John Murphy (Lowe, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Hansard source

When I was speaking on the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 last Thursday before the adjournment debate I was about to draw the attention of the House to the other examples of the obfuscation and deception in terminology related to Senator Patterson’s bill which are designed to confuse, mislead and deceive us. For example, the term ‘nuclear transfer’ has replaced ‘therapeutic cloning’. In 2004 the International Society for Stem Cell Research changed the terminology to deceive the public that SCNT is not cloning. Next the term itself, SCNT, replaces the word ‘cloning’ in clause 3 of the draft bill from Senator Stott-Despoja. Then there are the words ‘therapeutic’ versus ‘reproductive’ cloning, as with Dolly the sheep. The scientific journal Nature reports:

... scientists realized that the word ‘cloning’ was generating public concern. So they decided to adopt a more technical term—

SCNT—

less likely to stir up strong emotions.

I will now turn to the second objection. That is, I put to this House that nothing has changed scientifically since it voted resoundingly, on a conscience vote, against the very legislation before us tonight. The only thing that has changed is that we are now being duped into believing that this bill will not permit cloning of human beings. Again, SCNT is cloning, and cloning is SCNT. They are the same thing. The science has not changed. The only thing that is changed is the false and misleading semantics.

I turn to the third objection, which is the basis of the Lockhart report. It is clear that the reports of the acting chair of the Lockhart inquiry, Professor Loane Skene, with Professor Ian Kerridge and Professor Peter Schofield, amongst others, demonstrate their unswerving and disproportionate favouritism towards human cloning, as demonstrated on public record. This comes as no surprise to me given that the debate, to them, has been about science rather than morals. That is their speciality, and I do not begrudge them for putting their scientific views forward, notwithstanding the fact that I do not share those views. Associate Professor Kerridge is reported as saying in June 2001:

Therapeutic cloning has massive potential. Animal work has shown promising insights into how it can be used to repair tissues that can’t normally repair themselves …

Professor Schofield is reported on 9 October 2001 as saying:

Parts 4 and 5 of the Human Reproductive Cloning and the Transpecies Fertilisation Bill (NSW) will allow research on human stem cells, including embryonic stem cells and their use in human therapeutic cloning. This is to be commended ... by which exciting and significant new developments in medical research can be progressed ...

I am concerned that the Lockhart committee has paid little to no regard to the higher ethical arguments against its finding in support of human embryonic cloning. Science is very good at telling us how to do things or how to reach certain ends. The questions it cannot answer are which ends are ethical or which ends are worth pursuing. Scientists do not have a specialised viewpoint on the ethical questions which are, undoubtedly, just as important as the scientific ones. Indeed, as we have seen worldwide, many scientists simply do not have an interest in the wider ethical questions surrounding their deeds. Some have been consumed by pride, glory or commercial gain. Science should not be the final determinant on this issue; ethics and morals must.

Turning to the question of science, the Lockhart committee report has also relied on the so-called research of the now disgraced Dr Hwang Woo Suk, the South Korean scientist with so-called ‘breakthroughs’ in human embryonic cloning. Incredibly, the Lockhart report has failed to revise its findings in the light of the fact that Dr Hwang Woo Suk’s research was falsified and is totally discredited. In this light, we ought to approach the Lockhart report and its findings with some trepidation. This is particularly so if it is to be the basis for making a scientific, right-minded decision on the purported benefits of human cloning or the creation of human embryos. As I have already mentioned, irrespective of the veracity of the Lockhart committee’s findings, the debate today is a moral one not a scientific one.

The fourth objection concerns the outcry of public interest objections to human cloning. I again refer to Senator Patterson’s speech on 7 November in which she says:

I consider that I am also amongst the majority of Australians, who are in favour of research using somatic cell nuclear transfer to help us better understand disease processes ...

For the benefit of Senator Patterson, I have been deluged with correspondence concerning her bill. Literally hundreds of letters, telephone calls and emails have flooded into my electorate office in Lowe. The overwhelming correspondence opposes this bill. The public interest case is not in Senator Patterson’s favour; it is anything but.

Many members of the public oppose this bill. During the Lockhart inquiry, there was a call for public submissions. Over 4,000 submissions were received, the vast majority opposing the Lockhart committee’s findings and this legislation. A very great many in our community are strongly opposed to this bill becoming law. Given the higher moral and ethical issues at stake here, with great respect, I do not accept that Senator Patterson can point to such majority support for this cause. It follows that I believe it would be very unwise for us to proceed down Senator Patterson’s path. For this reason alone, I urge every member of this House to oppose this bill.

I turn now to the tenuous tactic employed by many who seek to make this bill into law. This objection concerns the offering of false hope to many very sick people who suffer disease that, by permitting human embryonic cloning, this will somehow provide the miracle cures that are ‘just around the corner’. Some proponents of this bill are quick to appeal to the vulnerability of sick people suffering with long-term diseases by enthusiastically promoting the possible medical benefits that could come from this bill. I cite again Senator Patterson in her 7 November speech in which she says that this bill:

... is not a decision about politics. It is about people. It is about hope and it is about trust. A vote against this bill will be a vote to dash the hope that is dearly held by those people watching and listening to us who have medical conditions and who expect nothing from this research for themselves but know that in their cells they have a possible key to understanding their disease which may provide a legacy for future generations of people with this or similar diseases. Why should we restrict their hopes?

What a line Senator Patterson spins! With respect, Senator Patterson’s rhetoric is thin and transparent. The old mantra, the lie told again and again, is that we who oppose experimentation on human embryos or embryonic stem cells are somehow impeding research and dashing the hopes of those long-suffering victims of various diseases.

The Senate committee’s website provides texts which offer vain hope. There is no concrete evidence which shows that human cloning will provide the benefits promised, let alone dreamed of. The article titled ‘“It’s me prostate, doc!”—your weekend dose of embryonic snake-oil’, dated 10 September 2006, provides an expose of the false hope being promoted by a syndicate of clever but deceptive cloning lobbyists who play ‘endless tricks with rats’ which have ‘no prospect ever of moving to humans, and they know it’. The article goes on to say:

The cloning snake-oil salesman is therefore reduced to one dishonourable tactic: to showcase authentic breakthroughs in adult stem cell science, and then by a trick of language sneak in the impression—never quite direct enough to be a lie—that embryonic stem cells can do this too.

I will give just one example of this deception. An article in the Australian of 9-10 September asserts, falsely, on the issue of heart disease, that researchers believe they will soon be able to regrow healthy hearts. The article then cites cardiologist Joshua Hare on the issue of regenerative science, who extrapolates wildly from this promising research in adult stem cell research by saying:

In Australia, scientists are working on embryonic and adult stem cells that could rebuild heart muscle ...

The infusion of the embryonic into what is exclusively adult research is both false and misleading.

I put to this House tonight that the principle of double effect applies here—that is, even if human embryonic cloning does deliver on the promises it makes to long-suffering persons with diseases, the destruction of a human being is not outweighed by the benefits it might possibly bring. In any event, those purported benefits are based upon a false hope. I again turn to the rebuttal by Senator Patterson in her 7 November speech in which she says that concerns about women being exploited for ova will be overcome by obtaining their consent. I am not so convinced. There is still no apparent provision in this bill that will regulate the sale or donation of human eggs for cloning experimentation.

My eighth objection concerns some of the technical flaws in this bill—that is, the bill will still permit other forms of experimentation or make available the possibility of chimeric or hybrid experimentation. Far from Senator Patterson’s assurances that there is no slippery slope in this legislation, I put to this House that the 2002 legislation followed by this bill’s passage through the Senate recently is evidence enough that we are very much going down a slippery slope. What guarantees can Senator Patterson give us that there will not be chimeric or hybrid cloning with humans now or in the future? Senator Patterson cannot give us any, any more than when she was so certain of her opposition to cloning in 2002, from which she has chosen to depart.

It is clear that the cloning lobby used the human embryonic stem cell bill in 2002 as the thin edge of the wedge. This is nothing more than a slick selling cycle. The 2002 prohibition on cloning bill was only a decoy for a short period of time. Now, the cloning lobby is attempting to seduce a significant number of politicians to approve cloning. The next step in this atrocious string of bills could be human hybrid and chimeric experimentation. There may be no end to the amount of greed and evil stemming from this bill if we permit it to be passed.

Members are aware that only last year, in 2005, at the 59th plenary session of the United Nations General Assembly, Australia voted in support of the United Nations Declaration on Human Cloning. This international instrument prohibits all forms of human cloning—including SCNT—inasmuch as they are incompatible with human dignity and the protection of human life.

This bill permits cloning, which is incompatible with human dignity and the protection of human life. I repeat: the consequence of this bill will be to permit the cloning of human embryos for their destruction. Hence, this bill, if passed, could violate our position as a signatory to the 2005 UN declaration. Passing this bill would be a humiliating and hypocritical position for this legislature to take. I simply say what I said earlier: there is more than one way to create a human embryo. It is wrong to suggest that there is some difference between human embryos created by egg-sperm fusion, SCNT or parthenogenesis.

In my last few minutes, I turn to the manner in which this bill was introduced into the House and parliament. As members of this House are well aware, this bill was introduced via the Senate on 19 October 2006. The fact that this bill, a conscience vote bill, was moved first in the Senate is most irregular. In particular, I refer to pages 280 and 281 of the House of Representatives Practice, fifth edition, under the title of ‘Free Votes’ bills. Significantly, the House of Representatives Practice lists bills that are directly related to this bill before us today—that is, a bill that concerns the broad group of policy issues that may be called ‘life issues’. Successive Commonwealth parliaments have debated many such life issue bills, including the Medical Practice Clarification Bill 1973, the termination of pregnancy medical benefits motion No. 80/692 of 1973, the Euthanasia Laws Bill 1996 and the Research Involving Human Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002. It is most significant to note that all of these four life issue conscience vote bills were initiated in the House of Representatives. It is clear that the Senate has historically concerned itself with conscience votes on essentially matrimonial, family and sex discrimination bills. (Time expired)

See this speech in context