Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

At the outset I want to say that regrettably I will not have the opportunity to vote on the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 as I have leave for the time during which the vote is going to take place. However, I strongly oppose the bill introduced by Senator Patterson and I want to stand up in the national parliament tonight and say I believe that, while this is an emotive topic, it is very important that members on both sides of the House should have the opportunity, which we have, of expressing our conscience view on this very important issue of human cloning.

As was the case in the debate over RU486, the parliament now finds itself debating a very difficult, ethical topic. I have to say, though, that I think the Australian community feels satisfied that increasingly over these issues involving moral values the parliament does have the opportunity, on both sides, of casting a conscience vote. My own position is that life begins at conception. I do not believe that life should be manipulated following conception and I do not believe that life should be killed in therapeutic causes. While I respect the proponents of this bill in the sense that they believe, for whatever reason, successful medical outcomes could result from the implementation of this bill, I have a major problem with human cloning and a major problem with the manipulation of humans in this way. That is why I find myself standing in the parliament tonight to oppose this bill.

I suspect that if I did a survey of members of my own family they might well disagree with me on this issue. And I suspect, Mr Deputy Speaker Jenkins, that were you to do a survey of members of your family you might find the same broad spectrum of views concerning the bill before the House. We all, as members of the Australian parliament, have a privilege and I think we are to a certain extent helping to restore faith in the Australian parliament by standing on issues such as this. I hope that our constituents, whether or not they agree with the position we take, at least respect that we have thought through the issues and that those honourable members who have had the courage to speak on this debate have at least been prepared to stand up in the national parliament and express their own views.

The debate over human cloning might well be influenced by highly emotive elements. The process itself is very important because it is the way that we determine what is going to be the national law of Australia. This conscience vote means that the parliament is working as it was originally intended to work and, when the ultimate division occurs, you will find that members on both sides of the House will cross every which way to indicate to the Australian people where their conscience stands on the issue of human cloning.

Human cloning is a very important issue. It is a sacred issue because it deals with what we all consider to be the most sacred element of life—that is, human life—and consequently various members will stand up, influenced by differing ethical and moral viewpoints. In its most basic form human cloning involves images of humans being created in test tubes by scientists in a laboratory—a crude and possibly inaccurate picture of the science of today. However, whichever way you look at it, human cloning does create human life. The creation of human life for it to be destroyed, in whatever positive medical sense, is something that I personally cannot accept.

There are others who might have different religious views to me, who might stand in the parliament and who might articulate the possibility of positive medical outcomes as a result of this legislation. Not being a medical person, I am not in a situation to advise the parliament of whether or not that is correct, but I do respect the honest and reasonable views that proponents of that point of view might put forward. However, no matter what positive medical outcomes could be achieved as a result of human cloning for whatever purpose, if the purpose of that human cloning is to destroy life—and for that matter even the creation of human cloning—I believe that is unacceptable; it is immoral. As a community we ought not to pay the price of destroying life, even if it prolongs or saves life.

Again, not being a medical person, I am not really competent to say whether adult stem cell research is as good as embryonic stem cell research. However, the advice that I have is that one can achieve very positive outcomes from adult stem cell research, so I hope that it is possible to move beyond the issue of human cloning and to achieve the outcomes that the proponents of this legislation would like to see us achieve through other means of research.

The bill we are debating today—the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006—is a mouthful and seeks to amend the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 and the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002. This legislation simply does not convince me that I ought to vote to change the law as it is today. We have certain protections in place. Human life is sacred. Human life begins at the point of conception, and I believe that all human life, no matter how vulnerable, ought to be protected. The law of Australia ought not to permit human cloning for medical, experimental or whatever purposes. Therefore, I find myself in the situation of opposing a large number of honourable members whose views and integrity I respect. I spoke to the honourable member for Moore at great length. He is a person for whom I have the greatest admiration. I oppose his view on this bill; I respect his integrity. I think that as a parliament we are enriched by this debate because we are all able to stand up and say what we think. To be honest, I suspect the governments of the country might be better if we had more opportunities to do exactly that. I oppose the bill currently before the chamber.

See this speech in context