Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share 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.