Natasha Stott Despoja (SA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

It is a great pleasure to speak early in this debate. I do so as a strong supporter of this technology, in particular somatic cell nuclear transfer. I am a strong supporter of the recommendations contained in the Lockhart review and I am a strong supporter of the bill before us, so I rise in support of the Lockhart report’s recommendations as enshrined in the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 and to encourage senators to pass this legislation that will implement the recommendations of the Lockhart review. Yes, Senator Webber is correct: we have played a role in this process. She was a co-sponsor of my exposure draft for a bill. The bill before us mirrors that private member’s bill, which was the result of many months work. Like Senator Webber, I believe it provided a springboard for the debate that we are having right now.

Scientific endeavour has been an enduring area of interest to me throughout my time in this place. I have been particularly concerned with finding an appropriate balance between allowing the cutting-edge research and technology that we have to prosper and needing to protect our community through effective regulation of scientific activity. For that reason I was particularly interested in the Lockhart review and its recommendations. Indeed, I lobbied the government pretty hard to make sure that they established that review in line with the recommendation of the acts that were passed in 2002. I have argued for a long time for a debate on the recommendations.

I indicated on 24 March this year that if the government failed to provide an opportunity for the parliament to debate those recommendations then I would draft a private member’s bill—famous last words, perhaps. But sure enough we did embark on the long and arduous process of drafting a bill that would actually provide some legislative and policy framework for debate. The exposure draft of that bill permitted the ongoing development of medical and scientific research using stem cells, including the strictly regulated use of somatic cell nuclear transfer, and sought to allow the development of techniques for efficient training and research and improvements in clinical practice in assisted reproductive technology. I always intended that the bill would inform the Senate about how the Lockhart recommendations could be encapsulated in legislation. I also intended it as a catalyst, if you like, for the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs.

I acknowledge a very clear political reality: members of the government in particular and obviously the Prime Minister would prefer to debate a bill initiated by their own side. Senator Webber and I have agreed therefore not to table a final draft of our bill. We are supporting Senator Patterson’s bill, which is before us today. But I am proud of the role that the Democrats played in this process and in bringing the debate about and I am happy to see that the original bill provided a bit of a basis. I have indicated that Senator Webber and I will move some amendments where we think that our bill may be preferable. But we will still keep to the integrity of the Lockhart recommendations. There is not a difference of opinion here; we support the bill before us. The Prime Minister’s decision to grant a conscience vote on this issue was a welcome one and was no doubt in recognition of the burgeoning support for this technology and the changing attitudes within our community since the original debates in 2002. Now it is up to the parliament to accept, to reject or even to amend the clauses in the bill.

I acknowledge that this is not just a scientific debate; it is an ethical debate as well. I understand that there will be some senators who are strong supporters of the bill and some senators who are strong opponents of the bill, and I suspect that there are some senators who are in between. I respect the right of senators to make a decision that feels ethically correct and comfortable for them. However, I would ask those senators who came to this debate without strong views either way to please understand that there has been a lot of disinformation peddled regarding the abilities and the motives of the proponents of this research, including the Lockhart committee, and Senator Webber has touched on that. I hope that they will recognise that there has been disinformation and I hope that they will take that on board and recognise the context in which it was put forward.

Virtually all people who oppose this bill are ethically opposed to the research. That is okay—I can completely accept that people have different beliefs. What I find hard to accept on occasions is that some of those who are opposed to this legislation have attempted at times to use scaremongering or bad science to try and convince others. I am less comfortable with that. I am sure that in this debate you will hear arguments, specifically from opponents of this bill, that this bill will allow the use of human eggs in the research and that this will cause unacceptable risks to women. You may hear that adult stem cells can do everything that embryonic stem cells can do, and possibly more. You may even hear that nothing has changed since the original acts were passed in 2002 and that therefore we cannot justify a change in the legislation. You may hear that the Lockhart review was biased in favour of allowing the research, or that their research was sloppy in reaching the conclusions in their report. You will hear that this bill will start us down a slippery slope towards reproductive cloning, and who knows what else.

The Lockhart legislation review was charged with investigating the scope and the operation of the 2002 acts, taking into account a number of terms of reference, including:

... developments in medical research and scientific research and the potential therapeutic applications of such research;

Some opponents of this technology claim that there have been insufficient developments since 2002 in the embryonic research field specifically. This is misleading. Research using embryonic stem cells is in its infancy. It has been going for eight years, compared to the 50 years of research using adult stem cells. To claim that we have not seen enough development to justify legally regulating somatic cell nuclear transfer is disingenuous. This is not a field of rapidly realised cures and quick fixes. It takes time; it takes investment. Importantly, it takes a supportive legislative framework—albeit one that is strictly regulated. I see somatic cell nuclear transfer as a tool which will help Australian researchers better understand the development of some of our most intractable diseases and hopefully down the track find cures to defeat them.

The Lockhart committee conducted a literature review which provided examples of developments in research using embryonic stem cells, albeit mostly at the preclinical stage—nobody denies that. It revealed that animal embryonic stem cells have differentiated into insulin producing beta cells. Mouse embryonic stem cells injected into rats with spinal damage differentiated into neural cell types which improved function. There has been research into Parkinson’s disease, in which dopaminergic neurons in the brain are destroyed. That is a very active area of research. This has shown that mouse embryonic stem cells have the ability to differentiate into these neurons, potentially providing a source of new cells. Time magazine recently reported the progress of scientist Lorenz Studer, who has differentiated embryonic stem cells into:

... just about every cell type affected by Parkinson’s disease and has transplanted them into rats and improved their mobility.

United States biotech company Geron is apparently close to seeking permission to conduct the first human trials using embryonic stem cells to create cells that produce neurons. Other developments have been highlighted during the Senate committee inquiry into this legislation, and I encourage senators, particularly those who may have doubts about the amount of progress that has been made since 2002, to please have a look at that committee inquiry.

Some have lauded the seemingly less controversial adult stem cell research area as the way to go, claiming that advances in this area have made embryonic stem cell research redundant. Indeed; no-one denies that adult stem cell research is a promising field of stem cell science. It excites me to say that. However, we should be wary of advocating one type of research over the other, particularly at this early stage. Each has its strengths and its weaknesses. For example, it is widely accepted that embryonic stem cells are able to more widely differentiate into different types of cells. That is the science. I think that is an accepted part of this debate. Embryonic stem cells also have the unlimited capacity to keep dividing, which of course can tell scientists incredibly useful things about the cellular ageing process. Embryonic stem cells created through the use of techniques such as somatic cell nuclear transfer can facilitate the creation of disease-specific stem cells which will hopefully assist in investigating cures and causes.

While I note that individual scientists, particularly those who gave evidence to the committee, have their individual beliefs, it is interesting to note that the two peak scientific bodies that attended the committee hearings in Canberra—the Australian Academy of Science and the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies—both called for research into embryonic and adult stem cells. Rather than seeing embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells as competing fields, we should see them as entirely complementary. It may well come to pass that research into embryonic stem cells, particularly somatic cell nuclear transfer, will help us to understand and improve the therapies actually using adult stem cells. As Professor Peter Rathjen, Dean of the Faculty of Science at Melbourne University and an internationally recognised stem cell researcher—whom we enjoyed having at the University of Adelaide for a while—said:

You need to understand how science progresses. It doesn’t progress with a single step that means that you suddenly have cures. It moves incrementally towards a goal, and you gradually put in place bits of the jigsaw and solve various technical problems that are required.

In relation to the Lockhart review, the 2002 acts included a provision that the laws be reviewed by an independent committee following three years of operation. The Lockhart review was not instigated by the scientists; it was in fact enshrined in the original legislation. The Lockhart review was appointed by the government. The legislation review was chaired by the late former Federal Court judge the Hon. Justice John Lockhart AO, QC.

Unlike some in this chamber, I do not consider the Lockhart review to be a sloppy process. They conducted an exhaustive, independent review of the laws over six months, with hearings in the states and territories. The committee analysed 1,035 submissions, met with a range of scientists and researchers and other stakeholders and conducted an exhaustive literature review. I pay tribute—as did Senator Webber—to that panel and, in particular, to Justice Lockhart. He was held in very high esteem by those in the legal and scientific communities and he made a critical contribution to this debate on stem cell research. I also acknowledge his wife Juliet and thank her for her kind words, particularly in recent times.

Perhaps the best argument against those who state that the Lockhart review was biased in favour of somatic cell nuclear transfer before the review even started is a letter from Dr Pamela McCombe entitled ‘Why I changed my mind about stem cell research’. As you heard from Senator Webber, Dr McCombe tabled that letter at the committee hearing on 20 October. Dr McCombe was in fact a sceptic of embryonic stem cell research when she joined the legislation review committee, but her participation in the review led her to conclude:

Those people who think that there is no moral problem with embryo research should be allowed to carry out that research and should not be prevented from doing so by the power of the law. Those people who think the research is wrong should be allowed to say so and to protest against what they believe to be wrong. And those who do not wish to participate in the treatments that arise from stem cell research should be allowed to avoid such treatments.

It should be made very clear that this bill does not propose any relaxation of the prohibition of human reproductive cloning. Senator Patterson’s bill makes that clear, as did Senator Webber’s and my exposure draft. Although I am one of the strongest supporters of the science that would be enabled by this bill, I have always opposed and will continue to oppose human reproductive cloning. Part of the reason that we have enshrined this in law was thanks to the pressure applied by people such as former Senator Brian Harradine, me and some others. That is clear in this bill—so don’t anyone suggest that a slippery slope is enabled by this legislation or legislation that I and others have put forward.

Opponents of somatic cell nuclear transfer have further warned that legislation of this type may lead to the commoditisation of human eggs. It is important to note that this bill—as did mine—maintains the current prohibition on the sale of human eggs, sperm and embryos. This is another slippery-slope argument—that, if we allow this bill to pass, it will not be long before women are offered financial incentives to donate eggs. Many of us in this place have been advocates for women’s issues, and we will continue to be. I acknowledge that there are risks involved in egg donation—it is an invasive and risky procedure—but I believe that this bill allows women to make an informed choice to donate their eggs for research if they choose to do so. There are a number of reasons that women may want to donate their eggs for research, and they should be allowed to do so. If it turns out that the supply of eggs is too limited for the science, my thoughts would echo those of Professor Peter Schofield of the Lockhart committee who said, ‘Tough!’

For opponents to suggest that we should not pass this bill because of what might happen or what might be sought in the future is ludicrous. We must consider the legislation and the research before it at this point in time. Around the world somatic cell nuclear transfer is a widely accepted technique for progressing stem cell research. It is not a radical agenda. Countries like the UK, the US, Singapore, Israel, Belgium, Japan, Spain, China and Sweden all permit this process. I acknowledge the difference in the US between privately and publicly funded research, but it is still allowed. We risk losing more of our best and brightest scientists if they feel thwarted from pursuing such cutting edge technology. And peak bodies fear that attracting foreign researchers will be difficult, too, if we continue to have a restrictive and uncertain research environment, which would be the case if we do not pass this legislation.

Whether or not this technology will be progressed is beyond dispute. And if it does not happen here, it will happen elsewhere. Unless opponents are suggesting that we ban all imports of therapies derived using somatic cell nuclear transfer then Australians may well ultimately benefit from this technology, regardless of what happens here. But do we not want to be part of this? Do we not want to invest in the potential and the hope that it presents us with? At stake is whether or not we want our research community to play the role that they are able to in this. If we allow this bill to pass, we can ensure that Australians benefit not only from the outcome but from the knowledge that is gained in the process and the increased speed with which progress may come about if Australia’s innovative prowess is allowed to be brought to bear on this challenge.

In the absence of federal government action on the Lockhart review’s recommendations, the Victorian and Queensland state governments have indicated that they may go it alone—they will legislate to permit somatic cell nuclear transfer. I believe a nationally consistent framework that permits research using somatic cell nuclear transfer is necessary and preferable. If we fail to broker such legislation now, we run the risk of yet again relying on inconsistent and widely varying state laws, as we did prior to 2002. The legislation being debated today gives us the opportunity to foster scientific innovation and discovery in addition to potentially providing treatments and cures—although they may be a long way off—for Australians.

As the Australian Democrats science and biotechnology spokesperson, I have come into contact with many people for whom stem cell research offers hope. Like all senators, I am sure, I have received a lot of correspondence and emails. It is critical that the potential of such therapies is not overestimated. I understand the need to be realistic. We have to allow for realistic time frames for therapeutic application to be made. But it is also essential that we allow for the potential for this to be explored. I am not suggesting that we should be unrealistic, but I believe it would be unethical not to invest in this research and the technology and possible clinical application that it will bring. I am a strong supporter of this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support the Lockhart recommendations being enshrined in law.