Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Hansard source

Tonight the Senate debates the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. The importance of this bill is recognised by the fact that the vote that we have in the Senate is based on conscience and is described as a free vote. It is not often that we have such a vote as this, and for good reason in this case we have a conscience vote because it deals with issues not only of science of great importance to the community and matters of social concern and human welfare but also of ethics.

Four years ago, we debated in this chamber the Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002 and the Research Involving Human Embryos Bill 2002. The Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill, which banned any form of human cloning, was passed unanimously. The Australian parliament at that time therefore emphatically rejected all forms of human cloning, including reproductive and therapeutic cloning.

In 2002, the option, therefore, was available for any senator or member to move an amendment to allow for therapeutic cloning whilst banning reproductive cloning—but no-one did. Many members and senators who would now support this bill spoke emphatically against human cloning. The Research Involving Embryos Bill was passed with a majority and approval was given for the release of surplus IVF embryos for research and study. As part of that legislative process, a review of the legislation was provided for. And, of course, as a result of that, we have the Lockhart report which forms the basis of this bill.

The first question we should ask is therefore: what has changed so much in the last four years as to warrant such a change in legislation? Let us firstly look at the Lockhart report. The report was charged with the responsibility of reporting on the scope and operation of the Prohibition of Cloning Act 2002 and the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002 and was charged to take into account developments in technology in relation to assisted reproductive technology, developments in medical research and scientific research and potential therapeutic applications of such research, community standards and the applicability of establishing a national stem cell bank. And of course there were a variety of other consultations which the committee was required to undertake.

The report of that committee was delivered on 19 December 2005 and was subsequently the subject of independent assessment by the Matthews Pegg Consulting group. This had been commissioned by the government and it was asked to report on whether the state of play had changed since the bills had passed. I think it is fair to say that, in short summary, Matthews Pegg found that little if anything had changed to warrant a change in legislation. And, again, I ask: what has changed so much in the last few years so as to warrant this bill?

The argument has been put persuasively that the 2002 legislation allows for sufficient research using surplus IVF human embryos. Four years ago, surplus IVF human embryos were made available for the purpose of study and research, as I said earlier. Of the thousands made available, how many are being used for stem cell research? The Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs report revealed that only 30 per cent of the surplus IVF embryos have been used for obtaining embryonic stem cells for research, and a limited number of licences have been granted for such research during that time. Some scientists are now seeking other sources of embryonic stem cells—namely, cloned human beings or cloned animal-human hybrid embryos achieved by the process of somatic cell nuclear transfer.

Of course, the scientific community is not united on the benefits of this. Dr Nicholas Tonti-Filippini, quoted at page 53 of the committee report, said:

Nothing has changed scientifically to support some kind of new argument of necessity to use SCNT embryonic stem cells. If anything, the possibility of developing therapies involving cultured embryonic stem cell transplant has become more remote as more has become known about the difficulties.

What Dr Nicholas Tonti-Filippini was saying is that nothing has changed. Indeed, the evidence on whether SCNT is beneficial says quite the opposite.

James Sherley, Associate Professor of Biological Engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, visited Australia and gave a number of lectures. James Sherley has conducted extensive research with adult stem cells. In a discussion I had with him, he indicated in the strongest terms that demonstrated benefits do arise from the use of adult stem cells. He stated that, no matter whether cloned or natural, embryonic stem cells do not offer the hope that people attach to them. In addition, he believes that cloned embryonic stem cells present real dangers, such as the growing of tumours, when put in adults. That is the opinion of someone who has a great deal of experience in adult stem cell research.

But he is not alone. Professor Alan Mackay-Sim, a prominent stem cell researcher from Griffith University, has also attested that adult stem cell research can provide an ethically responsible alternative to cloning. He has stated that stem cells from adults can generate continually and be used for research into Parkinson’s disease and Alzheimer’s disease. What are we facing here? I will quote some additional comments made by senators in the committee report:

8. This quantum leap in research is being advocated well in advance of similar research being done on cloned animal embryos.

9. Some scientists are therefore asking for the freedom to pursue this research on relatively weak grounds purely and simply because they want to go down this path.

10. Bad science cannot justify this freedom, even if it may be regulated by a government authority.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.