Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. We hold conscience votes on bills such as this because they contain within them ethical and moral dilemmas. For some of us in this House, those ethical and moral dilemmas are about the contents of the bill itself. For others, the dilemma stems from our role as representatives of constituents who have conflicting and strongly held views. There are a number of people in my electorate for whom this bill is so profoundly repulsive that their relationship with this government will be quite significantly damaged if this bill is passed. They will be personally hurt by the idea that they live in a society which they believe would create an embryo in order to harvest it for someone else’s gain. I do not believe that this bill does that, but, in considering this bill, my ethical dilemma is how I, as a representative, find a path through these conflicting views of the need by some to find cures for appalling diseases and the revulsion that others have for some of the contents of this bill.

The supporters of the bill seek to allow advances in medical research and science which aim to cure diseases for which there are presently no cures. I have received representations from parents of children with illnesses, people with illnesses themselves and peak organisations representing people with illnesses—illnesses that may be cured thanks to the research allowed by this bill. They implore this parliament to follow a path that will allow the scientific research to continue. I have also been contacted by many individuals and representatives of churches who are opposed to this bill. They argue on ethical grounds for the sanctity of human life. Many of the letters and emails I have received are, I believe, ill informed, but some are not. The challenge for members of this House is to find paths that are acceptable to most. We will never find a path that is acceptable to people at both ends of the spectrum, but we must find a path that is acceptable to most. I believe that in drafting this legislation Senators Patterson, Webber and Stott Despoja have done an extraordinary job in finding middle ground and in building in safeguards that address most of the concerns that have been raised by my constituents.

Before I even saw this legislation, I started to consider what lines I would not cross in relation to stem cell research. There were three. The first is quite obvious: I would never support a bill that allowed the creation of an embryo specifically for it to be harvested. If I believed that this bill did that, I would not be supporting it. Secondly, I would not support a bill that allowed for the cloning of a human being. In fact, when I considered that, I was quite amazed how repulsed I was by the very idea that anybody might pursue that. Genes have one life; my genes have one life, so do yours, Mr Deputy Speaker, and so do the member for Macarthur’s—even though his genes are very fine indeed. It is also a repulsive idea that we would ever as a society do the experimentation that would be necessary for us to get the cloning of a human being right. It is a revolting idea and I would never support a bill that allowed it to happen. Thirdly, I would not be supporting this bill if I believed it would lead to a market in eggs or embryos in any way. But I do not believe that this bill does any of those three things. I believe that it will benefit many of the people who live with illnesses, particularly some of the worst illnesses, and if there were a way to allow that research without crossing those boundaries, I was looking for it. I believe that this bill delivers it.

The debate we are having today on the use of human embryos for research is an extension of the debate that first took place in this place back in 2002; that was also a conscience vote. When the parliament first considered the use of human embryos in research, parliament decided at that time to prohibit human cloning, to prohibit the creation of human embryos except for the purposes of assisted reproduction programs and to allow the use of excess human embryos from those assisted reproduction technology programs for research purposes. The legislation allowed research to be undertaken using embryonic stem cells derived from embryos that would have otherwise been discarded in the IVF program, but it made the use of those embryos subject to strict regulation. One of the safeguards built into the 2002 legislation was the requirement for a review after two years. That review was conducted by the Hon. John Lockhart and subsequently became known as the Lockhart report, which was delivered in December last year and has since then been extensively scrutinised by the Senate and members of the public.

In June this year, the Prime Minister responded to the report by saying that the government would not be putting forward changes to the legislative framework for research involving human embryos, so instead we have before us today the private member’s bill which we are now debating. The bill incorporates most of the recommendations of the Lockhart review and it does so without crossing the three lines that I referred to before. It prohibits the development of a human embryo specifically for harvesting. I am putting it that way because that is the language I found in the letters that I received from many of my constituents, who said, ‘Don’t let this happen; it’s morally wrong to create an embryo for harvesting.’ Of course it is. But this bill does not do that. Under this bill, a human embryo—that is, a human egg fertilised with a human sperm—can only be created for the specific purpose of achieving pregnancy in a woman. It prohibits the creation of a human embryo for any other purpose.

It goes further, because science has developed since 2002, and it also prohibits the creation of a human embryo by fertilisation of a human egg with a human sperm that contains genetic material provided by more than two persons. It is necessary to toughen the regulation here because science has progressed since 2002. Under the IVF programs already in place, more embryos are created than are implanted in the woman and so not all are used. The 2002 bill allowed for the use of excess embryos for research purposes where those embryos were about to be destroyed. I have to say that I am glad I was not voting on that bill; I think I would have found that one very difficult. But, having had that bill passed by the parliament, I respect the decision made by that parliament at the time.

This bill does not change that at all, but it adds two new activities, both of which were recommended by the Lockhart review. The first of these, which is not controversial, fixes an ambiguity in the 2002 law. In IVF programs embryos are often created that are unsuitable for transplantation because of, for example, genetic flaws, and these are usually disregarded. This bill allows those so-called ‘fresh’ embryos to be used for research purposes along with those that will be discarded at a later date.

The second new activity is more contentious and I believe it is also much more misunderstood. When people contact me about human cloning and creating embryos for harvesting, they are talking about somatic cell nuclear transfer and they are seeing it in a way which I do not. While I cover this area I will refer to some of the views that I have encountered and have had to consider in my decision to support this bill.

The 2002 bill put a moratorium on somatic cell nuclear transfer, which this bill lifts under the strictest of conditions. The ethical dilemmas surrounding the issue of embryonic stem cell research or somatic cell nuclear transfer are founded in individual definitions of when and how life is created. Somatic cell nuclear transfer, or SCNT, technology involves taking the nucleus of a somatic cell, such a skin or blood cell, and implanting it into an egg from which the nucleus has been removed. I have received letters concerned about the use of animal eggs, but that is specifically banned by this bill. We are talking in this bill about a human egg from which the nucleus has been removed and in which a human somatic cell, such as a skin or blood cell, has been implanted. Then the cell is forced to divide through chemical and physical stimulation.

Under a purely scientific definition, these dividing cells are embryos, but in my mind there is a great difference between a human embryo created through the fertilisation of a human egg by human sperm and a cell forced to divide by somatic cell nuclear transfer. Whether such a dividing cell would develop into a foetus and then a person is questionable. It is not known whether this cellular entity would develop into a baby if implanted in a womb, but it does have the theoretical potential to create a human life and it was the technology used to create Dolly the sheep.

But, under this legislation, this cellular entity cannot develop into a foetus or a baby. For a start, the bill only allows such entities to be created for the development of specific embryonic stem cell lines, such as is currently legal in Japan, Singapore, the United Kingdom and Sweden. I have had letters from constituents concerned that SCNT technology is a slippery slope that will lead to human cloning, but this bill specifically bans human cloning and introduces safeguards that do not allow technology to be developed that would lead to the cloning of humans. Such a thing would be abominable and is rightly banned. We do not know whether or not SCNT or a comparable process would result in the birth of a human clone. All around the world human cloning is banned, and this bill bans it in this country. Human cloning and the process that might—and I do stress ‘might’—give rise to this process are still outlawed in Australia and any breach faces heavy fines. And so it should.

For starters, the cellular entity created by SCNT must not be allowed to develop beyond 14 days. The period of 14 days is chosen because, after that period, a primitive streak might develop. At this stage the embryo is called a blastocyst and consists of about 100 cells. According to scientists, the primitive streak is the first sign within the dividing cells of a multicellular structure that signals life and, if the primitive streak is allowed to continue to develop, it may become the basis of a nervous system. By ensuring that the cellular entities are not allowed to develop beyond 14 days, we are ensuring that science cannot explore the possibility of cloning humans. It is simply out of the question. This bill will not give scientists free rein to experiment as they like. It introduces strict rules governing the use of these cells.

Secondly, a licence must be issued by the National Health and Medical Research Council licensing committee in accordance with strict legislated criteria. In making this decision about a licence, the council will consider what the intended use of the cells is. So far in Australia there are very few licences—only nine have been issued, all to highly reputable organisations with substantial track records in research. For example, one licence has been issued to IVF Australia and the Prince of Wales diabetes transplant unit to create stem cell lines from frozen embryos that will be used in a range of diabetes tests.

I have also received letters from constituents arguing that stem cell research is not necessary because of the existence of adult stem cell research. Reports from the science community give us a different story. There are two areas of research that are different, and one reason for using the technique of somatic cell nuclear transfer is to create an entity that is genetically identical to the donor of the adult cell to generate stem cells identical to the donor with the theoretical capacity to grow into tissue that the donor will not reject. Stem cell research is still in its early phases and I do not believe it is right to exclude it from consideration because in the first three or four years it has not achieved extraordinary results. In the field of medical research it can take 20 or 30 years to achieve the kinds of results that will bring real benefits.

You can tell from what I have said already that, with restrictions in place, both embryos from the IVF program and eggs will be relatively rare. I have received letters from constituents concerned that because they are rare women will be exploited for their eggs. Again, this cannot happen under this bill. The bill continues the current ban on the trade and commodification of human eggs, sperm and embryos. Again, because eggs and embryos will be extremely rare, the bill requires the minister to report to parliament on the establishment of a national stem cell bank and a national register of donated excess ART embryos. The purpose of this is to make sure that researchers know what research is being done so that these rare gifts to the science community and to people suffering from appalling illnesses will be used in the best possible way.

On the whole, I am incredibly impressed by the work that Senators Patterson, Webber and Stott Despoja have done in putting this bill together. It is an extremely difficult area that attracts comment from a wide range of people with extremely diverse views. I believe this bill charts a very careful path. It also requires further review in the future. It assumes that, as science changes and develops, so too must we review when and how we deal with this quite complex and ethical dilemma of exploring solutions to health problems in an area which profoundly moves people to one position or another. In summing up, I think this bill charts a very careful path. It is very carefully thought through and a really good piece of legislation. I commend it to the House.

See this speech in context