Harry Jenkins (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. As indicated in earlier debate, this bill amends the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 and Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002 and is consistent with the recommendations made by the 2005 Lockhart legislative review committee, which followed those two pieces of legislation.

In a debate like this, where one has been given the privilege of a conscience vote, one should indicate to the House, and through the House to the community, those things which have led one to a conclusion about whether or not one supports a bill of this nature. We all bring with us different experiences. That is one of the great strengths of the Australian parliamentary system. Each of us uses those strengths from our background, our training, our life, to make considered judgements about the way in which we should act as legislators.

One of the aspects in my background which has led me to have an interest in the subject matter of this bill is that I am a science graduate. I have never used that in professional life, except as a legislator. I ended up in management positions in the Public Service, such was the want of the Public Service Board when they made appointments. Mr Deputy Speaker McMullan, as the member for Fraser you would know of the great institution the Australian National University, of which I am a science graduate. Even more interesting in my background is a short time when I was a student at Monash University in a different faculty. Over 30 years ago, I managed to pass the second year subject anatomy at Monash. I did so with great difficulty, but one of the more interesting units in anatomy for me was embryology.

When I listen to some of my colleagues who have not had the benefit of the department of anatomy at Monash teaching them about these matters, I regret that they have not had that exposure. If you set out the science involved here, it explains why there is a limitation of 14 days. That is very much about the development and the way in which cells come together. If you look at the literature—and we use terminology such as ‘totipotent cells’ and ‘pluripotent cells’—you see that at day 15 the embryo has developed its primitive streak and, because of the alignment of cells, the different body parts start to develop. One of the more fascinating aspects of that development is that that is the basis of a lot of referred pain, where you get pain in a different, distinct area from an organ that is undergoing difficulty because the associated skin cells may have been from the same area of the primitive streak—but I digress a little.

I say this not because of my interest in these matters but because I understand that we all have to make an ethical judgement about whether we think what is proposed to be made legal by this piece of legislation is not just worthwhile but is proper. Earlier this morning, the member for Watson, who has come to a different conclusion from me, made some opening remarks which I thought were pertinent in that they show the way in which opposing views in this debate can overlap. This is not an argument about whether adult stem cell lines are sufficient or better. It is not about whether some scientists, as the member for Mitchell has talked about, have been caught out for having poor ethics in their practices. They are decisions for the profession to handle, to make sure that members of their profession act in an appropriate way. This bill gives the legislative framework that dictates what can be done with the stem cell lines that are extracted from the embryos that will be created by means of therapeutic cloning.

I am not going to go further into the technology. We have heard many people describe the elements of somatic cell nuclear transfer, and I think it is for the scientists to decide whether or not that is a successful technique. The Lockhart review indicates that, beyond the surplus embryos created for the purposes of in-vitro fertilisation, there really is a need to continue and to widen the potential for the creation of stem cell lines because the therapeutic benefits might include the ‘treatment of serious and currently untreatable conditions, studying disease states, and screening new drugs’. It is not surprising that since the 2002 legislation there have been only eight or nine instances where requests for approval for the use of surplus IVF embryos have been made and that now, after a thorough discussion of these issues by the Lockhart committee, we should be going to this step of creating embryos for the purposes of further study. There is the potential for studying so-called patient-matched cells for specific patient cell therapies but also for more certainty about studying known genotypes for disease modelling and other research.

One aspect of my background that I have tried not to dwell on in coming to the position that I have in this debate is that my late father suffered from motor neurone disease. Regrettably, or fortunately, he had a slower degenerative version of that disease and had been diagnosed for over 25 years. In that time span you can see the effect of a disease that is all about the motor neurones dying because they cannot be regenerated, leading to the wasting of muscle and mobility problems. But it is not because I witnessed that degenerative disease that I come to the conclusion that this gives hope and might lead to a cure; I think we have to be a little dispassionate.

This morning, even worse for me—and a subject that is much closer to home and more recent—the member for Fremantle mentioned the possibility of this type of technology being used to find remedies for bowel cancer. Again, this is something that is of moment for the Jenkins family. But I think we have to step aside from that and say—as the Minister for Health and Ageing quite rightly said—that it is not just for the people who have decided they can support this bill. Many of those who are actively in opposition will have experienced through relatives or friends the types of diseases about which claims have been made this type of technology may eventually assist. It is very much ‘may’; there is nothing definite.

Whilst we talk about the great changes in science—and we are trying to react to those great changes through this legislation—nothing can be guaranteed. Some have mentioned in debate the discussion that happens in the scientific world about whether or not one particular person’s view is correct, but that is the nature of science and has been throughout history. That is why, if we as legislators are concerned, we have to set out the parameters through legislation like this to ensure that it is done in a way in which we think the community will sufficiently allow.

When debating the 2002 bill, because it was correct of the 2002 legislation, I made the comment that that bill did not allow for the creation of embryos solely for the purposes of embryonic stem cell research and the development of embryonic stem cell lines. That was the position at that point in time. I believe that what we have seen through the Lockhart committee’s review and recommendations is a logical step based on sound scientific principles but not, I think, stretching the boundaries of what the parliament decided with the 2002 bill.

One thing is clear—and I think I can talk for both houses of this parliament: the members and senators of this parliament are unanimously opposed to any notion of the development of a full adult human through cloning. To suggest that this is the thin edge of the wedge, the slippery slope, does not take into account that those who are supporting the bill do so in the knowledge that this legislation is very specific about the use of those embryos created by somatic cell nuclear transfer, that the regulations dictate the hurdles that are required for researchers who want to use this method and that there are very severe penalties for those who would want to do other things.

The ethics of science has been paramount throughout civilisation. For every scientific step forward, consideration has to be given to the ethical value of that step. Mention has been made of the splitting of the atom, its use in the manufacture of nuclear weapons and things like that and the dilemmas it has raised. In the middle of last century the knowledge that had been developed by the science of genetics was abused by fascist states in attempting to foster the development of a super race, but the scientists who were involved in that are not the sort of people this legislation is developing opportunities for; they would be outside the legislation. People with those types of morals are well outside the intent of this legislation.

So on balance, after consideration of the views put to me by a wide range of people from within and without my electorate, I have come to the view that this legislation would allow another item in the toolkit of researchers that may lead to solutions to medical problems. It may not. Science may move on, and these types of mechanisms may not have to be used. The notion that stem cells could be extracted from an embryo without damaging the embryo, which could then go to full term, would make aspects of this legislation redundant. But the use of SCNT technology may still require a known genotype through a stem cell line.

I want to speak—but not in a patronising way—about the quality of this debate. This debate is one instance where the parliament as an institution has worked well. The executive, in response to the Lockhart review—this is not a dig at them—decided that they would not pursue this matter. But the press statement, in announcing that, indicated that the government parties would allow a discussion to take place. That opened the door for members of the government parties to explore this issue. Then we saw senators from across the board—from the opposition parties and from other third parties—come together to assist Senator Patterson in the sponsorship of this bill. It then came before this House with a conscience vote. That is in its purest form one of the best ways we can see the parliament in action. It not only allows those non-executive members of the government parties an opportunity to pursue things that are important to them but allows the parliament as a whole to do so.

I support this bill. I know that those who oppose it do so for heartfelt reasons. I believe that when we put in place the mirror state legislation which will control the uses of this technology, it will be done in an appropriate manner.

See this speech in context