Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the report on the review of the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 and the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002, and to follow on from Senator Ian Macdonald’s comments—ones I broadly agree with. I do think that, rather than this issue being a debate just for the coalition party room, it should also be a debate for the parliament. The legislation governing this area was passed by the parliament in one of those, in my view, unfortunately too rare occasions when there is more opportunity for parliamentarians to say what they really think and to vote according to their genuinely held and well-researched beliefs.

Of course, we have to take more personal accountability for our votes when we have these so-called conscience votes. It does come down to an individual decision, and you have to be able to justify that decision. That is something the parliament has already done in this area, and I for one cannot see why we cannot do the same again, particularly when we have the opportunity to be guided by such an excellent report as this one—normally known as the Lockhart review. It is a very worthwhile document, and I would recommend anybody interested in the area to read it. In fact, I suggest that anybody interested in the area should read it before they engage in public debate, so that they are more informed in doing so.

I would also like to emphasise that the review makes it quite clear that there should remain a complete prohibition on cloning, or, as most people understand it, reproductive cloning—cloning of people to create doppelgangers, and all those sorts of notions of what cloning means. The report is quite clear on maintaining a prohibition on that. There is confusion because of the terminology ‘therapeutic cloning’, which is something quite different. It is not reproductive. I think the term ‘cloning’ is quite misleading with regard to that. It deals with another way of producing stem cells, which does not involve using so-called surplus embryos—something I would have thought people might see as a desirable thing to explore.

Like Senator Ian Macdonald, I will not try to compress this debate into a few minutes—beyond saying that I think it is something I believe we should be able to debate and examine more fully as a parliament. We have shown before that we are capable of doing that, and I would like to do it again. I would also note the statements by the government of my state of Queensland and, I think, the Victorian government, which indicated some preparedness to go it alone with regard to expanding stem cell research if there is not action taken to address this review and the recommendations within it. That is certainly a less than desirable approach. I think it is much better to have a consistent national framework governing research in this area.

It would be very unfortunate if the states went it alone, but I also believe that, if there is going to be deliberate stonewalling at the federal level, it leaves the states in a position where they may have no alternative—if the stonewalling at the federal level is based on political considerations rather than a well-founded view. In that sense, I do encourage the government of my state of Queensland to continue to apply pressure in that respect. I do not think it is desirable to go it alone, but it is even less desirable to not go it at all. In that respect, I think the best approach is to enable a parliamentary debate on the issue. I do hope that, when the coalition have a chance to debate it in their party room, they give the rest of us a go by throwing it open to the whole parliament.