donated eggs is a case in point. Eastern European women and many Asian and African women are trafficked already. Now there will be increased incentive for the unscrupulous to use women for profit. Many have been rendered infertile already because of what has been done to them in British clinics. Abuse of human rights and harvesting organs and body parts in China from political prisoners and those on death row are common place. If prisoners are already being used for body parts in China, why will they not become a source of eggs forcibly taken?

Who will guarantee that cadavers will not be harvested? Who will guarantee that desperate refugees will not be a source of eggs in exchange for permanent asylum? Who will say that young women burdened by debt from university fees or under pressure with a mortgage will not sell their eggs? Some argue that they should be paid since the corporations will make millions from the patents derived from their donations.

Pressure will be brought to bear on those already vulnerable in the IVF programme to give eggs in return for reduced costs or advancement in the queue. The use of lab staff to donate eggs to the experiments of Dr Woo Suk Hwang demonstrates what can happen in the interests of furthering national pride in economies of knowledge and credibility. Altruism will be encouraged on the basis of an imminent cure for a relative or friend playing on women’s compassion.

Women are not commodities. Women’s body parts are not for sale. Women are not selfish walking repositories of eggs that are being wasted because women will not donate them. The fact that we are having this debate about finding ways to encourage women to undergo invasive procedures that have no benefit to themselves and give up body parts demonstrates of itself how far down the road we are to arguing that the advancement of science justifies harming women. No woman can give informed consent because we do not know what the health risks and impact of the hormonal stimulating drugs involved will have years down the track. The end does not justify the means.

The world is globalised. No one can guarantee that research developed here will be kept here. A breakthrough anywhere is replicated in labs around the world regardless of the ethical or regulatory regime in Australia and rapidly commercialised by multinational companies for enormous profit. Private capital will be able to access the results and the public interest may or may not be served. Consider the HIV/AIDS drugs developed in the public interest. Why are they refused to poor countries as generic drugs? Why are African children, and communities in PNG suffering and dying when drugs exist to help them? The PET scanner helps cancer patients who can pay, the poor suffer. Why would a treatment or enhancement derived from cloning be available to anyone other than the industrialised north? Why is work being done on cloning but until Bill Gates came along, not being done on curing malaria, the killer of the world’s poor?

Any Australian researcher who successfully clones a human will have set the human race on a new course because the ethics we may apply will certainly not be applied elsewhere as we have learned from South Korea, Britain and China. We might argue that no human clone can live beyond 14 days but will those in UK labs do the same once they know how to do it? We may move to try to prevent exploitation of women but ask the Eastern European women left infertile after harvesting of their eggs in British labs who protected them?

We argue that each human being is unique, that human life is precious and sacred but we are contemplating a technology that profoundly challenges that notion.

We are even stretching the definitions of what is human and what is animal. I strongly object to the creation of human-animal hybrids.

What of the results of the animal experiments involved in cloning for therapeutic purposes?

Whilst no human-animal material is permitted to be implanted into a woman, given the definition of such an embryo as not human, how long will it be before restrictions are lifted and such an embryo will be allowed to live more than 14 days and be implanted into an animal? Is that ethical given the mitochondrial DNA it carries?

As the Gene Ethics Network’s Bob Phelps argues, “An enucleated animal oocyte also contains mitochondrial DNA that interacts with nuclear DNA in ways that are little understood. A hybrid embryo clone produced by SCNT from a human somatic cell into an enucleated animal oocyte would have mixed animal (mitochondrial) and human (mitochondrial and nuclear) DNA in each cell.” You cannot define a hybrid embryo as not a human embryo because all of its nuclear DNA would be of human origin.

Is such a creature animal or human? Will we use human genetic material to improve the intelligence or performance of animals?

What of the animals used in this cloning experimentation? How many animals will be euthanised to access their eggs to reduce the number of human eggs required to determine the fertility of male sperm?

I support the precautionary principle. I recognise the promise of adult stem cells for research and therapeutic purposes and as with all others hope that it may produce the cures so longed for, but I reject human cloning. I reject human-animal hybrids. I reject the commodification of women. I believe that Australia should establish an Office of New Technology to independently and rigorously assess new technologies in the light of the convergence of science and technologies that are capable of redesigning matter, of transforming life, and of challenging the very idea of what it is to be human.

What is the essence of our humanity? We think we understand Nature and the Cosmos and have a right to transform it. Our mistakes, like global warming are threatening the very life support systems of the planet. Henry Thoreau once said that we will be rich “in proportion to the number of things which we can afford to leave alone.” Humankind is part of the natural world. Mother Earth has provided us with awe, mystery, inspiration and the life support systems for our survival for time immemorial. We are not her master and to the extent that we have attempted through human arrogance to be so, we may well have put ourselves on the path to extinction.

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If politicians seek to limit and constrain scientific research, their reasons must be strong. The arguments against the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 and the arguments in favour of continuing the prohibition against creating human embryos for the purpose of research or using the extra embryos created by assisted reproductive technology are, on the one hand, scientific and, on the other hand, religious. Let me say at the outset that I do not find either argument sufficiently convincing to persuade me that it is appropriate for politicians to be the arbiters of science. The many letters and emails that I have received about this bill—well over 800 at last count—have argued for the continuing ban on the creation of embryos for research because, firstly, other fields of research, such as adult stem cell research, are more promising.

Other fields of research may, indeed, be more promising. When scientists are deciding where to expend their efforts or institutions are deciding where to spend their research dollars, that is no doubt a consideration for them. But should it be a consideration for politicians debating whether or not to ban a particular kind of research? I believe not. After all, the relative value of research has to be consistently reassessed in the light of new discoveries. No politician can predict what discoveries or disappointments lie ahead. We are neither scientists nor soothsayers, and we ought not to pretend that we are either when voting on legislation.

The second argument against this bill arises from religious or moral convictions: opposition to the creation of embryos for research and to the use of excess ART embryos because of the belief that a fertilised embryo ought not to be destroyed for research. This belief is deeply felt and strongly held by some, but I do not share it. My own opinion, also deeply felt and also strongly held, is that fertilisation marks the beginning of a process that ultimately may become human life. I believe that in 2006 public opinion on methods of contraception, termination of pregnancy, IVF and embryonic stem cell research shows that our community also draws a strong distinction between a microscopic group of undifferentiated cells without heart or brain and a human being. It is on the basis of that distinction that I support a woman’s right to choose to terminate a pregnancy. It is on the basis of that distinction that I support the access by Australian women to contraception methods such as the ‘morning after’ pill and to reproductive technologies that require the creation of multiple embryos, and it is on the basis of that distinction that I will vote in favour of this legislation.

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have waited for a bit today to get on the speakers list for the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006, so in rising now I take the opportunity while I can. This is both a scientific and ethical debate. It is the intersection of the desires of science and scientists and the dignity of humanity. Scientists will always press their research to the limits of current knowledge and beyond. If they did not do this then many of the basics of human life today would not be at our disposal. However, all of what the scientists do should and must be constrained by ethical values.

The legislation before us seeks to allow the development of cloned human embryos for research purposes. I stress the words ‘cloned’ and ‘human’ quite deliberately. The subsequent purpose or use of a cloned human embryo cannot give any justification for the initial action. No matter how seemingly well intended the subsequent purpose or use might be, the initial action in creating the cloned human embryo crosses fundamental ethical lines. The fact that a human embryo is created by somatic cell nuclear transfer or SCNT—cloning—is beyond doubt. For, if the created embryo under this process were not human, it would rank the same as any other cloned embryo. It would be of little or passing interest to scientists. But, as I have said, that is not the case: it is of prime importance for research purposes and, if it is not human, what is it?

As Dr David van Gend said in evidence before the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs in Melbourne on Tuesday, 24 October 2006, at page CA104:

It is an embryo. An egg is a cell in a female body that contains half our genetic material. It is a piece of us. An embryo is a self-contained, self-directed living entity that controls its own future. Given the right environment, as the Lockhart review admitted, the cloned embryo can develop as a normal embryo to the foetal and live birth stage. There is no dispute on that. It has not been tried yet but it has happened in animals: Dolly the sheep, Matilda the lamb, Snuppy the puppy and so on. The process proposed by this legislation is exactly the same as what created Dolly and the other animals. Therefore you are dealing with a human entity which looks and behaves like an embryo; therefore, it is an embryo.

But today we have legislation that crosses a new threshold. It would permit scientists to create human life but to destroy it for research purposes. This legislation advocates a brave new world and, given the general abhorrence expressed previously on using human life destructively for research, why shouldn’t that abhorrence be maintained now? There is no reason whatsoever as to why it should not be.

In 2002, both houses of the Australian parliament unanimously rejected all forms of human cloning—that is, reproductive and therapeutic. At that time, neither senators nor members of the Australian parliament sought to allow therapeutic cloning and ban only reproductive cloning. The ban was absolute against cloning. Nothing has changed since then to warrant a change from the 2002 position. The same ethical constraints apply to cloning now as did then. What has changed is the use of language surrounding the debate, but nothing else. Dr Brigid Vout said in evidence before the Senate community affairs committee in Sydney on Monday, 23 October 2006, at pages CAl8 and CA19:

... whether that cloned embryo is then used for therapies or whether it is in fact nurtured and brought to birth—is where we come up with these two terms: ‘therapeutic’ and ‘reproductive’ cloning, respectively.

The quote goes on:

So the use of terms ‘reproductive’ and ‘therapeutic’ cloning has largely been to dress up something which the scientific community is aware that the public does not like. The public has deep-seated concerns about this extreme manipulation of procreation and the uses to which these embryos would be put.

At that same hearing in Melbourne, Dr van Gend tabled a copy of the Nature journal, 7 July 2005, in which an article condemned the International Society for Stem Cell Research under the heading ‘Playing the name game’. It went as follows:

It is true that embryo is an emotive term, but there is little scientific justification for redefining it. Whether taken from a fertility clinic or made through cloning, a blastocyst embryo has the potential to become a fully functional organism. And appearing to deny that fact will not fool die-hard opponents of this research. If anything, it will simply open up scientists to the accusation that they are trying to distance themselves from difficult moral issues by changing the terms of the debate.

Ray Campbell, the Director of the Queensland Bioethics Centre, an agency of the Catholic Archdiocese of Brisbane, said in evidence before the same committee, the community affairs committee, in Melbourne on Tuesday, 24 October, at page CA112:

We know it is cloning; that is what produced Dolly and started this whole debate. Somatic cell nuclear transfer is the technique of cloning; that is what it is.

Cloning, whether to create embryos for destruction in research or for implantation to lead to birth is still cloning. Neither language nor semantics can disguise this fact. Having crossed the ethical line, where to next? As Mr Mimmo from Don’t Cross the Line said in evidence before the community affairs committee in Sydney on Monday, 23 October 2006, at page CA23:

The point has been made at this table by others that, having developed the technology and the knowledge—this is if it ever comes to fruition in bringing about a cloned embryo—why does it make sense that we should stop at 14 days? Why doesn’t it make sense that science suddenly says, ‘Look, we’ve developed the technology and we’ve developed the information and we just need to go to the next step’—a perfectly logical set of events that will present themselves. The people who said four years ago that we will never go from here to cloning are now saying, ‘Why shouldn’t we go to cloning? The same set of principles will apply if we develop the science any further, so why shouldn’t we go to reproductive cloning? Why shouldn’t we harvest organs that are made, as distinct from stem cells?’

So where does the scientists’ appetite begin and end? The prospects are frightening. This quantum leap—and that is what it is: it is a quantum leap in research—is being advocated well in advance of similar research being done on cloned animal embryos. Some scientists are therefore asking for the freedom to pursue this research on relatively weak grounds purely and simply because they want to go down this path. Bad science cannot justify this freedom, even if it may be regulated by a government authority.

This debate has quite wrongly been portrayed as a debate about the efficacy of adult stem cells versus human embryonic stem cells obtained from excess IVF embryos. That is not the case. This is a debate where my colleagues have to consider giving scientists the right to cross a major ethical line and allow the cloning of human life for destructive research purposes. That is the quantum leap never before given. What took place in 2002 was access to excess IVF embryos, and that battle is over and done. That is not on the table here today. However, this legislation advocates crossing a major ethical line. It is not a religious line, although it may well be embraced by some people’s religions; it is actually a values line. It is about the value that you place on human life—the dignity of human beings. I say that this is going just that bridge too far. It is a quantum leap across an ethical line which is too daunting indeed; and the legislation, in my view, should be defeated.

Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to 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.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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.

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to say from the outset that I am speaking today in support of the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006, and I congratulate the Prime Minister for showing considerable leadership by allowing a conscience vote on this complex issue. I thank Senator Patterson for her determination and courage in taking this bill on and for improving upon the 2002 reforms in this area. I also pause to pay a small but heartfelt tribute to my good friend and colleague Dr Mal Washer, the member for Moore, for his determination and guidance on this subject.

Twenty-eight years ago the world was in a spin over the birth of Louise Brown. Many senators know why this now adult’s name is significant. She was the world’s first baby to have been created outside her mother’s womb through in-vitro fertilisation techniques. After millions of babies have been born worldwide because of this amazing leap in medical science, it is easy to forget what a stir it caused at the time. The controversy that arose in the late 1960s and during the 1970s centred largely around the same issues we are dealing with here today—uncertainty; advances in research and science; the hopes and dreams of people with an illness; and moral, ethical and religious issues, to name but a few. Interestingly, much of the protest that was levelled at the time—particularly at Drs Steptoe and Edwards, who were responsible for the first successful IVF baby—came from the fact that people simply could not believe it could be done. Not only did some consider it unnatural but also many considered that growing a baby outside the womb was completely unimaginable—unthinkable. While the debate raged amongst scientists, doctors and legislators, I can imagine that the general public remained sceptical too. What turned the tide of opinion for IVF was a photo of a normal healthy little baby born to childless desperate parents—and her name was Louise Brown.

The procedure is so common today that nearly everyone knows somebody who has accessed IVF; I personally know more than a few. Australia has an extraordinarily proud history in the field of IVF. Twelve out of the first 15 babies ever to be born through IVF came from Australia. We achieved the first donor egg pregnancy and the first frozen embryo pregnancy. Australia was the first to successfully deliver the first IVF multiple pregnancy. Most importantly and, I believe, relevant to this debate, Australia was the first to introduce legislation protecting donor gamete pregnancies as well as to manage the IVF process through a regulatory framework, both nationally and amongst our individual states. We are considered world leaders in the inauguration of a system of registration of every IVF cycle and every baby born from IVF—and the rest of the world had to catch up with us after we instigated this system in the 1980s.

We are also leaders when it comes to public funding of IVF. I understand that our treatments are some of the most highly subsidised in the world. Couples in the United States and the United Kingdom, for example, face huge financial burdens when undergoing IVF, including taking out second mortgages to pay for cycles, waiting for years on a public clinic’s waiting list or taking the risk of having multiple embryos implanted in the one cycle, as their financial circumstances allow them only one opportunity to have a family.

Some couples in the United Kingdom are forced to donate half of their eggs collected to a private clinic, in exchange for a free cycle of IVF. The clinic then uses the donated eggs to give to another couple. This seems to me to create a two-tiered system: childless couples who have money are not required to give away their own genetic material in order to access affordable treatment; however, others who are not as financially able, in reality, have no choice but to do so.

Fortunately, IVF in Australia is accessible to the vast majority of couples, regardless of their income, who would otherwise be unable to have children—and we should be proud of this fact. I think it also reflects the widespread community acceptance of and support for the use of IVF to help infertile couples and the subsequent continuing support since 2002 in the community, particularly amongst IVF couples, for the use of excess embryos for stem cell research. In fact, more than half the couples who have finished their families and have excess embryos now donate them for stem cell research, rather than donate them to another couple or leave them to expire.

The issue of egg donation and how it will be regulated under this bill is something I will address in a moment. I believe that, if people are worried about how this parliament will handle the issues surrounding therapeutic cloning and the impact of this bill, they should consider this country’s sound and successful history in similar scientific breakthroughs as exampled with our IVF model, with its attendant ethical administration and registration management. Traditionally, this country has handled these complex issues with maturity and responsibility. We have been able in the past, to quote John Lockhart, to weigh up the social and moral ‘value that some communities attach to the human embryo against the social and moral value that others attach to the treatment of disease and to helping people have a family’.

This was typical of the late Hon. John Lockhart. The recommendations from his report were made in the full knowledge that there were starkly opposing views on this subject, just as there are in this chamber tonight. His empathy and reason is combined with decisions based on good science and not on ill-informed sensationalism. He acknowledged that, aside from religious or personal beliefs that coloured some opinions in the community, there were other legitimate concerns that could be addressed through adequate regulation and through legislation such as we are debating here this week.

I do not for one moment claim that the successful passage of this bill will lead to dramatic breakthroughs resulting in cures for spinal cord injuries, for Parkinson’s disease or for motor neurone disease. That is not my call. I am neither medical researcher nor qualified scientist—and, as far as I am aware, no-one in this chamber is. As legislators, I do not believe that we need to have such a background to make a judgement call on this bill. But what we do need and what I hope the majority of senators do possess is a sense of vision and a sense of hope that we have the potential and we have the tools to take on the huge challenge of giving us the very best chance of curing such dreadful conditions as I have mentioned—the very best chance of having a go at curing these terribly debilitating diseases.

Medical science does not always provide certainties, but that does not mean that we should put hurdles in front of research on the basis of that uncertainty. Time and time again we have overcome concerns—some legitimate, some that amount to downright scaremongering—to embrace medical breakthroughs. Paranoia and misinformation accompanied the introduction of treatments such as genetically engineered insulin some years ago, but they were permitted on the market because our medical regulatory systems based their decisions on good science. Without this insulin, we would not have enough human pancreata in the world to obtain the human insulin that is required to treat our diabetic population.

Vaccines also exist today because of genetic engineering—another topic that takes us into the unknown and hence causes controversy. The new genetically modified whooping cough vaccine is actually much safer than the old one as there was always a risk, apparently, of brain damage. The new genetically engineered vaccine does not contain any foreign proteins and therefore removes this risk. Hepatitis B vaccine, which is now recommended for all Australians, has been guaranteed safe because it is produced by genetic modification. Confidence in its safety was not always assured when the product was extracted from high-risk hepatitis B sufferers. Similarly, the cervical cancer vaccine has a genetic engineering genesis and history.

The subject of stem cells and what we may be able to do with them in the very near future is a very exciting prospect. When I think of the opportunity that we have here today to possibly be helping hundreds of thousands of people in Australia and millions around the world, I am acutely aware of the responsibility that is now upon our shoulders with this bill. I think it is all too easy to allow my personal religious or moral beliefs to distract or temper me on the issue of stem cell research when my family and I are all in relatively good health.

Even if I wanted to get into a debate about when human life begins or what individual rights should be bestowed upon an embryo that has been cloned for therapeutic purposes, I do not know if I personally should have that luxury to preach to families whose daughter is a quadriplegic or whose father has motor neurone disease and is slowly watching his body die around him while his mind stays perfectly alert. Those families do not want to hear about my religious convictions; they simply want my positive support, my participation and our collective help to find a cure, to give us the best chance to find a cure—if not for their loved one then for future generations, in the hope of avoiding the suffering and grief that they themselves have endured.

Having said that, this bill is not about the merits or ethical dilemmas of embryonic stem cell research. This has been legal since the 2002 legislation and, as I said earlier, widely accepted within the community. The main area of dispute now, and this was recognised in the community affairs committee report, is the use of therapeutically cloned or somatic cell nuclear transfer embryos as an additional source for research. Other countries have already begun the research on stem cells, and I have every faith in our regulators here in Australia that they will enact the provisions in this bill to the letter. These provisions are wide ranging, thoughtful and come highly recommended from a wide range of experts, many of whom have religious convictions and have weighed up all of the arguments.

This bill does not support reproductive cloning—and I do not think there is anyone in this chamber who does. There is a world of difference between therapeutic cloning and reproductive cloning and, whilst I am respectful of the contrary view, I utterly reject the implication that this is the thin end of the wedge: it is simply not true. We legislated against reproductive cloning in 2002, and this bill seeks to reaffirm our stance on that issue. Creation of human embryos by fertilisation of human eggs by human sperm will remain restricted to IVF treatment for the purposes of reproduction.

Under this bill, the uses of embryos that may be authorised by a licence may only be authorised for development up to 14 days. In no circumstances can any embryo be developed outside the body of a woman beyond 14 days. Egg donors that may wish to donate eggs towards stem cell research will be donating for altruistic reasons and will not be lured by money or exploited. The NHMRC will develop guidelines for egg donation that will provide for full disclosure to a potential donor of the process involved and the risks associated with an egg donation.

I am concerned about the practical problems that we face in egg collection, because there is little point in approving stem cell research if we do not have any eggs to conduct this research with. Yes, we have excess embryos from IVF that are already available for stem cell research, but if we pave the way for additional powers for therapeutic cloning we will need the cooperation of young women around the country.

I am aware that this is not like going to your local Red Cross for an hour to give blood, and it is hard enough to even find donors to do that. Egg donation involves around a month of hormone injections, tracking and internal ultrasounds—which are quite invasive and time intensive—concluding in another invasive procedure involving twilight anaesthetic to collect the harvested eggs. By and large the donor is required to take at least a day off work and for some it can be several days, depending on how quickly they recover from the procedure.

After all this there is no guarantee of how many eggs will be collected from this one donor—it could be one; it could be 10. Any more and you risk some form of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, which can result in hospitalisation, organ failure and, in very rare cases, even death. More minor side effects of the hormone injections include soreness, bloating, weight gain and emotional distress. Women currently go through this process regularly and in a committed way time and time again in IVF, but they are doing it in the knowledge that, hopefully, it will one day allow them to have a baby.

I am struggling to be convinced that, once they know all of this and all of the facts, we will find as many women as we might anticipate prepared to do this purely for egg donation for therapeutic cloning research. As I said, we struggle to find people to take an hour out of their lives to give blood. Egg harvesting is far more time consuming, invasive and, indeed, risky. I am not sure if the Lockhart review fully appreciated this, although it did mention egg collection via other means, such as cadaveric donation not unlike other organ donation and donation from women who are having their ovaries removed for medical reasons. The Senate committee also heard evidence that a stem cell bank could be created which could store stem cells that could be propagated indefinitely without the need for continually sourcing out new ova. That certainly helps to allay many of my concerns.

Embryonic stem cells are immortal, which means that they can be multiplied in the lab to produce large numbers of cells. Once the required number of cells has been obtained, they can be directed to form particular types of specialised cells, such as heart muscle, nerve, insulin-producing pancreatic cells et cetera. Yes, it is true that adult stem cells are beneficial in medical advancement; however, stem cells derived from adult tissues appear to have a more limited potential, as they are not able to differentiate as widely and are often confined to reproducing cells identical to those found in the tissue from which they were harvested. Furthermore, as the Community Affairs Committee heard, research using therapeutically cloned embryos will actually assist in our understanding of cell biology and provide greater potential in the use of adult stem cell treatments.

I know that any kind of breakthrough in stem cell research is probably some years away, but I believe the vast majority of the Australian community will welcome the advances that this has the potential to deliver. Like the controversy surrounding IVF 30-odd years ago, once benefits are gained from therapeutic cloning and applied to effective medical treatment, this cautious welcome will turn into a confident acceptance and, indeed, a demand to have the right to access such treatments through Medicare.

Maybe one day when we are all in our retirement homes another senator in this chamber will look back at this time and wonder what all the fuss was about. Perhaps this senator will use this debate as an example when speaking on a bill that approves some new or wonderful type of research we are yet to even comprehend, in the way that the IVF debate occurred 30 years ago. I still have faith that this chamber does accurately reflect wider community standards and aspirations and I am hoping that it does with the successful passage of this bill.

I want to briefly touch on the issue of surveys and polls of community opinion on this issue. I am always reticent in quoting a result from a poll in this chamber that would back up my particular argument, because, as we all know, polls can be worded to get the result that you actually desire—it is notoriously easy to do that. When we are dealing with an issue that is not comprehensively understood by many, it is even more difficult. I also know that terms such as ‘cloning’ provoke a certain emotive response from many of us, particularly those prone to watching the odd science fiction movie. I note the Community Affairs Committee majority report also considered the issue of community standards and surveys and the difficulties in gauging public opinion on such a complex issue. They acknowledged not all of the polling done on this matter was completely independent, but what stood out was that overall there was a consistent and strong support for stem cell research amongst both men and women in the community.

As the value of an embryo created through an egg and sperm can be considered either greater to or of equal value to the value of an embryo created through therapeutic cloning, it is therefore reasonable to conclude that community support would continue for the measures contained within this bill. As a community we are prepared to accept the use of excess embryos from IVF for stem cell research—we have been doing so now for four years—and we are equally comfortable with using embryos created through somatic cell nuclear transfer or therapeutic cloning.

The measures proposed in this bill are supported by the Lockhart review and its members and my Senate colleagues from the Community Affairs Committee in its majority report. This support has been borne out of careful and considered research into all sides of the argument. I appreciate the considerable and valuable work that they have done and the written material they have produced so I could base my decision on the objective and balanced research therein contained. I commend this bill to the Senate. I wish its successful passage through this chamber and also the one below.

Amanda Vanstone (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to make it very clear at the outset that I will support the legislation. My mind is made up, and it did not take long. I want to thank Senator Patterson and the other senators who have put a lot of effort into this for persisting with it. I very much hope, of course, that the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 passes.

I was going to do quite a considered, written piece, but I thought that might be a bit egotistical and decided I would simply stick with what I thought and let it speak for itself. So my speech may not take up the time that it otherwise would have if I had laced it with rhetorical flourishes and a lot of material that is clearly on the record already and well understood by those who have an interest.

But I do want to acknowledge the assistance that I have had from reading a book by a fellow called Richard Holloway, who when he wrote the first book that I want to refer to tonight was the Bishop of Edinburgh and the Primus of the Scottish Episcopal Church. He was also the Gresham Professor of Divinity in the City of London and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. But, perhaps more importantly for this discussion, he did serve for seven years on the British Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority—I think from around 1992 onwards. I do not say by that that he was appointed by a Conservative government. I have no idea who appointed him. I have a deep suspicion that a Conservative government was in power at that time and would have had the capacity to stop it or bring it to an end before seven years if he was considered unsatisfactory. It depends on how long Major lasted. Thatcher left in 1990. We will leave that point aside.

The first reason I support this legislation is that I have a primary, basic view that science offers great hope to humanity—to all of us, to the planet. It is all very well for some people to say, ‘You’re offering false hope,’ if they are not in the position of someone who has not much left but hope. For some people I think it is probably an overstatement to say that hope is all they have left, but it is a large part of what they have left. And to assert that that is false, to sort of come in and cut it into ribbons and shreds, when you yourself have no way of knowing whether that is true, is to my mind a callous and incalculably cruel thing to do.

I do not think the hope that is expressed by people who have some particular disease or disability, and others, is always a selfish hope, either. It is not something they necessarily hope for themselves. Everybody in a position of some sort of disability or disease must have, in some small if not large portion of their mind, a hope for themselves. That is perfectly understandable; it is the normal human condition. But I think the hope that these people express when they want this legislation passed is a hope for a better place in the future on the planet—better opportunities, better health care—for people who follow them, not for themselves. So that is my first reason. It is pretty simple: science offers hope to humanity. We have the capacity to control that. That is what we are elected to do. That is the discussion we are having now. It is not a very complex proposition.

Secondly, I believe Australian scientists are at the forefront of this technology. Yet other nations are expanding this field of research. So we can make a choice. We can say to the Australian scientists, ‘You’ll be locked out of this if you stay in Australia,’ and we can risk losing them. You may say that is not the end of the world—people leave Australia all the time; other people come here. But if they leave and the research is not done in Australia then I think Australia is held back. So it is not only that I do not want to hold Australian scientists back; I do not want to hold Australia back. I think by legislating to limit our opportunities we would be doing simply that. I do not say that we should let the scientists do as they choose. That is the role of this chamber and other bodies as well: to exercise some caution. But I do say that scientific discovery should, as Holloway says, be a cause for celebration and caution rather than for denunciation and rejection.

The next reason I support this legislation is in part to do with previous legislation that I have supported. We already allow the use of eggs fertilised by semen, spare IVF eggs that are frozen, to be used in research. These are the eggs that might otherwise, had they been left where they were, at some point have ended up a human. And we have allowed the research that fertilised them in-vitro. They are frozen, they are spare, they are not going to be used and the people who own them donate them to research. We condone that here. That is what the Australian parliament has agreed to do. So the logic is lost on me as to why we would not then allow eggs that are not in fact fertilised by semen but which have some material removed, which is then replaced with some other material in-vitro, to be used. If anything, quite frankly, to me that might be a preferable situation. I certainly say that, if it is all right for the one we now approve, it is all right for this other one.

The Bulletin magazine a couple of weeks ago had an article in relation to these issues. They produced a photograph that is worth mentioning; it is one of the best I have seen in a long time. It was, as I recall, a human embryo at three days. It was a cluster of I think about 14 cells on a pinhead. It was a fantastic photograph. Obviously, it had been digitally enhanced to make the colours attractive and draw the eye to the page, but, nonetheless, this particular cluster of cells would fit on a pinhead. I think that is about 5,000 on a 5c piece. It is most certainly human tissue, but it is not by any stretch of the imagination a human. There is a tremendous difference between each of us as humans and a piece of skin or some other piece of tissue that is human tissue but not of itself a human.

So we have to resolve all of these issues; we have to come to some agreement about how to go about it. Holloway has one explanation of why we might want to do this. He says:

If we reject the role of God as a micromanager of human morality, dictating specific systems that constantly wear out and leave us with theological problems when we want to abandon them, we shall have to develop a more dynamic understanding of God as one who accompanies creation in its evolving story ...

And that is what we are a part of: the evolving story of humanity. I am not sure that Holloway’s analogy, ‘like a pianist in a silent movie’, works, but he perhaps is more informed in these matters than me.

We are there as part of that evolving story. That is what we have to face: the constant evolution. We have to face it and deal with it. It is mankind’s destiny to constantly search for certainty and to never find it. It is in our make-up that we will always be looking to make things better. If we do not accept that then we cannot understand why we are here. Surely one of the reasons we are here, among possibly many others, is to try to make the world a better place. That means change, and it means uncertainty. We would all like to live without the doubt, without the apprehension and without the occasional moral panic that might strike, but that is not to be. It may be that some of us here—those who are 53 or older; I am 53, so people my age or older—

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Sterle interjecting—

Amanda Vanstone (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

thank you—lived in times when what the church said went. It had an authority for what it said. To make the statement is no surprise: many of the churches have lost a degree of their moral authority. There are many reasons for that, too many to go into tonight—it could probably be the subject of a PhD for someone who has the time and interest to pursue it—but we can be sure of this: within the reasons for the diminution of the moral authority of churches there are some very painful lessons for the churches themselves.

So we are left to resolve this matter. I understand that there are different views on when life begins, and that is important because each of us will have different views. Not each and every one of us, because there will not be 70 or so different views, but amongst us there will be different views. Some will say that life begins at conception, others will say it begins at the second week of gestation and others will say it begins at the eighth week. Some will say that life begins at implantation. Some others say that perhaps we should do the reverse of saying, ‘When you’re dead, your brain activity ends,’ so you must be alive when it starts. And there would possibly be many other versions of when life begins. There was apparently a point, I was shocked to find in reading some of this material, when people believed that sperm carried the homunculus: a little human being. It was all in the boy’s court; women had nothing to do with it. There was a point at which our understanding of fertilisation was that ignorant.

We have changed our position; I do not think there is much disagreement. I would like to meet the man who would come out today and say that that theory is correct. In any event, I simply mention these things to indicate that amongst us there will be different views. We are all entitled to hold our view, and in my view we are obligated to respect the views of others. But that goes for the others as well: those who do not share my view have an obligation to respect the fact that it is my view and to allow me to hold it, without denigration.

My position is that no religion has the right to seek to have its view legislated. As Bishop Holloway says, ‘Nobody has an exclusive patent on the mind of God.’ There are all too many who would like to claim that. Let me correct myself: there are all too many who do. But I do not believe that anyone has that patent. I have said before in other debates in this place that any God someone believes in surely is after converts, not conscripts. Where is the belief if you are simply doing something because it is a legislative requirement that you do it? You can have any view you like and just do something because you have to do it. To me the value in the good things that are outlined in Christian, Muslim and Hindu theologies, and indeed in the theologies of many other religions of which I have no knowledge, is that you should do good things, not simply because you are told to but because you think they are good things to do.

Because we have these different religious views amongst us in this chamber and out in the community, and because there has been, over my lifetime, a decline in the moral authority of churches, I think we have to construct moral agreements ourselves, together. As Bishop Holloway says in his fantastic little book entitled Godless Morality, which I highly recommend, they have to have ‘the authority of reason and the discipline of consent’. But there will always be a breakaway. Get any group of good people and there will always be someone who is at the lowest common denominator, who does the wrong thing. I would like to think that is not the case, but history shows that that is a naive aspiration. We need ‘the authority of reason and the discipline of consent’, not believing that someone else other than us has a patent on the mind of God and can tell us what to think. So what I am arguing here, and it is argued very cogently in this book, is that the moral traditions we endorse—and we might think that sounds old-fashioned, but any God should help us if we ever get to the point where we do not have moral traditions that we endorse—should be endorsed because they are ethically appropriate, not because they have some divine warrant.

I hope it is clear, from what I have said, why I support this bill. I will run through very briefly and summarise it again. I support the legislation because I think science is what offers hope. We are charged with the responsibility of controlling the scientists. I do not say that we should let scientists do as they want, when they want and how they want, but I think it is incalculably cruel to cut hope into ribbons for those who are desperately in need of it.

I secondly support the legislation because Australian scientists are at the forefront, and that is when you get ahead. To hold our own back when they are at the forefront is not something this parliament should do. We should not hold Australia back from all the opportunities that might come from going down these alleys and looking at what is there. Sure, some of them would be blind; there would be a lot of the Toyota ad business but I am not allowed to say it. There would be wasted years of research where people in desperate frustration realise they took a wrong turn. That is the history of science. But there would also be the pathways that people went down that would be the right ones.

Having said the primary reasons, I then tried to explain my view that we will all have different religious commitments. We have to respect each other’s right to have those commitments but not ever expect that this place will legislate them for us. Between us we have to come to moral decisions on which we agree that have the authority of reason and the discipline of consent. We have to choose things because they are ethically appropriate and not because we seek to claim that they have some divine warrant.

I might make one more point: the research that has been done, and that we hope will be done, and that I think is limited to 14 days, is on human tissue not on a human. I draw the attention of my colleagues to a second book by Richard Holloway entitled Looking in the distance: the human search for meaning and in particular to his elucidation, on pages 165 and 166, of the folly of alleging that a single group of cells outside of a womb can be called human—in fact, I would recommend the whole book. A simpler way of putting it is that if we took those spare IVF eggs out of the fridge they would not become human. The truth is: when colleagues drop their eyes, drop their voice to sotto voce and say, ‘We let them succumb,’ it is a nice way of saying, ‘They are chucked in the bin.’ That is what it really means. So we should not kid ourselves in anything other than that. Not one of those gets up, runs down the street, goes to university and says, ‘I did it without any help.’ (Time expired)

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in favour of the acceptance of the majority report of the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs inquiry into the Lockhart review and to recommend the majority report to the Senate. I am firmly of the opinion that it is necessary for the parliament of Australia to approve the Lockhart recommendations and to vote for the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. I acknowledge the work done by the Senate Community Affairs Committee secretariat and thank them for the final report. The secretariat were presented with a vast array of submissions. The committee received 494 public submissions, complex witness statements, and science and bioethical information, which were dealt with in keeping with the highest traditions of the Public Service.

May I place on record my thanks to Senators Webber, Stott Despoja and Patterson for the hard work they have done on this bill and the work they have put in, getting the bill to this stage. I arrived at my final position only after careful and considered thought, although I admit that I was inclined to my position from the outset. This position was strengthened throughout the committee’s deliberations.

Let me say from the very beginning and let there be no mistake: I am unconditionally opposed to human reproductive cloning. Human reproductive cloning is unethical and unacceptable. But that is not what this bill is about, despite what some in this place would have us believe. Because of my own beliefs I listened intently to the arguments put by those persons and organisations that took a differing view from mine. After all, we are dealing with what for many are their most sacred articles of faith that are central to their lives and how they view the world. We received evidence regarding what, for many, represent the very beginnings of human life and what it means to become human. Such subject matter is not to be dealt with lightly or in a hurried manner.

It is due to the seriousness of this debate that we are able to vote on the bill before the Senate as a matter of conscience. I thank the major political parties for understanding the necessity for a free conscience vote in this matter. Free votes are rare events. They indicate, if any indication is required, that we are dealing with matters of faith and belief.

However, at times it is necessary to examine and hopefully question our beliefs however sincerely and deeply they are held. This debate requires each of us to complete an ethical stocktaking of our own beliefs. Not to do so would be an insult to future generations. I do not believe we would be serving Australia well should we not look closely at matters of such importance.

During the taking of evidence and from reading many of the submissions in great detail, I was particularly struck by the words of the Victorian Scientific Leaders Forum on Stem Cell Research. This group of most eminent scientists affirmed that the Lockhart Legislation Review Committee report on Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 and Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002 resulted in a comprehensive, balanced and well-considered report. I thank Foursight Associates Pty Ltd for their report and also thank the Victorian Premier for making it available to the committee. It should be noted that the Victorian group is chaired by one of the most distinguished Australians, former Chief Scientist and Australian of the Year in 2000, Sir Gustav Nossal and that the report of the Victorian group appears under the signature of Sir Gustav.

How have we arrived at this position today? Why are we being called on to vote on bills that deal with matters of faith and belief? Without wishing to sound too simplistic, science moves much faster than articles of faith. Scientific research in the 21st century moves at a frenetic pace with breakthroughs that I hope will bring new treatments—and, one day, cures for what presently are incurable illnesses and conditions—to future generations of Australians. I believe that the reduction of human suffering by advancement of medical and scientific knowledge is a sufficient reason for this Senate to vote in favour of the bills. I am prepared to believe the scientists when they say they need embryonic stem cells to progress their work and that adult stem cell research will not bring the benefits we can hope to see from the use of embryonic stem cells.

The personal beliefs of a few cannot be allowed to stop work that will see humanity progress, and what better progress can we imagine than progress in the areas of research into diabetes, motor neurone disease, Alzheimer’s disease, multiple sclerosis, muscular dystrophy and Parkinson’s disease. Today, 91,900 Australians have diabetes type 1, of which one in 700 children have the disease. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare estimates that type 1 diabetes accounts for about 10 to 15 per cent of all people with diabetes. It is estimated there are 100,000 people in Australia living with Parkinson’s disease and 1,400 people living with motor neurone disease. The peak body providing support and advocacy for the 500,000 Australians living with dementia, Alzheimers Australia, is on record recognising that embryonic stem cell research poses ethical dilemmas for some Australians and supports a strong ethical and regulatory framework for Australian stem cell research, as I do. Alzheimers Australia fully supports the recommendations of the Lockhart review and believes that the legislation should be expanded to allow further research in this area.

The committee heard from support groups who support stem cell research. Kidney Health Australia said that embryonic stem cells offer great hope to patients with kidney disease. If this is possible, how can we deny the means to secure this outcome? I freely acknowledge that we may be talking about the work of decades, not weeks, months or even years. Embryonic stem cell research offers us the tantalising promise of treatments and medical knowledge we did not even dream of a few years ago.

The following sentiment was encapsulated by Sir Gustav Nossal:

Stem cell science has advanced to the point where it is pushing against the boundaries of current legislation. It is time for the next step.

During this debate we will hear that it is not necessary to use embryonic stem cells because adult stem cells are available and that they are every bit as useful as embryonic stem cells. If it were true that adult stem cells could do the work of embryonic stem cells, we would not be having this debate. Regrettably, adult stem cells are not as useful to researchers as embryonic stem cells. This point was well made by Professor Bob Williamson from the Australian Academy of Science. Professor Williamson works with adult stem cells, and he stated why he as an adult cell scientist believed that:

… somatic cell nuclear transfer and embryonic stem cell research is important? … Adult stem cells cannot transdifferentiate.

                 …         …         …

Only embryonic stem cells have the capacity to grow and grow and grow indefinitely.

He went on to say, ‘Only embryonic stem cells can form heart muscle, neurones and so on, while the adult liver cell can only form another adult liver cell.’ Professor Williamson concluded his remarks to the committee by stating:

My personal view as an adult stem cell scientist is that we need to encourage this—

that is, embryonic stem cell—

research.

I find myself in agreement again with Sir Gustav when he says ‘embryonic and adult stem cell research should be pursued as complementary avenues of investigation’. By allowing embryonic stem cell research we are not shutting the door on adult stem cell research. I acknowledge that adult stem cell research also holds promise of treatments and cures. I say to the Senate: let both avenues of research flourish in Australia for the good of all Australians.

The committee’s majority report raises a most important question in asking: what has changed since 2002? Central to the arguments of the minority report and to the supporters of the minority report is the fact that nothing has changed since 2002, thus there is no justification for making changes to the current legislation. The position was also put forward by the Prime Minister, in handing down the Matthews Pegg Consulting report, that the government is not disposed to make any changes to the existing national legislative framework for research involving human embryos agreed in 2002. But today on the news the Prime Minister indicated that he had not yet made up his mind.

The Prime Minister based his comments upon a report from Matthews Pegg Consulting. His comments were subsequently reviewed by Professor Peter Schofield, Associate Professor Ian Kerridge and Professor Loane Skene, the latter being the deputy chair of the Lockhart committee. The professors’ review of the Matthews Pegg Consulting report is both thorough and damning in its criticism. The professors found no less than 14 errors in the report, each one being sufficient to throw doubt on its conclusions. Together, the 14 points totally discredit the report. I quote:

In the key area of somatic nuclear cell transfer, the executive summary of the Matthews Pegg Consulting report is misleading …

They go on to say:

The methodology of the … Report is unclear and the rigour of the approach is not sufficiently transparent to allow critique.

I conclude that the Matthews Pegg Consulting report compares apples with pears, and this would be no surprise to senators as the two reports have different terms of reference. There is no wonder therefore that the reports are contradictory and that, predictably, the MPC report came to the conclusion that there has been little change in the state of play since 2002.

Lockhart stated and the majority report agreed that there is a need for change and that need grows stronger each and every week. Australian science cannot afford to be left behind the rest of the world scientific communities. The benefits that occur through SCNT are not available through excess ART embryos. Having access to disease-specific embryonic stem cells is significant, according to evidence given to the committee by Professor Little:

… the derivation of hES—

that is, human embryonic stem—

cell lines [by SCNT] will enable us to increase our understanding of normal development, abnormal development, nuclear activity and our ability to reprogram one cell type into another. This understanding will be of great importance to the development of new treatment techniques and the manipulation of cell type during disease. To be able to develop a human ES cell from a patient with a disease of development is likely to give us significant insight into what has gone wrong in embryonic patterning. Such understanding can never be gained by simply harvesting existing hES cells from an IVF blastocyst.

It is also worth noting that somatic cell nuclear transfer is legal in the following countries, many of whom are our close friends and allies: Belgium, China, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea, Singapore, South Africa, Sweden, Thailand, the United Kingdom and the United States of America. Remaining overseas for a moment, it is worth noting that, world wide, more than 80 Nobel laureates have expressed support for embryonic stem cell research. It is concerning to hear that Australia has already lost our top human embryonic stem cell scientist to California. I also worry that we will see many more of our top scientific brains in the field of embryonic stem cell research departing our shores. It is essential that the fetters that were placed on the wrists of our scientists in 2002 be released to allow them to work in Australia and cooperate with their international colleagues.

The committee received much valuable evidence to support the need for change; however, due to time restraints, I will only refer to the succinct submission of Professor Phil Waite. This can be found at page 31 of the majority report. Professor Waite lists the following advances since 2002:

• Human embryonic stem cells can be differentiated into myelin producing precursor cells and made in sufficient numbers and purity for human use.
• Human embryonic stem cells can repair demyelinating lesions in mice.
• Human embryonic stem cells can improve locomotor function in a rat model of spinal cord injury.

In my opinion the foregoing clearly demonstrates that there have been changes since 2002.

Clearly in a short speech such as this it is simply not possible to canvass the entire range of opinions and positions put to the committee either in person or as written submissions. So far I have attempted to state why I will be voting for the majority position. I hope that I have explained what led me to adopting my position. I have dealt positively with the evidence that was given to the committee—evidence that I believe at times was overwhelming in its intellectual weight and strength. Yet it would be wrong of me not to try and address and, where possible, rebut some of the arguments that were put for the contrary case—arguments that resulted in the minority report. I believe that all arguments were put before the committee in good faith and honourably held by sincere believers.

Let me now turn to the slippery slope argument that appears in letters and was discussed by several opponents of the bills. The Southern Cross Bioethics Institute used this argument to support its opposition to the bills. This argument has been used frequently by those who have opposed abortion and euthanasia, and it is now being used against stem cell research. People oppose a particular course of action, believing it will lead to terrible and unforeseen outcomes. That anyone would suggest that a final horrific outcome can be predicted from an original action is to suggest that, once a process commences, an outcome is somehow inevitable. Clearly such an argument is absurd. It is fallacious. Dr Paul Brook told the committee:

... it’s like saying that fertiliser production ... should be banned because it can be used to make bombs.

I began by saying that I support the majority position, and I hope I have in the short time available to me provided some of the reasons I have come to that position. In conclusion I would like to say that debates that mix politics with science and moral principles are bound to cause friction, yet it is good that we can debate such matters. As legislators, it is required of us to make decisions on behalf of the entire community, not just sectional interests—however powerful and influential those interests might be and how sincerely their views are held.

Beliefs reverently held are bound at times to collide with equally strongly held scientific beliefs. While I believe that in such debates the church plays a healthy role when it challenges science, it has to make its case and show good reason why science should not proceed. On this occasion, in my opinion, it has failed to make the case. I would ask honourable members of the Senate to consider carefully before voting on these bills. On reflection I find myself in agreement with these eminent scientists when they say:

... legislative amendments to implement the recommendations of the Lockhart Review are critical to the future of stem cell research in this country and, more importantly, to the development of new diagnostic tools and treatments for serious diseases.

I think Dr Elizabeth Finkel summed it up best:

Blocking research can have profound costs: the lesson of history shows that the best approach to dealing with ground-breaking, controversial science is to regulate it, not outlaw it.

I commend the bill to the Senate.

Ruth Webber (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to incorporate Senator Kirk’s speech.

Leave granted.

Linda Kirk (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The incorporated speech read as follows

I will be supporting this bill.

The Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 was drafted in response to the Lockhart Review which reported to the Parliament in December last year (2005).

In 2002 the Parliament passed the Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002 and the Research Involving Human Embryos Bill 2002.

These Acts prohibit human cloning; prohibit the creation of human embryos other than to impregnate a woman; and allow the use for research, under strict regulation and licence, of excess embryos created using IVF.

Each Act had a sunset clause, requiring independent review after three years, and in June 2005, the Government appointed a Legislative Review Committee to undertake this task.

The committee was chaired by the late John Lockhart, a former justice of the Federal Court of Australia.

The committee consulted widely including via a review website, written submissions, face-to-face meetings, public hearings, discussion forums and site visits.

It presented its report on December 19, 2005. The committee made 54 recommendations.

I want to pay tribute to the work of the late Justice Lockhart for the Committee’s careful and considered recommendations, and as I have indicated I support this bill which is intended to give legislative effect to those recommendations.

I also want to acknowledge Natasha Stott Despoja’s contribution to this debate, including her exposure draft Bill, co-sponsored by Senator Webber, Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT) and Related Research Amendment Bill 2006.

On September 14 this year (2006), the Senate referred this draft Bill, as well the bill drafted by Senator Patterson which we are debating today, to the Senate Community Affairs Committee for investigation.

The Senate Inquiry into the Legislative Responses to Recommendations of the Lockhart Review reported on Monday last week (October 30, 2006).

I welcome the Prime Minister’s decision to allow a conscience vote on this bill, which as we know, raises serious moral, social and ethical questions.

Some of the questions include:

• When does human life begin?
• How far should we go in allowing research on human embryos?
• Should the creation of human embryo clones by Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer be permitted under licence for research, training and clinical applications?
• What safeguards should surround research on embryos?
• How do we define an embryo?
• What safeguards should be provided to protect the rights of women?

I have been along--time supporter of ethical medical research, including strictly regulated research using embryonic stem cells.

In 2002 I voted to support therapeutic stem cell research using surplus embryos created using IVF.

In 2002, I also voted in favour of a ban on human cloning, and I want to stress that I continue to oppose any changes in the laws prohibiting human reproductive cloning.

The idea of human reproductive cloning is abhorrent to most people. There is clearly no public support whatsoever for this practice, and this bill does not alter provisions prohibiting human reproductive cloning.

In particular, the bill explicitly prohibits the following:

• creating a human embryo by fertilisation of a human egg by human sperm, for a purpose other than achieving pregnancy in a woman; and
• developing a human embryo outside the body of a woman for more than 14 days.

The bill also prohibits the collection of a viable human embryo from the body of a woman.

I want to spend some time explaining why I am voting in favour of the bill being debated today, which would permit, among other things, the creation and use of cloned embryos provided these are not implanted into the body of a woman or allowed to develop for more than 14 days.

The bill would also permit, under strict conditions and licence, the creation and use of so-called hybrid embryos.

These are complex issues, both medically and morally.

I want to start by spending a few minutes on the basic science of stem cell research and Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer, and what researchers see as some of the potential benefits.

Some of what I am about to say is from literature by the National Health and Medical Research Council Australia.

Stem cells are ‘unspecialised’ cells that have the unique potential to develop into specialised cell types in the body, for example blood cells, muscle cells or nerve cells.

This can be either for growth and development, or for replenishment and repair.

Stem cells occur at all stages of human development, from embryo to adult—but their versatility and numbers tend to decrease with age.

Given the right conditions in the body or the laboratory, stem cells—unlike muscle cells, nerve cells or blood cells—can replicate themselves many times over.

When a stem cell replicates, the resulting cells can either remain as stem cells or can become specialised cells.

Stem cell research shows promise in medical treatment in two main areas: a better understanding of diseases such as cancer; and making cells and tissues to replace or regenerate tissues that are either diseased or have been destroyed.

By understanding how stem cells transform into the specialised cells that make up our bodies, we can better understand and potentially find cures for diseases such as cancer, which is a major example of where this process has gone wrong.

Stem cells also offer the possibility of a source of replacement cells that could be used to treat diseases and conditions from Parkinson’s disease to heart disease, spinal cord injury, diabetes and arthritis.

Embryonic stem cells, as their name suggests, are derived from human embryos.

They have the potential to develop into all cell types in the body.

Currently in Australia, embryonic stem cells are derived from human embryos that are left over from assisted reproductive technology—or ART—treatment programs and have been donated to research by the couple for whom they were created.

Adult stem cells, often called somatic stem cells, are found in many organs and tissues of the body, where their main function is to replace cells that have died in the tissue or organ where they are located.

In certain circumstances, adult stem cells may transdifferentiate into other cell types.

Adult stem cells extracted from the bone marrow of patients or compatible donors are used routinely in treating diseases such as leukaemia.

Umbilical cord blood, extracted from the umbilical cord and placenta when a baby is born, is a rich source of adult stem cells.

These cells may be useful for medical research or therapeutic use in the future. In the USA in particular, many people are having cord blood frozen for possible use later in life.

The advantages of embryonic stem cells are that they can be grown in the laboratory for long periods and be made to change into most types of tissue found in the body.

Adult stem cells are present in the body in low numbers, and, with the exception of bone marrow, are difficult to obtain.

Although adult stern cells are currently difficult to grow in the laboratory and may not develop into every kind of cell, recent developments in this field are promising.

Some people who object to this bill say that there has been insufficient proof of concept to justify the need for changes to the law.

There are some who say that there is no need for embryonic stem cell research because adult stem cell research shows just as much, or perhaps even more promise.

Still others, who are not against embryonic research per se, maintain that it is one thing to use embryos which would otherwise be discarded, but that it crosses an ethical boundary to create embryos for the purposes of research. I will come back to this point later.

The terms of reference for the Lockhart Review included reporting on “developments in medical research and scientific research and the potential therapeutic application of such research”.

The Lockhart Report contained a literature review which was commissioned by the NHMRC on behalf of the Minister for Ageing, of recent scientific advances in the areas we are discussing.

While it is true that research using embryonic stem cells and Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer is in its infancy, as the Lockhart Review shows, there have been significant breakthroughs.

Medical research is not about finding instant cures. Scientists have said at the outset that this technology may take many years to bring about new medical applications.

But while embryonic stem cell research has not yet translated into 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 types of cells.

I agree with the view of the Lockhart Committee that “it is not possible or helpful to try to establish the relative experimental or potential therapeutic merits of embryonic and adult stem cells.”

“There have been many preliminary findings in animal studies that indicate sufficient potential to warrant further investigation.”

I’ll now move on to the specific practice of Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer or SCNT.

This is the scientific technique through which human embryo clones can be created.

SCNT involves obtaining a woman’s egg cell in the same way eggs are obtained for ART treatment, then removing genetic material and replacing it with DNA from a cell of a body.

With the right triggers this new cell can be turned into an embryo.

If a cloned embryo is grown in the laboratory for a few days, stem cells could be harvested from it to form a new embryonic stem cell line.

This possibility is often referred to as therapeutic cloning, since the embryonic stem cells could be encouraged to develop into human tissue or (possibly in the future) a complete organ for transplant.

Because the stem cells from a cloned embryo have identical nuclear DNA to the person who donated the original body cell, this theoretically overcomes the rejection hurdle that exists with current organ or tissue transplants or with stem cells derived from embryos leftover from IVF.

SCNT is widely used in animal research.

It is not illegal to use this technique to create human embryos in countries including the UK, the USA, Singapore and Sweden.

SCNT requires a source of ova. Concern has been raised about the potential for exploitation of women as egg donors and also about the issue of human-animal hybrids.

Lockhart acknowledged that it can be difficult to attract women to donate oocytes for research and that the potential exists for coercion.

To avoid coercion of women in ART programs—ho may be asked to donate eggs for research—Lockhart recommends that there be clear separation between the obtaining of eggs for ART practice and research.

The Lockhart Review also recommends that egg donation be managed by strict ethical guidelines.

It is important to make it clear that this bill prohibits the commodification of human eggs.

It maintains the current ban on the sale of human eggs, sperm and embryos, allowing only the reimbursement of “reasonable expenses”.

This bill also maintains the ban on implanting into the reproductive tract of a woman of a human-animal hybrid embryo.

In addition the bill continues to prohibit the placing of a human embryo into an animal or vice versa, for any period of gestation.

On the other hand, to reduce the need for human eggs during the developmental stages of nuclear transfer research, the bill permits, under licence, the use of animal oocytes. Again, I will come back to this point, and why, on balance, I think this is desirable.

The Lockhart Committee found that there is strong community support for medical research to help people who suffer from debilitating or incurable disease or conditions.

It found considerable community support for medical research to help people to have children, including the acceptance that this process involves the ‘wastage’ of some embryos.

For some people the values attached to treating disease and overcoming infertility are more important than the value of an embryo.

For others, the value of an embryo, as a potential human being, is predominant.

I acknowledge that there are strongly held and divergent views within the community—and indeed the Parliament—on this issue and I support in full the rights of all groups to participate in this debate.

I know that many Senators speaking today will have looked very closely at the Senate Committee report which as I said was handed down last week (October 30, 2005).

This Committee gave bipartisan support to this bill. The support was not of course unanimous, with 5 members supporting and 3 opposing.

The Committee considered 494 submissions and held public hearings in Canberra, Sydney and Melbourne.

In conclusion, this is what we know:

Most people in the community are very supportive of medical research.

There is evidence of strong support for SCNT.

In June this year 0006), Roy Morgan Research conducted a poll which found that 80 per cent of respondents approved of therapeutic cloning or Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer.

Like others in the Parliament, it was my task to weigh up the social and moral implications of this bill.

I pay tribute to the Lockhart Review Committee for its very thorough report, and to the Senate Committee who, in a very short space of time, had to grapple with some very difficult issues.

I appreciate—although I don’t share the view that SCNT crosses an ethical boundary.

I believe that while a 14 day embryo deserves respect, on balance, it is for the greater good to allow research that may one day alleviate human suffering and death.

This is also my view in respect to the creation and use of less than 14-day old human-animal hybrid embryos, when conducted under licence, and. the strict conditions as laid down in this bill.

There are many people with diseases and conditions to whom stem cell technology offers hope.

This is not pie-in-the-sky research as some opponents indicate, and we have already seen some very promising results.

I have mentioned some of the diseases for which there are potential treatments and cures.

Another one is cystic fibrosis.

My family has a long history of cystic fibrosis.

Around two-and-a-half thousand Australians suffer from cystic fibrosis, which is characterised by a build-up of thick mucus in the lungs and pancreas, leading to breathing difficulties and life-threatening infections.

On my mother’s side, my family has lost five members to this disease.

Stem cell research offers great hope for people with cystic fibrosis, and I am pleased to say that significant progress is being made.

In 2004, for the first time, British scientists created a human stem cell line with the mutation for cystic fibrosis.

This was the same team who in 2003 were the first to grow human embryonic stem cells in the UK.

I commend this bill to the Senate.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The debate before us is a complex one that brings out a range of emotions, passions and beliefs. I have read what I can on the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 and the issues surrounding the subject. As best I have been able today, whilst regrettably having been involved in a Senate committee hearing which required my attendance, I have listened to the debate and have appreciated the views of those in favour as well as those against it.

I have also carefully read and listened to all of the many submissions that have been made to me by Australians for and against the bill. I want to thank those people who have taken the time and effort to make me aware of their views. I certainly respect their sincerity and their deep beliefs. I have also attended at least one of the seminars that have been conducted in relation to the bill, and I have read some of the reports of the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs inquiry into the bill and some of the transcripts of evidence given to the committee. In spite of all that, I still claim no expertise and a very limited understanding.

The government decided to set up an expert committee to review the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 and the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002 in accordance with the requirement in both acts that they be reviewed by an independent committee by December 2005. The review committee was selected by the government. I am aware that the Prime Minister would have had a view on the appointment of the late John Lockhart AO, QC, a former justice of the Federal Court of Australia, to head the panel. The other members of the panel were clearly chosen by the government for their expertise and understanding of science and ethics. As an aside, I would like to say what everyone in this chamber well knows—that is, the government would not have appointed people to that panel if they thought them to have extreme or radical views on this or any other issue.

Regrettably, I do not have the same mental capacity or time to fully research the issue as the members of the panel of review have and have had. I have enormous confidence in the credibility, sincerity and ability of those leading Australian scientists, medical specialists and clinical ethicists who, as part of the Lockhart review panel, devoted considerable time and thought to their conclusions.

While I do not think the debate is one inordinately influenced by one’s religious convictions or lack of them, I do make reference to a quote from the Hansard report of the evidence given by Professor Skene to the standing committee on community affairs, which reviewed this bill. Professor Skene said in part:

John Lockhart used to describe himself as an agnostic Anglican and he used to like singing in the church choir. Pam McCombe and Barry Marshall are both Roman Catholics. I am a church-going Anglican and Peter Schofield is an evangelical Christian ... We took all this very seriously and it was not easy for us. I want you to know that in the long process of consultation we examined our own thinking and we did not reveal until the end what we were thinking about it.

To suggest that one’s decision depends on one’s religious conviction I think is wrong, and to a degree demeaning. I class myself as a Christian—although not, I regret to say, one who attends church as regularly as I would like.

The issues and arguments both for and against the bill have been widely canvassed by my colleagues in this debate, and I thank them for their input. I am not going to prolong this debate by repeating a lot of the arguments that have been made or refuting some of the arguments made with which I do not agree. As I say, this has already been done by others.

It is difficult for me to adequately summarise the contents of the bill, the recommendations of the Lockhart committee and the arguments for and against it. I want to simply include a couple of paragraphs again from the Hansard record of Professor Skene’s evidence to the standing committee which highlight in relatively simple layman’s terms the recommendations of the Lockhart committee. I quote from Professor Skene’s evidence:

We believe that there should be prohibitions on certain types of conduct that everybody seems to regard as being morally wrong. We think that there should be a clear division between embryos being created for research and used for research, which must never be implanted in a woman, and the fertility processes in fertility programs where, of course, the goal of the program is to help people have children, or to test before an embryo is implanted ...

Professor Skene goes on:

So our first and most basic recommendation was that the current legislation should stay in place and that most of the current prohibitions should also remain, in order to reassure the community that things that they object to will not be allowed to be done and, if those things are done, there are very heavy penalties—15 years imprisonment for the most serious of them.

The professor continued:

The second recommendation was that the current research on embryos that is allowed to be done at the moment should be permitted to continue.

                 …         …           …

One of our recommendations was that it should be possible to do research on impaired embryos. We also recommended that the time during which it is possible to do research on an egg in the process of fertilisation should be extended to the time when the egg is fully fertilised.

                 …         …         …

we recommended that scientists should be permitted to create an embryo of this kind for research, we thought in taking this line we were adopting a middle-line approach. The reason for this is that we recommended that it should not be permitted to create what we call the sperm-egg embryo, which combines the gametes, the sperm and egg, of the couple. We took the view that a somatic cell nuclear transfer embryo is different, that it is more like growing bodily tissue to treat a person with some sort of medical disorder.

I have to say that in coming to a conclusion on this issue and other similar issues, for reasons that will be fairly obvious, I have been very heavily influenced by the commitment and views of my colleagues Senator Jeannie Ferris and Dr Mal Washer MP.

I want to make it clear, and I think most other thinking Australians would be of the same view, that I do not anticipate that the mere passage of this bill will allow research that will provide miraculous cures overnight—or even in the short- or medium-term future. I am one of those who looks around at my fellow human beings and realises that, in spite of my inadequacies and deficiencies, I am luckier than most. I have reasonably good health, but I see many others in our society who are afflicted by the most appalling and debilitative of diseases. I have friends who have been traumatised by accidents and other events which have severely impaired their health and lifestyle.

I was myself the beneficiary of scientific research into heart disease which just 10 years ago allowed a mechanical aortic valve to be inserted in my heart. That prolonged my life expectancy considerably. In fact if research had not unlocked the science and mysteries of cardiac surgery, I would not be speaking to you tonight. I often wonder if stem cell research may at some time in the future cure the diseased aortic valve which I was born with. It does not really matter to me now as the mechanical valve which I have in my heart has been guaranteed by my surgeon to last for 1,000 years, but it would be nice for others in the future if there were a way of repairing a diseased aortic valve so that those people would not have to be on ‘rat poison’, or warfarin, daily. I take that to ensure that my blood remains thin enough to keep flowing through the mechanical valve. That is all supposition, but one day hopefully there will be cures for the type of damaged aortic valve that I had.

I am one of those who believes that anything that can possibly be done to give a better quality of life and possible cures in the future to some of the diseases and disabilities that afflict my fellow Australians deserves to be given a chance. This bill and the original act, in my view, provide all of the safeguards—and very substantial penalties against the breach of those safeguards—that I believe would ensure that the practices that we all consider repugnant would not occur in Australia.

In the end result, I look at the bill in this way: I have faith and confidence in the ethics and honesty of our scientists and in the regulations governing research. Accordingly, I do not accept some of the dire predictions that have been made as to where passage of this bill might lead. I dismiss the ‘thin end of the wedge’ prediction; I have more faith in humankind. If there is even the remotest possibility that passage of this bill will allow controlled research which might cure one ailment in just one person I think it is worthwhile, and I would be very surprised if the God that I worship thought otherwise. I support the passage of the bill.

Before I conclude, I just want to make some comments on the voting on this bill. I have clearly indicated, after a lot of thought, my support for the bill. I originally believed that I would not be in parliament on Friday, when it was anticipated that the vote on this bill might take place. I had accepted an invitation from the Minister for the Environment and Heritage to represent him at the launch of a vessel for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority up at Airlie Beach. I had, accordingly, arranged to be paired on Friday for the taking of the vote. The event that I was intending to attend on Friday has now, subsequently, been postponed, but the arrangements that had been made to pair my vote were required to stand, and I am, of course, quite willing to continue in that process.

I am informed and I believe that my Queensland Senate colleague Senator George Brandis, who is currently representing the government in the United Kingdom, would have voted against the bill had he been in parliament when the vote was taken. Accordingly, I re-emphasise my support for the bill but agree not to take part in the vote so that I can unofficially pair the vote of Senator Brandis, who would have been opposed to the bill. I have written to Senator Ferris, as the whip unofficially assisting with pairs here in that fashion, and I seek leave to table a copy of my letter to Senator Ferris concerning my position on the voting.

Leave granted.

Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald, thank you for your remarks. I think it may be necessary to refer the matter of voting to the President because I think, in the circumstance you have outlined for people such as you and Senator Brandis, it may be best if your positions were recorded underneath the normal vote record in the Hansard so that your remarks are not lost in the text. I will refer it through the clerks to the President for consideration of the way it is recorded in the Hansard.

Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Tonight the Senate debates the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. The importance of this bill is recognised by the fact that the vote that we have in the Senate is based on conscience and is described as a free vote. It is not often that we have such a vote as this, and for good reason in this case we have a conscience vote because it deals with issues not only of science of great importance to the community and matters of social concern and human welfare but also of ethics.

Four years ago, we debated in this chamber the Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002 and the Research Involving Human Embryos Bill 2002. The Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill, which banned any form of human cloning, was passed unanimously. The Australian parliament at that time therefore emphatically rejected all forms of human cloning, including reproductive and therapeutic cloning.

In 2002, the option, therefore, was available for any senator or member to move an amendment to allow for therapeutic cloning whilst banning reproductive cloning—but no-one did. Many members and senators who would now support this bill spoke emphatically against human cloning. The Research Involving Embryos Bill was passed with a majority and approval was given for the release of surplus IVF embryos for research and study. As part of that legislative process, a review of the legislation was provided for. And, of course, as a result of that, we have the Lockhart report which forms the basis of this bill.

The first question we should ask is therefore: what has changed so much in the last four years as to warrant such a change in legislation? Let us firstly look at the Lockhart report. The report was charged with the responsibility of reporting on the scope and operation of the Prohibition of Cloning Act 2002 and the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002 and was charged to take into account developments in technology in relation to assisted reproductive technology, developments in medical research and scientific research and potential therapeutic applications of such research, community standards and the applicability of establishing a national stem cell bank. And of course there were a variety of other consultations which the committee was required to undertake.

The report of that committee was delivered on 19 December 2005 and was subsequently the subject of independent assessment by the Matthews Pegg Consulting group. This had been commissioned by the government and it was asked to report on whether the state of play had changed since the bills had passed. I think it is fair to say that, in short summary, Matthews Pegg found that little if anything had changed to warrant a change in legislation. And, again, I ask: what has changed so much in the last few years so as to warrant this bill?

The argument has been put persuasively that the 2002 legislation allows for sufficient research using surplus IVF human embryos. Four years ago, surplus IVF human embryos were made available for the purpose of study and research, as I said earlier. Of the thousands made available, how many are being used for stem cell research? The Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs report revealed that only 30 per cent of the surplus IVF embryos have been used for obtaining embryonic stem cells for research, and a limited number of licences have been granted for such research during that time. Some scientists are now seeking other sources of embryonic stem cells—namely, cloned human beings or cloned animal-human hybrid embryos achieved by the process of somatic cell nuclear transfer.

Of course, the scientific community is not united on the benefits of this. Dr Nicholas Tonti-Filippini, quoted at page 53 of the committee report, said:

Nothing has changed scientifically to support some kind of new argument of necessity to use SCNT embryonic stem cells. If anything, the possibility of developing therapies involving cultured embryonic stem cell transplant has become more remote as more has become known about the difficulties.

What Dr Nicholas Tonti-Filippini was saying is that nothing has changed. Indeed, the evidence on whether SCNT is beneficial says quite the opposite.

James Sherley, Associate Professor of Biological Engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, visited Australia and gave a number of lectures. James Sherley has conducted extensive research with adult stem cells. In a discussion I had with him, he indicated in the strongest terms that demonstrated benefits do arise from the use of adult stem cells. He stated that, no matter whether cloned or natural, embryonic stem cells do not offer the hope that people attach to them. In addition, he believes that cloned embryonic stem cells present real dangers, such as the growing of tumours, when put in adults. That is the opinion of someone who has a great deal of experience in adult stem cell research.

But he is not alone. Professor Alan Mackay-Sim, a prominent stem cell researcher from Griffith University, has also attested that adult stem cell research can provide an ethically responsible alternative to cloning. He has stated that stem cells from adults can generate continually and be used for research into Parkinson’s disease and Alzheimer’s disease. What are we facing here? I will quote some additional comments made by senators in the committee report:

8. This quantum leap in research is being advocated well in advance of similar research being done on cloned animal embryos.

9. Some scientists are therefore asking for the freedom to pursue this research on relatively weak grounds purely and simply because they want to go down this path.

10. Bad science cannot justify this freedom, even if it may be regulated by a government authority.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.