Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

Senator Patterson’s Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 may end up as the lucky 18th private senator’s or member’s bill to pass into law in 105 years of the Australian Commonwealth—or it may not. The numbers are close, apparently. In terms of the two houses, there have been 10 private senator’s bills and seven private member’s bills—17 altogether—passed into law in the 105 years of the Australian Commonwealth. As those numbers show, these occasions when private bills come to the vote are rare events. They require prime ministerial backing to be given the Senate sitting time to even advance this far. The numbers of private bills that never make it are legion. Right now there are 54 private senator’s bills on the Senate Notice Paper, of which eight are mine. Mine focus on issues of accountability and integrity, like freedom of information or public disclosure, electoral matters and political honesty—so they will never see the light of day under the coalition. Can you even imagine this government attending to moral and ethical issues like those? I cannot. So congratulations to Senator Patterson on breaking through. Perhaps it is indeed a miracle.

Of course, as in most legislative endeavours, Senator Patterson is not alone. Senator Stott Despoja has laboured for many a long year on these scientific health and research matters, consistently and persistently raising them in public and chamber debate. If Senator Patterson triumphs, it will be Senator Stott Despoja’s victory too. Senator Webber has joined Senator Stott Despoja in proposing a draft bill that parallels Senator Patterson’s, and there are many others deserving credit for advancing this particular cause, such as Dr Mal Washer from the House of Representatives.

This bill has been characterised by some as religion versus science, belief versus reason. If this is true at all, it is only true to an extent. The ranks of those against these initiatives are filled with those who wear religion as a badge, but they are also filled with those who do not; and the ranks of those who support Senator Patterson’s bill are also filled with those who are churchgoers. So to describe this bill as religion versus science is somewhat simplistic and probably inaccurate. If there is perceived to be a small group of parliamentarians who argue as if they are under orders, that would somewhat diminish the claim to conscience. I am sure that, if such a group does indeed exist, it is very small.

Personally, I am too conscious of the past and present of history and practice to be inclined to automatically accept the urgings of many religious leaders. I am too conscious of some of the old religions’ attachment to profit, power and politics, of the practice of hypocrisy, of pockets of paedophilia, of bellicosity and hatreds, of misogyny and homophobia, to be unquestioning of their orders. As for some of the new religions, they seem to have the vices of the old, as far as I can see, with a particular love of profit. I am unimpressed by thin-lipped bigots who extol the virtues of families, tearfully begging forgiveness when they are found out. I am unimpressed at the way too many have latched onto the ‘con’ in congregation—but I will concede that their trancelike devotees do look happy to have their pockets so entertainingly picked. And when you are confronted by images of people who shout, ‘God is great,’ while blowing up some poor woman on the way to the shops, you can understand how religious fervour can get a bad name.

No, I am all for the old-fashioned idea of faith. The religions and priests I like are those that do not blanch at the thought of a female archbishop, that are not con artists and that do not think men are so beastly that women have to be covered in cloth from head to toe. I like people who practise faith, hope, light, peace, charity and good works; I like people who are fallible, tolerant and human. Fortunately, I know quite a few like that, so it turns out that one can have faith after all.

There are of course mad scientists as well as religious maniacs. Science has given us many of the evils of our time: environmental, social and economic disasters. This bill, however, is not about harming but about helping. Certainly there are ethical issues to weigh up. Certainly there are scientific and ethical arguments that support cases for and against the provisions of this bill. I am not going to indulge, in this speech on the second reading, in a forensic determination of the scientific and ethical arguments on either side. To some degree I do not understand them all and to some degree I am not equipped to do that in full.

With all due respect to the sincere speeches from all sides of the chamber, in following this debate I have taken particular interest in the views of senators from the Liberal Party, at last left off the leash from the awful oppression of the Howard doctrine of conscienceless conformity. I wanted to see where their new consciences would take them. I always attend carefully to the views of Senator Humphries—a careful, kind and thoughtful man. I was captured by a beguiling speech from Senator Ronaldson. Senator Vanstone, a woman worth having on your side, entertained us, as she nearly always does, with an intellectual and at times idiosyncratic exposition. Senator Minchin was reasoned, forthright, consistent and unshakeable—all characteristics of his. My friend Senator Ferguson was his usual open, honest and decisive self. When he said he could not forgive himself if he voted against this bill, he really did mean it. Like Senator Ferguson, Senator Barnett brought his own anguish over incurable diseases with him to the debate, but has come to a different conclusion.

I weighed up the conflicting views of two good doctors, both Liberals from Western Australia: Drs Alan Eggleston and Mal Washer. My decision is that I give my vote to Mal. The rule of law is under assault in this country and our rights and liberties are being eroded by the executive, but I do not fear that the rule of law is so eroded that the safeguards and penalties that prevent human cloning in Australia will prove useless. I do not fear that I will live to see centaurs, minotaurs or satyrs. I do not fear that Frankenstein will be regenerated, although some would say he already has been and he has got a Senate seat. I do not fear mad scientists will pervert the intention of this legislation, not because I do not expect Australia to have its share of mad scientists but because I think the legislation gives us appropriate safeguards against them.

What I do fear is that if I voted against this bill my vote could extinguish the chance for scientists to find ways to cure diseases that are beyond us at present. What I do fear is what Senator Alan Ferguson captured in the final words of his speech. To repeat his words exactly: I would never be able to forgive myself if I did not support a bill that would give medical scientists every chance to find a cure for these diseases. That is my position. I will consider amendments on their merits, but I will support the bill.