STATUTES AMENDMENT (PROHIBITION OF HUMAN CLONING FOR REPRODUCTION AND REGULATION OF RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN EMBRYOS) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

(Continued from page 673.)

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (15:49): I am pleased to continue my remarks from earlier today on what is really an important and serious piece of legislation that we are debating in the parliament. I was talking about the assessment I had made in relation to the support and the opposition this bill would have within my electorate of Kavel. Having spoken to quite a number of groups of people concerning legislation of this nature, it is my opinion that those who oppose this bill far outweigh those who support it. Obviously, a reasonable percentage of people would not have an opinion one way or the other, but I think that, if I had an opportunity to explain to them the progress that has been made with alternative advancements and developments in research in relation to induced pluripotent stem cells, those people I assessed as not having a particularly strong opinion would be swayed by the argument in relation to iPS cells.

In relation to the issue of stem cells and their use, and the comment and decisions people make that they are only recognised as part of the human race, so to speak, 14 days after fertilisation (after day 1, day 2 and so on; it is regarded as the start of human life after this 14-day period), it is my strong belief that, when fertilisation takes place—at that very minute, at that very moment—human life begins.

To my way of thinking, this 14-day period is for convenience. I understand that some sections of the Christian Church regard this period as acceptable in relation to when human life actually starts. That is its opinion, but my opinion and that of others obviously differ. I know that some people agree with me that the very moment that fertilisation occurs is the start of human life; I cannot see how it can be any different.

I have heard members give a description of the cells and the chemical process that takes place within the fertilised egg, of when the cells start to divide and multiply and of when the basic form of a human being commences. I have heard all that, but it still does not sway me in any way, shape or form from my belief that the start of human life is when the egg is fertilised by the sperm.

Talking in general terms about stem cells and the research that is undertaken, the sheer lack of necessity to use embryos for medical research is quite compelling. We have heard a lot of debate about adult stem cells. Medical scientists tell us that it is more difficult to obtain adult stem cells than embryonic stem cells for research and further work. We have heard about the developments concerning umbilical cord blood and what can be advanced in terms of medical technology.

I think the absolute breakthrough in all this occurred in November last year, when the induced pluripotent stem cells were first discovered. That, I think, defines the debate at the moment. There is no need to destroy human life any more given the discovery of these iPS cells. We have heard other members talk about the quite horrendous process that women go through to produce these viable embryos in relation to their IVF treatment.

I can talk about a couple of personal experiences. I have worked with women, in my previous career, who underwent IVF treatment, and they described to me what that treatment involved. It is quite unpleasant, and it has a pretty significant effect on their bodies during and after the treatment. Quite often, it is unsuccessful and these embryos that are implanted into the uterus unfortunately do not result in the development of a baby. That also has a significant effect on the women, for obvious reasons.

A significant part of this debate is about ethics, and we all know that ethics and morality play an enormous role in medicine, medical research and medical science. The very basis of medicine includes those issues of ethics and morality. We need to be extremely mindful of those areas when we consider legislation such as this. Obviously, there is a range of views about the ethics and morals of using embryos for medical research.

As I said earlier, a big part of this is also about people's own individual beliefs, their ideologies, their philosophies—there is a whole range of descriptors that you can use. It is not necessarily a religious issue, either. I do not think that it is necessarily the purview of the Christian church as an institution. Sections of the Christian church obviously do not totally oppose the use of embryos for stem cell research, and I know that there are people who believe in the Christian faith and who are practising Christians who would support this legislation. Obviously there is a pretty significant percentage of Christian people who oppose it. So it is not necessarily a religious issue; it is about your belief structure, your ideology and your philosophy on these matters.

Another point that I would like to make is that this whole issue is about the advancement of medical research and the potential benefits and treatment that can come from it. I am a strong supporter of medical research. Medical research has resulted in significant advancements in the treatment of diseases such as asthma. Forty years ago, if a person suffered from severe asthma, they had to embark on some quite heavy medication that had considerable, detrimental side effects. There was not an enormous amount of medication out there that really addressed the disease of asthma. I was in that situation as a child: I was a really bad asthmatic. However, the development of medication and the new cortisone-based sprays have seen a remarkable advance in managing and treating asthma, and I have obviously benefited as a result.

This issue dates back to the 1980s, when the debate emerged in parliament about the establishment of the IVF program. I have not had time to read all the debates that took place at that time, but that was a controversial issue which the parliament had to deal with—basically, creating test tube babies. It involved taking the egg from the wife and the sperm from the husband and the baby was conceived in a test tube and then, obviously, implanted into the woman's uterus.

I understand that that was extremely controversial at that time. However, whilst I have not read all the debates, I know that all these guarantees and claims were made: 'This will be where it finishes; nothing more will come from this. We have to draw a solid line in the sand, and this is where this sort of technology, this sort of medical treatment, stops.' However, some 20-odd years later we can see where things have moved. The wedge has been put in there and it is getting hammered away. So, the gap is opening up wider and wider.

As I said earlier, in 2002 we passed legislation to allow surplus embryos to be used for medical science and research through the stem cell research avenues, and we are now looking at taking the next step, which I think is unfortunate.

I receive an enormous amount of correspondence concerning both sides of the argument with respect to other contentious pieces of legislation, particularly relating to social issues, such as voluntary euthanasia. However, in relation to this serious issue, (and I know I am correct in saying this), the only correspondence I have received is from highly trained doctors—professors, in fact—who have written to me (and, obviously, other members) opposing the bill.

I want to share with the house some information that was sent to me by Mr T. John Martin, an Emeritus Professor of Medicine at the University of Melbourne at the Bone, Joint and Cancer Unit at St Vincent's Institute. He is obviously a highly trained, highly regarded and respected doctor and he has written to me (and, I know, to other members) about iPS cells or induced pluripotent stem cells. The letter states:

Progress with research into iPS cells has been extraordinary in 2008, firmly establishing the conversion of normal adult cells to a form that behaves exactly as embryonic stem cells, and circumventing any need for cloning to produce patient-specific cell lines...As it stands now, there is no basis for any further efforts to achieve therapeutic cloning using the transfer of adult cell nuclei to human eggs. Indeed it would be irresponsible to attempt this.

That is pretty compelling evidence, from a highly respected, trained professor of medicine and, no doubt, a whole range of medical specialists would agree with his claims; that is, there is no necessity to use embryos in furthering the research along these lines. The iPS cells have taken the place of embryonic stem cells so, in a way, this legislation that we are debating is not necessary, because we have other technology to hand that we can use in the advancement of these medical treatments.

Time expired.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens) (16:06): I rise to discuss this bill with the house and give my point of view on it. I can think of a number of reasons on technical grounds that I would oppose this bill, but I do not wish to bore or mislead the house with some clever argument about how this bill technically is redundant. Rather, I will do a bit of good, old fashioned John McCain straight talk and tell it like it is.

The reason I will vote against it is, fundamentally, I believe human life begins at conception. I understand there are people throughout the world, and especially in this house, who do not share my views, and I respect that; that is fine. I do not wish to place any judgment on anyone in this house who supports the legislation. I, too, do not want to see anyone suffer. I, too, would love for there to be a miracle cure. I, too, would love to see paraplegics walk again. I, too, would like to see cancer cured. I, too, would like to see an end to world disease and famine.

However, before all that—for me, and me personally—there comes a question of morals and ethics. For all the technical arguments we can give in favour of this legislation, I give one in return, and I know this might not be right for everyone, but it is right for me. I do not believe, now or ever, that anyone has the right to experiment on human life. Therefore, the question becomes: at what point do you consider an embryo, a cell or an organism to be human life? I have said to the house I believe it to be at the moment of conception.

Unlike abortion, where there are two individuals involved—the baby (or the foetus, whatever you want to call it) and the mother—this is simply about an organism, which one group of people will say is a living entity with life or a potential for life, and others will say is simply a group of cells or a fertilised egg with no potential to develop unless it is transferred to some other system—being, obviously, a mother's womb.

Again, I wish to stress to the house that I am not passing judgment on anyone in this house who votes for this legislation. As I said earlier, I, too, want the miracle cures. I, too, want to end famine and disease. I, too, want to end all human suffering, but I do not believe that we can sacrifice one level of morality in exchange for an outcome to save and help the quality of life for other humans.

There have been others in the past who have believed, as the member for Enfield said earlier, that research in the field of medical excellence should be attained at any cost. The old grave robbers who used to steal bodies from cemeteries for medical research just cut out the middle man and started murdering people whom no-one would miss. This is not the same, but at what point do we say no?

Four years ago—I think it was four years ago—we were told that the only embryos that would be used (and this is legislation that George Walker Bush and John Winston Howard supported) would be surplus embryos in research. I did not support that. John Winston Howard and George Walker Bush—two conservative politicians who are the champions of the religious right—supported the use of excess or surplus to need embryos, which I think is a unique term for embryos, but, there you go—surplus to need. Now we are being asked to go one step further. I foresee, in my sage-like wisdom, coming back to this house (if I am lucky enough to be re-elected) to be asked to go further than just the issue of embryos being created for the purpose of embryonic stem cell research.

I cannot foresee what that request will be, but in the pursuit of scientific excellence and research there must be a moral and ethical standard as a counterweight. Who decides that counterweight is a very difficult question. I do not know the answer to that: all I can do is search into my own conscience. I will not lie to the house and say that this is simply a humanistic response. I am a Christian. I am an Orthodox Christian. I celebrate a liturgy regularly, and I make no apology for that to anyone. That is right for me, but I do not wish to impose it on anyone else. I do base my decision on my faith, because I need to have some moral counterweight to scientific research, and that is the world to which I go for my reasoning.

I am not saying that it is right for everyone. So, with those few words—I do not want to delay the house—I conclude by saying that I oppose this bill, and I ask members to consider that, first, I do not think that anyone in this state will utilise this bill being passed; and, second, to not so much consider their vote on this bill now but consider what they will be asked to do next. Where will it end? I thank the house for its silence and listening to my contribution, and for the smiles from my colleagues—

Ms Breuer: Stunned!

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: I am sure I've convinced her.

Ms Breuer: Very convincing.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: I am glad I have convinced her. With those few words, I ask members to oppose the bill.

Mr HANNA (Mitchell) (16:12): I am speaking today in relation to two pieces of legislation: one concerns the prohibition of human cloning for reproduction; and the other regulates research into human embryos. We are using the shorthand expression 'stem cell research' to refer to this issue which is now before the parliament. In December a few years ago, a committee chaired by the late Justice John Lockhart reported to federal parliament and the Council of Australian Governments on the federal legislation on human cloning and embryo research.

The Lockhart report contained 54 recommendations and said that researchers should be allowed to use sematic cell nuclear transfer—also known as therapeutic cloning—to generate disease specific stem cell lines in licensed research projects. Indeed, we have commonwealth legislation in place which provides a licensing regime for this sort of activity. That regime applies in South Australia. It applies to scientists working within corporations which are carrying out this research. The two pieces of South Australian legislation being dealt with today are dealt with together because they concern the same subject matter.

I have mentioned that there is already commonwealth legislation which permits the research activity to which many members object. However, it is not clear that the commonwealth legislation covers universities, where one can imagine such research might be carried out; and that is because of the limits to the corporations power in the federal constitution.

I turn now to the core subject matter. There are some limits where everyone is in complete agreement. No-one is prepared to countenance human reproductive cloning. It is also agreed that whether or not the current proposal becomes law, no-one will be allowed to create reproductive embryos for research purposes. In this context a reproductive embryo is one created by fertilisation; that is, by a human sperm and egg.

The current proposal, essentially, would permit using reproductive embryos for research purposes where the embryo is excess to the infertility treatment undergone by a couple and where the couple has given fully informed consent to use of excess embryos for such research. Secondly, it is possible to create embryos by technical manipulation in the laboratory using precursor cells. The proposal is for these to be used in research under certain conditions, but such embryos must not be used for implanting.

In the case of both reproductive and research embryos, the legislation will not permit development of the embryo after the point of 14 days. The point of 14 days is critically significant in the development of an embryo. I learnt a lot about this at a stem cell forum that I organised in my community nearly two years ago. The forum was open to the public and everyone in my community was welcome, whether they had preconceived notions about the stem cell issue or were simply there to learn more about it. One of the most amazing things I learned was that after fertilisation the cells multiply in a certain manner until they get to 14 days. After 14 days the very beginning of formation of a distinctly human form starts. It is the same for every human being and it is the same for every mammal. It is only after 14 days that each one of us has a minutely different shape. Up to that point the process is the same for any mammal. Three rings of cells are created which later become the three types of cells in the human body. In simple terms these are the internal cells, the skin cells and, thirdly, the cells lining our internal tracts, such as the digestive system.

I note that the period of five days after successful union of sperm and egg is also significant. That is usually about the time when the blastocyte is taken to the wall of the uterus. It may also be called a zygote because it is a successful combination of a sperm and egg. It is at that stage about the size of a sugar grain. It contains a small group of cells called the inner cell mass, which gives rise to the embryo proper. One of the critical facts here is that the zygote at that point can develop into more than one embryo; so for those who say that a soul will come into that group of cells at or before that point, there needs to be logically some answer to the problem that two or three embryos may form as a result of those cells.

Ms Breuer: Good point!

Mr HANNA: The little zygote contains stem cells. Stem cells refer to cells that can multiply and even cause the creation of different kinds of specific cells. So they could create liver cells, brain cells, heart cells, and so on. Scientists are particularly keen to experiment with such cells because, if they can direct the cells to grow a particular type of body cell through technical manipulation, they could create a host of cells with the hope of implanting them into a diseased brain, heart or liver in order to save someone's life or dramatically improve their quality of life. Simply being able to study how stem cells progress from one stage to another can assist scientists' understanding of how to combat disease. These remedies are a long way off into the future. However, scientists around the world are actively working towards these cures.

It was quite touching to hear the anxious inquiries of a number of people at my community forum. A number of them had spouses or family members suffering from conditions (such as dementia or multiple sclerosis) and they were hopeful of a dramatic new cure. The latest scientific news is that it may be possible to research using stem cells drawn from adult subjects. As a matter of fact, in each of our body parts there are a few stem cells. As our brain cells die off, for example, there are stem cells in each of our brains which will produce more cells as replacements. This is a finite process in human beings, however, so eventually we run out of the ability to replenish our organs, with the inevitable results of loss and death.

I have considered the arguments for and against the passage of this legislation. Some arguments are easier to dispose of than others. It was put to the house that, because all of us as human beings were once at that stage where we were a bunch of cells grown up from somewhere between conception and 14 days, therefore those collections of cells are human. However, there is a logical fallacy to that argument. The same reasoning applies in relation to the causation for drug abuse. If one said that all heroin users started with milk, it does not mean that milk is the cause of a heroin addiction. My point is that, just because all of us have passed through that stage, we are actually talking about a specific class of zygotes where they exist only in a laboratory, test tube, or a freezer somewhere. They are not destined, in any practical sense, for the creation of a human being. Indeed, now and even after the passage of this legislation, the law will be that they may not be used for the creation of a human being.

The slippery slope argument has also been presented to us. That is the argument that, if we allow such research in South Australia, bearing in mind that it is already permitted under commonwealth law, scientists will make some more advances and then come back and ask for more liberties with stem cells in test tubes; in other words, seeking to push the boundaries even further. The reality is that that can happen now. There are other countries which have the same technology that we do but which have nothing like the licensing regime that we do. So, in the world today, scientists are working without the restraint we have in Australia due to the commonwealth legislation, and those same constraints would apply whether or not we pass this legislation.

Another argument presented to us was that there is a better alternative. The zygotes to which I have referred so far contain totipotent stem cells, that is to say, stem cells which can create cells which, later on, would be recognised as being part of a distinct organ of the human body. The capacity has now been achieved to collect adult stem cells which are pluripotent, that is, they can grow some kind of cells but not every kind of cell. It is hoped that this advance will render completely redundant the use of stem cells derived from the excess zygotes after in vitro fertilisation processes for a particular couple.

The logical answer to this argument is: why close the door on a potential field where incredible healing may be achieved? In other words, just because there is a better alternative, why close the door on a more technically problematic alternative? Just because we now have cars that can run on environmentally friendly fuels does not mean that we scrap all the petrol driven cars. That may seem a distant analogy, but it is the same line of reasoning.

It seems to me that the various arguments I have put so far have been put forward by those who are coming from what might be called a religious perspective. The argument in essence is very simple for those who have that perspective. I look at the Bible, and everyone knows the commandment 'Thou shalt not kill'. That is at the essence of the argument for those who oppose this legislation, I believe. I do not mean to be presumptuous, but I have listened carefully to the speakers so far, and most of them who have used the arguments to which I referred earlier have really been coming from that position that 'Thou shalt not kill'.

When you combine an acceptance of that command with the consideration that a zygote from the moment of conception is a human being with a soul, obviously, you cannot destroy such a creation. That is a very simple argument. If you accept that the conception of a human being begins when the sperm and the egg successfully combine to form a zygote, you then logically must say that it cannot be destroyed without committing murder. The argument is as simple and as strong as that.

There are some difficulties that follow from holding such a position. For example, it means that if a couple is advised through an amniocentesis check at three months that their child will be grossly deformed, to abort the child is then murder—nothing less. It means also that, where there are leftover test tubes containing a zygote, after an in vitro fertilisation process for a particular couple, if those excess zygotes are dispensed with in any way it is murder.

If we were to be guided by that thinking, the in-vitro fertility process would become virtually impractical. It would be impractical, really, to attempt the extensive process one zygote at a time. The reason that scientists governing this process for a particular couple ensure that there are several zygotes available for implantation is that the rate of success is fairly low in any particular in-vitro fertilisation procedure, so it pays to have more than one shot. As I say, if we were to be strict in that view we would not have any leftover gametes in test tubes, and to dispense with any leftovers would be murder.

There is another difficulty with holding the view that conception of a human being begins when the sperm and the egg combine, and that is in relation to spontaneous natural abortions. I am advised by scientists that about three quarters of pregnancies actually terminate early, many of them without the mother even being aware that there was a pregnancy. This simply occurs naturally when the collection of cells, which has adhered to the womb—the uterus lining—discharges or for some reason does not continue with the process. In such an event, where there is absolutely nobody on earth to blame, it is difficult to understand the theological point to having creatures created only to become extinct without anyone even knowing about them, bearing in mind that the argument carries with it the belief that a soul has been attributed to that particular embryo.

The history of the belief that human life begins at conception I believe is relevant to this debate, since many in this parliament hold that view sincerely. Members would be aware of the Vatican Council in 1869, at which Pius IX made two important declarations that have altered history since: one is a declaration of papal infallibility, and the second is that at the same Vatican Council it was declared that human life began at conception.

Prior to that time (in other words, for most of the last 2,000 years), the vexed issue of drawing a line in the sand when it came to abortion and whether forms taken out of the mother's womb should be allowed to live if they possibly could was decided by taking the arbitrary point of 40 days.

I understand that in Jewish and Islamic teaching that point of 40 days is still significant in understanding when human life begins and when the soul of the person is somehow attributed to particular cells that have been formed and are growing. Perhaps this dates back to the published beliefs of Aristotle, who believed that a male soul (if there is such a thing) was joined up with the flesh after 40 days and, for a woman, the time was 80 days. I am not sure whether today that reasoning or belief would be acceptable but, nonetheless, the point of 40 days was taken and given credence by millions of people over the centuries.

It really comes down to whether one accepts that human life begins with conception, with the successful combination of the egg and the sperm. Having considered the science, I must say that I find that difficult to believe, and that is with all due respect to His Holiness Pius IX. Another passage of scripture I have pondered deeply in considering this legislation is chapter 10, verse 10 of John in the New King James Version, which states:

The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I have come that they may have life and that they may have it more abundantly.

Which we are in our decision in this House of Assembly I suppose we shall not know until Judgment Day.

Time expired.

The Hon. P.L. WHITE (Taylor) (16:33): This bill deals with the prohibition of human cloning for reproduction and regulation of research involving human embryos. I do not suppose that I am any different from any other member of this parliament when I say that I have been lobbied by all points of view in relation to the bill. I have been sent a large amount of data from all sides and, as members, it is our duty to inform ourselves as well as we are able.

Certainly in the media, debates of this nature tend to be painted as conflicts between science and religion, perhaps fact and prejudice and perhaps moral and ethical concerns versus practical outcomes, and things can be reported very emotionally. My colleague was talking earlier about the US election, and obviously the topic of stem cell research and embryonic stem cell research has been part of the presidential campaign.

It is not uncommon to see headlines such as 'Stem cell conspiracy', so that a lot of pressure and emotion is brought to bear. I understand that, and I hope that I treat the arguments of all members respectfully, because we all vote in good conscience on these matters.

The US presidential election campaign has been a very interesting campaign. On these matters, however, it has been interesting how both Republicans and Democrats have come out with the same formal policy on this. They both support the relaxation of federal restrictions on the financing of embryonic stem cell research but, even within the campaigns, there has been a lot of disagreement.

I was watching some reporting here of an interview with Sarah Palin, the vice-presidential nominee for the Republican Party, who was asked about some of the Republican ads that were played. I will quote some of the text of those, which went something like this:

They're the original mavericks. Leaders. Reformers. Fighting for real change. John McCain will lead his Congressional allies to improve America's health. Stem cell research to unlock the mystery of cancer, diabetes, heart disease. Stem cell research to help free families from the fear and devastation of illness. Stem cell research to help doctors repair spinal cord damage, knee injuries, serious burns. Stem cell research to help stroke victims.

When asked whether that meant adult stem cell research or embryonic stem cell research, it became apparent (and Ms Palin admitted it) that there was disagreement in the campaign about all of this. I raise that just to say that these are hard issues that require a lot of thought for all of us.

What do members of parliament do? Members bring their own values, standpoint and beliefs to their judgment in making a decision on how to vote on such a bill. I am a practising Christian. Before politics, I have worked as a scientist. The other relevant point I perhaps should mention is that last year my mother was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease which, as you know, is a degenerative disease, and one of the illnesses for which, it is hoped, through this sort of research, a cure will be found.

There is an assumption that a Christian cannot vote for stem cell research. I do not believe that is true. I would describe my own faith as an open, dynamic and, hopefully, courageous faith where continuous questioning is part of my faith. God, for me, is found in life, and life is complex, not simple. So, my decision-making in all of these matters is not simple.

My decision is to support the bill. I think the member for Mitchell said, 'Why close a door?' and I say, 'Why put up a roadblock?' There has been a lot of discussion in this house. It has been said that this legislation is obsolete, that a new cure has come along, that we do not need embryonic stem research any more. I do not see it that way.

The cure or the modern techniques that people refer to are induced pluripotent stem cell techniques. I do not want to go into technicalities about all of these things other than to say that that very new research is in its early phases as, in a lot of ways, is embryonic stem cell research. These are two lines of scientific research that are progressing concurrently, and it just so happens that a lot of the techniques, knowledge and development in each of them is informed by the other. So, a lot of the knowledge that comes through adult stem cell research techniques is informed and progressed through embryonic stem cell research.

What is the potential of stem cell research? We have heard about a lot of the degenerative-type diseases: the blood diseases, the immune diseases, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease and even potential improvements with respect to people with hearing and vision loss. There is a lot of excitement about recent advances in somatic cell nuclear transfer, which is a method of making sure that the human body does not reject a cell implanted in it, because this technique allows one to insert stem cells into the nucleus of the embryo. It is hoped that the use of these techniques will lead to discoveries through the modelling of diseases and the research and perhaps testing of drugs on these cells. It will lead to advances that down the track will provide cures for these illnesses.

There is another reason why we should not stop this area of research that is enabled by this bill, and that is because it would inhibit so much of what the IVF clinics can—and, I would argue, should—do. I refer to the area of research with respect to improving outcomes in IVF; making IVF procedures safer for patients; studying and developing methods to prevent miscarriage; and introducing new technologies.

One of the points is that when you have developed new proteins that would be useful in the cure of Parkinson's, for example, the question becomes: how do you make the stem cells and how do you get the body to accept them? So, while a lot of advances have been made in the adult stem cell area, what is still really in its infancy is the clinical applications: how do you safely make these techniques work in a planned, evidence-based way?

So, there are really two things: the IVF procedures and the potential cures for degenerative diseases and a number of diseases with respect to which we would all like to have some progress made in the scientific area.

It has been said that these new iPS techniques make redundant the work in embryo research. That is absolutely not true. It is very early days, and a lot can go wrong. However, it shows a lot of promise. Hopefully, what will happen is that these two streams of research will be allowed to progress and, through them, information learnt from one field and the other will inform progress towards cures for some of these debilitating diseases, which are widespread within our population.

So, rather than seeing this bill as something that inhibits life, I see it as something that enables life. It is a very complex issue. I respect those members who have an alternative point of view and see it in a totally different context, but I hope that we can pass this legislation and, in doing so, we will enable research to progress. The techniques developed today will probably be obsolete down the track. I know they will: that has happened to some of my own research. A young person came to me the other day and talked about some research I did 20 years ago—and referred to it as 'ancient history', which did not make me feel too good. This person also asked, 'Why would you do it that way? We have got this technique, this technique and that technique.' I had to explain to this person that none of those techniques was available at the time and, in fact, some of those discoveries were progressed because of the work I had done 20 years ago.

That is how research progresses. What we use in the future may well not be what we use today but, by setting up the road block and cutting off this avenue, I think we do humanity a disservice. For those reasons, I urge support of the bill.

The Hon. R.G. KERIN (Frome) (16:46): I congratulate the member for Taylor on her speech. I think she covered the topic very well. There are two churches in my electorate that gave petitions to me in a format that cannot be tabled in the house, and I would like to mention those two petitions so that those people know that their concerns have been both put forward and listened to.

The first petition is from the Lighthouse Church, which is the Port Pirie Uniting Church. It has 53 signatures and says:

We, the undersigned members of the Lighthouse Church Port Pirie Uniting, wish to express our concern to you, and our rejection of any approval to experiment on human embryos regardless of how they are created.

Then it goes through a few things and finishes with this:

It is our understanding that research using adult stem cells has developed with some success. We would encourage parliament to peruse these research endeavours and reject the bill under consideration.

I thank those people for putting their point of view. One of the issues with that petition is the last paragraph. I have had far more opportunity than these people to speak to scientists, and others, and that part of the argument is perhaps debatable.

The other petition carries in excess of 200 signatures and is from St Mark's Parish at Port Pirie and Crystal Brook. It states:

Human embryos are human—no matter how they are created. The respect for human life belongs to all members of the human family. This includes the aged, the infirmed, the disabled and, at the very beginning of life's journey—the embryo.

The bill under debate in the state parliament proposes to allow human embryos to be created by cloning with the expressed intention of destroying them for research purposes. Human life should never be devalued in such a way. The embryo is not a second-class citizen.

We have all heard how the scientific community hopes to find cures for all sorts of ailments through human cloning and research. To this we say simply that it is never right to take a human life in order to save another. The successful treatments arising out of ethically sound adult stem cell research also tells us that experimentation is unnecessary.

I have taken notice of the last sentences of both groups, and it is one of the areas about which I have asked questions. I have been to briefings and read up on it, and the alternative is not as proven as has been put to these people, that is, that the alternative is proven. There is a big question mark about that.

I think the other issue is the practicality of defeating this bill. After what has happened in the federal arena and in the other states, and the doubt over the Corporations Law, there is no doubt that this research will occur. It is just a matter of where it will happen. I would be somewhat concerned that, if we do not go ahead, we will lose research, and very good research, in this state and not gain the benefit that those who would oppose the bill would like us to gain. That, in itself, is a worry.

Through Bio Innovation SA, which I set up in the late 1990s, I have had enormous access to the research community in this state and probably more opportunity than any other member to speak with the research community over a long time. I have always followed with interest what they are doing in biosciences in health, agriculture and the environment. I think there is still a mentality in Australia that says scientists are mad people in coats. We only have to look at the member for Taylor to know that is not right. She is not quite mad. I have great respect for our scientific community, and I think the lack of trust in science, whether it has to do with GM foods or a whole range of other things, is not as justified as many would try to argue.

In addition to that are the benefits, and potential future benefits, that this research can bring for mankind—for many suffering people and for a lot of people not yet born. It is really hard to not take that into account fully. There is the ethical side of it, but part of the ethics, from where I see it, is very much about the benefits that this can bring to a range of people.

I have great respect for both sides of the argument, and certainly the signatories on the two petitions that I have. I know a large number of those people and I respect them greatly. The only thing I would say to them is almost by way of apology for not following what they would like me to do. I have had an opportunity to take into account their point of view and I have spoken to people about their statements of concern but, given the weight of those arguments, I have decided to support the bill.

As the member for Taylor said, we have a responsibility to research to try to understand both sides of the argument. As I also said, defeating this bill practically achieves nothing because of where we sit in the federal scheme of things. I support the bill with the reservation that I am not doing what some of my constituents want. They are people I greatly value, but the loss of research is the fact that swings me to support the bill, because we achieve virtually nothing if this bill is defeated.

Mrs REDMOND (Heysen) (16:53): It is my pleasure to stand and make a contribution on this bill. It is always interesting to hear the contributions of members on bills such as this where there is a free or conscience vote for every member of the chamber. I often think that it is some of the best work that we do in this place, because too often party lines (and I do not want to make this a political discussion), particularly on the other side, do control the way people look at things. Indeed, I have stood in this place on a number of occasions making speeches where members on the other side are nodding their agreement with my comments, but when it comes to the vote their vote does not go along with that agreement.

The first thing I want to say about these bills is that I really doubt the capacity of any legislature anywhere to keep up with developments in science. I say that on the basis that probably 100 hundred years ago things progressed in this chamber in a relatively slow fashion, but our scientific knowledge is growing at such a rate that I do not think we can possibly hope as a legislature to keep up with developments. In fact, I heard the member for Enfield in his contribution (which I listened to from my room this morning) talking about the sorts of issues that arise with that very problem.

I quickly want to go back over the statutory history as to how we come to be here and then look at my understanding—limited as it is—of the nuts and bolts of this legislation. This piece of legislation, I think, realistically has its emanation out of the commonwealth legislation of 2002. At that time the commonwealth passed two pieces of legislation: they were the prohibition of human cloning and the research involving human embryos—both acts of the commonwealth parliament in 2002. We then addressed in 2003 two bills which had identical names. My recollection of those bills is that the primary purpose of them was that, for some time in this and other states around the country, we had what we all know as IVF.

People who had fertility problems as a couple were able to address that using this process whereby an egg was fertilised, not necessarily within the woman's womb, but they were able to overcome their fertility problems. The specific nature of what we dealt with in 2003, it is my recollection, was that when people undergo IVF processes usually more eggs are harvested than are needed because they never know when they are undergoing the process how many eggs will be needed to effect a successful pregnancy and bring a pregnancy to fruition. There were these eggs that were supplemental to the number that turned out to be required.

The main thrust of that legislation we dealt with back then was to do with this issue: 'Well, do we simply flush those away and be rid of them?', which was the current process, or, 'Is it legitimate, ethical, allowable and moral, and is there a religious problem for us in deciding to use those eggs which are surplus to requirements?' When the federal parliament passed its legislation it was passed on the basis that there had to then be a review of that legislation and its workings within, I think, two years. A Federal Court judge (who I think is now deceased) by the name of Lockhart was engaged to undertake that review. He undertook that review during 2005 and presented a report.

At the end of October, I think, 2006, the then senator Kay Patterson introduced some legislation into the commonwealth parliament which basically took up most of the 54 recommendations made by Professor Lockhart in his report and which was consequential upon that original legislation. The federal parliament then debated that legislation and passed it; and, like this chamber, it debated it as a free or a conscience vote issue. Many people from mixes of parties were voting each way on that legislation. That having been done, we now face the question in this parliament as to whether we should then follow what the commonwealth has already implemented in that legislation; and, indeed, some other states (notably not Western Australia at this stage) have introduced legislation which flows directly in line with the federal legislation.

At the outset, I want to say how grateful I am to the Parliament Research Library. A paper was presented by Dr Zoë Gill, although she acknowledges various other people within the research library, such as Eva Dimopoulos, Dr John Weste and David Brooks who also had input into the preparation of this paper. It was a very useful paper to read in preparing and trying to think my way through the issues in relation to this particular matter. The other person who has had any input at all into my knowledge of this is Professor Grant Sutherland, who was generous enough with his time to give those of us on this side of the house way back in 2003 some information. He came to speak to us as a group, not to put any moral position to us but simply to explain the science. Without having the benefit of the member for Taylor's scientific background, I am grateful to have any help with that scientific background.

In terms of the actual proposal before us today, I have to say that I do not have a great deal of difficulty with it. It seems to me that the original idea of in vitro fertilisation was probably more contentious. But that is long gone. I remember young people who are now in their 20s having arrived via in vitro fertilisation, so it has been with us for a fair while and certainly before I was ever applying my mind to the issue. My understanding is limited. I was but a lawyer, but my understanding is that the basic process was that eggs were harvested from a female and combined, either within or without the body, with the sperm of a male, creating an embryo, which was a reproductive embryo, and that was then placed into the womb and allowed to develop in a normal way.

I understand that is not at all what we are dealing with here. My understanding from the parliamentary research paper is that we are dealing with a completely different sort of embryo. Those reproductive embryos are eggs fertilised by sperm. What we are dealing with here are research embryos that are created through technical manipulation of egg cells in a laboratory, but no sperm is involved and no sperm is required for the process.

I further understand from the research paper that there are two methods of production of research embryos. There is the one that we are concerned with here, which is called, in its long title, somatic cell nuclear transfer. That process involves introducing DNA into an egg cell. It might be DNA from one's own body into an egg cell and allowing it to grow. The other method is called pathogenesis, where no DNA is added. According to what I have read, it is still unclear whether that method can produce viable embryos.

As I understand it, what we are dealing with is a process whereby an egg is used in combination with DNA to produce a therapeutic cell. Like other members, including the member for Taylor, I have been somewhat inundated by people from either side. In fact, I was discussing with the member for Enfield the fact that reality probably lies somewhere between the two extremes of thought on this matter. On one side there are people who think that if we vote in favour of it we will be damned for all eternity because it is the destruction of human life and, on the other side, there are people who are promising relatively quick solutions to some diseases that afflict our community.

Like the member for Enfield, I come to the conclusion that the truth probably lies somewhere in between and it is neither one thing or the other but a mixture of both. I do not face any moral dilemma about this particular scenario. It seems to me that we are simply dealing with an egg. It is not a fertilised egg. Therefore, I have no religious difficulty about the idea of the destruction of human life because this is not ever potentially the destruction of human life. It is simply an egg. I think it is no different from my becoming a blood donor and giving my blood cells and platelets—and whatever else is taken when I give blood. I think it is as straightforward as that.

I cannot see on any argument that one could suggest that this involves the destruction of human life because we do not have a fertilised egg in the process. There is no sperm involved. The member for Enfield in his contribution asked why a woman would go through this process. Indeed, I was having a private conversation with him about the issue. Why would a woman go through the process of harvesting eggs? In previous legislation we have allowed for the use of eggs which are residual after successful pregnancy with in vitro fertilisation. Rather than simply flush them away we passed legislation to enable them to be used for research. My answer to the member for Enfield's question about why a woman would do this is that I see a vast community benefit in doing it.

Indeed, in the research paper prepared by the parliamentary research library there is some mention of the various things that might be helped by research under this method including Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease—which is dear to my heart because I am looking down the gun barrel, having lost my mother and grandmother with Alzheimer's disease—spinal cord injury—and I acted for a lot of people who had sustained spinal cord injury—stroke, burns, heart disease, type 1 diabetes, osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, muscular dystrophy and liver disease. I suggest that every member in this chamber knows someone amongst their family and friends who is affected by one of those diseases. It seems to me that that alone is sufficient motivation for a woman to say that she is happy to make eggs available.

I am no longer in a position where I am able to make a donation, but I would have no qualms whatsoever making a donation. No doubt, there would be some discomfort, but there is discomfort in giving blood. There is discomfort in many things we do, but for the greater good of the community I can honestly say that, if I were able to do so, I would happily provide eggs for the purpose of research. I do not have any moral dilemma on this bill because there is no sperm and there is no fertilisation. Therefore, there cannot be conception and human life. On any religious ground, I cannot see where the objection can lie.

This bill simply allows the creation of these embryos. They are called human embryos simply because the egg from which they are created has come from a human being, but it does not mean that they have some sort of humanity: it is simply a cell. This scheme allows for the use of embryos created other than by fertilisation under the terms of a licensing regime in research, training and commercial applications, all controlled under the regime created by the legislation.

I have read the arguments from both sides. I thought that some of the comments were rather emotive. People are often surprised when I say to them, 'I think that the major job I have to do as a member of this parliament is to think.' People always think that being a member of parliament is all about being in here and making fools of ourselves during question time, being on the television or attending functions, but, in my view, the main purpose of a politician is to think about the issues, because everyone's lives are so busy that the people who elected us do not have the time, the resources or the capacity to gather the information to make a reasoned decision about all the complexities of things that confront them every day.

I am not a great believer in the idea of a democracy whereby everyone makes an instant decision on things, usually from an uninformed basis or a gut reaction to something, and everyone votes yes or no—citizens' initiated referenda and so on. I think my job as the representative of my electorate is to do the best I can to gather all the information, consider all the arguments, apply the best thinking I can to what has been put before me and come to the conclusion that I think is the best. And so, in my view, my job is to think. Having thought about this, I have reached the conclusion that this is something that we should support.

I mention one more thing and it is something the member for Morphett very kindly put in front of me just a few minutes ago. It is from the University of Adelaide, in particular Professor Robert Norman, who is the Director of the Robinson Institute at the University of Adelaide. It only arrived literally at 10 to 3 this afternoon. I will not read the detail of his letter, but he is writing on behalf of the leaders of the newly established Robinson Institute for Research in Reproductive Health and Regenerative Medicine at the University of Adelaide. He leads over 150 research and clinical scientists who bring more than $25 million per annum of competitive money into the state for medical research. On behalf of that group, Professor Norman has written to say:

We urge State Parliamentarians to support the current proposal to amend the Bill regarding stem cells and embryo research...The success of the bill is essential for University and Hospital based researchers to continue their studies into the use of stem cells and embryos for cures for diseases including cancer, neurological and blood disorders, infertility and renal disease to name but a few.

I have not concentrated on the economic side of the argument because I think it is more a question of moral and ethical views, and, for some people, a religious dilemma. As I said, my conclusion on a religious basis is that I have no difficulty with this bill because, by any means, it is not taking a human life.

I heard the member for Mitchell talk about the fundamental principle of not taking human life, but I would suggest that, even on the interpretation of Pope Pius IX in 1680 (or whenever he said it was), it would not be considered to be a human life. It is a cell with DNA added which, potentially, can be used for therapeutic purposes once we do some further research. So, quite apart from the economic argument that has been put, I indicate my support for the bill.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (17:12): I will probably make one of my shortest speeches in this house. I was not going to say anything at all, but I do not think it is right that any person should be in this place and not declare his or her hand. I will not be supporting this bill, but I have a lot of sympathy for it. I have had many discussions about this, particularly with the Lutheran fraternity in my electorate, of whom 75 per cent are very strong believers. I lost my own parents to Alzheimer's, and Parkinson's disease was quite prevalent in the Venning family many years ago. All these things are raised.

I cannot understand why many of these embryos, which are already in the system—because, for their own reasons, couples who put them there to make a family no longer want them—are discarded. I have never understood why they were not picked up and used. In my 18 years in this place, I have spent a lot of time in my newsletters and other things dealing with issues similar to this, and this is the hardest one. I have never voted for euthanasia, for which I also have a lot of sympathy, because I could never convince my electorate that that was the thing to do.

I believe that the bottom line at all times for any person in this house is that each of us represents our constituency, and when it is clear, as it is in this case, that my electors do not want me to support it, I will not. However, I have to say that I have a lot of sympathy for this issue. I appreciate all the advice that has been given to me over many years from the Right to Life Association and other people. I notice Mrs Phillips in the gallery. She has always given me good advice on this matter and we have had some good debate, but, in the end, I represent my people and I will not be supporting the legislation.

The Hon. J.D. HILL (Kaurna—Minister for Health, Minister for the Southern Suburbs, Minister Assisting the Premier in the Arts) (17:15): I will start by thanking all members who have contributed to this debate. I have listened to most, if not all the speakers—and I apologise to those whom I did not hear earlier today; I had another function on—and I congratulate all of them. I think it has been a very civilised debate. It has been a debate without rancour, without point-scoring and without name-calling. Members have expressed their opinions—

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The Hon. J.D. HILL: No, thank you. Members have expressed themselves clearly and passionately, and they have articulated their points of view. I agree with the member for Heysen that conscience vote issues can be very difficult and troubling for members of parliament, but they do make the most interesting debates, and they do make the most interesting times in this house. I think people do speak about how they are feeling, and that has been very good.

As a proponent of this legislation, I am making it clear that I support the legislation. I want to go through a number of the issues, just for the record, which pick up some of the things that other members have raised, I hope for the point of clarity for the historic record in case anybody in the future wants to understand what was going on.

Since the statutes amendment bill of 2007 was tabled in the parliament—and that is about a year ago—there have been developments in science and regulation that I recognise that members of parliament have taken into account in this debate. First, I would like to summarise some of the points I made in the second reading speech that are pertinent to the debate that we have had. The purposes of the changes proposed by the bill are:

to streamline current processes for embryo research licensing and to strengthen oversight;

to extend the scope to regulate the creation, development and use of all embryos, not just excess ART embryos and to regulate the use of donated eggs;

to alter the definition of an embryo to reflect the point at which fertilisation is complete;

to extend the criteria for licences issued for research and training to include the use of the embryos not created by fertilisation;

to permit a licence for research techniques such as somatic cell nuclear transfer and parthenogenesis;

to clarify what constitutes proper consent by donors and an embryo that is unsuitable for implantation;

to strengthen and extend consent provisions to include all donors whose genetic material is incorporated in the cells used; and

to increase penalties for breaching prohibitions.

Some things will not change under this legislation. Human reproductive cloning will remain prohibited in Australia. Stringent licensing and transparent public reporting requirements will continue to apply to research, diagnostic testing and training using human eggs and embryos. Strict oversight and monitoring and transparent accountability requirements will apply to laboratories. Compliance with national NHMRC ethical guidelines on the use of assisted reproductive technology and clinical practice and research, as updated in 2007, will remain mandated.

If the bill is passed, the public can be confident that scientists and researchers will operate under a nationally consistent and responsible regulatory and licensing framework according to nationally endorsed legal and ethical standards. As I said in October last year, the national scheme needs to be responsive to developments in technology and shifts in community attitudes and standards. There have been developments in technology in the meantime that members will want to consider.

First, I turn to embryonic stem cells and induced pluripotent stem cells. Embryonic stem cell research seeks to generate stem cells for research using eggs but no sperm to enable development of cell lines genetically matched to a person with a particular disease or injury, enabling research into causes and potential treatments for their condition.

After 20 years, many hurdles have been overcome, and this year, embryonic stem cell therapies are undergoing clinical trials in humans. In 2007, scientists announced the production of human induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) through a new technique that artificially derives pseudo-embryonic stem cells—not embryos—from non pluripotent adult somatic cells by gene manipulation and stimulation. These iPSCs are not regulated by Australia's research involving human embryo acts.

Reports in the internationally respected journal Nature tell us that two decades of embryonic stem cell research have built a sound knowledge base, which is now being applied to help fast-track iPSC research. Although iPSCs may be a promising tool for basic research, disease modelling and drug trials, they remain an unknown quantity. iPSCs are genetically modified, and the use of genetic alterations and viruses in their creation makes them less predictable and risks causing tumours.

Professor Peter Rathjen informed the briefing session for members of parliament in April that that the derivation of iPSCs takes somatic cells backwards to their original form in the embryo, an abnormal process which may generate abnormal cells, whereas the development of ESCs follows the normal direction of developing early cells into mature cells in a controlled manner. He advised that much more work is needed before iPSCs could prove safe or useful to humans.

Australian researcher, Professor Alan Trounson, who heads the world's biggest stem cell research project at the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, has advised that stem cells derived from skin have not been fully investigated and are still far from ready for clinical use because of their potential to cause cancer. Professor Trounson advised that embryonic stem cells, which do not carry the same risk of mutation, are currently the only option for therapeutic trials and that many scientists will continue to research embryonic stem cells because they are the gold standard.

Majority scientific opinion seems to be that ESC research should continue while the problems with iPSCs are being investigated. ESCs can address questions about early human development that iPSCs cannot. Research with both iPSCs and embryonic stem cells may eventually lead to the development of patient-specific stem cell lines suitable for clinical use.

I now turn to infertility research. There is another very important area of research that uses human embryos but where iPSCs cannot be substituted. Embryo research has for decades been critically important in maintaining and improving the efficacy, quality and safety of infertility treatment procedures and minimising the risks to couples and children born of assisted reproductive medicine.

South Australia hosts a recognised centre of excellence for infertility research at the University of Adelaide and has been a national and even a world leader in research to improve assisted reproductive medicine outcomes. This research has for decades relied on the generous donation of excess embryos by couples being treated for infertility.

South Australian laws currently prevent embryologists in reproductive medicine clinics from stimulating human eggs to divide and grow without fertilisation through a process called parthenogenesis, so they can be used in training and trialling new techniques. The proposed amendments permit parthenogenesis and will allow reproductive medicine research and training to use activated human eggs instead of embryos.

I now turn to the issue of national consistency. In June 2007, following the passage of the commonwealth amendments, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing advised that he had revoked the previous declarations that made equivalent state and territory laws 'corresponding acts' for the purposes of the national scheme. This meant that the NHMRC Embryo Licensing Committee could no longer issue research licences under the state acts until those acts were amended to be again corresponding with the national legislative scheme.

State and territory premiers and chief ministers signed an intergovernmental agreement at COAG undertaking to table amendment bills with the aim of ensuring ongoing national consistency. The Victorian, New South Wales, Queensland, Tasmanian and ACT parliaments have since amended their equivalent legislation, and the Western Australian and South Australian parliaments did table amendment bills. The Northern Territory has no equivalent legislation.

Members would be aware that the Western Australian parliament did not pass amendments to their equivalent laws. As it has ceased to be a corresponding act and has not been amended, the commonwealth's NHMRC licensing committee cannot issue a licence for research using human embryos under the Western Australian act. It is unclear whether NHMRC inspectors could inspect and monitor compliance with prohibitions and research requirements by Western Australian laboratories.

South Australia would be in a similar position to Western Australia if the amendment bill were defeated in the parliament. Since 12 June last year, when the South Australian act ceased to be corresponding, researchers regulated under the state act have not been able to apply to the licensing committee for a licence to conduct any embryo research at all. However, South Australian researchers regulated under the commonwealth act have been able to apply for a licence under the amended commonwealth legislation to conduct research that is currently not permitted by the unamended state legislation.

If parliament does not pass this amendment bill, the researchers who are clearly operating within a corporation will be able to apply for a licence to conduct research that is legal under the commonwealth acts. The status of researchers operating within the university environment will remain uncertain. The commonwealth has advised that the NHMRC licensing committee would have to consider an application for a licence from a researcher in a corporate entity. However, if the state legislation does not permit the research proposed, even if a licence is granted under the commonwealth act, there is uncertainty whether researchers can carry out research in a manner that conflicts with the state legislation.

It remains the case that no South Australian researcher has sought a licence to conduct human embryo research. However, researchers have foreshadowed interest in seeking a licence for improving techniques and outcomes in reproductive medicine in the near future. So, legal clarity and national consistency remain critical. Whether or not the South Australian parliament passes the bill, the commonwealth act provides for a further review in three years, allowing for continuing parliamentary oversight into the future.

I refer to a number of issues that were raised. The issue of increased penalties for prohibited practices was raised by the member for Bragg in her speech. She referred to penalties for prohibited offences as 10 years' imprisonment. I remind and clarify for members that these amendments to the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction Act 2003 (clause 7, substitution of part 2), increase penalties for prohibited practices being considered in this place from 10 years' imprisonment to 15 years' imprisonment, consistent with the commonwealth legislation. Prohibited practices which, if passed, would attract a 15-year term of imprisonment are:

creating a human embryo by a process of fertilisation of a human egg by a sperm outside the body of a woman for a purpose other than achieving a pregnancy in a woman;

intentionally creating or developing a human embryo by a process of fertilisation of a human egg by a human sperm outside the body of a woman; and the human embryo contains material provided by more than two persons, unless under licence;

developing a human embryo outside the body of a woman for a period of more than 14 days, regardless of how it was developed; and

altering the genome of a human cell in such a way that the alteration is inheritable by descendants of the human whose cell was altered and, in altering the genome, the person intended the alteration to be inheritable by descendants whose cell was altered.

Increased penalties also relate to the prohibited practice of trading, importing and exporting of gametes (oocytes or sperm). In addition, the human tissue acts nationally and the Transplantation and Anatomy Act in South Australia prohibit payment for any organs or tissues, including eggs.

Members also made a number of assumptions about sources of embryonic stem cells that were factually incorrect. Although stem cells can come from a variety of sources (for example, umbilical cord, bone, etc.), the most valuable source of stem cells found to date is from the embryo. This is because stem cells from the embryo are able to develop into a much greater number and diversity of cell types than stem cells derived from other sources. This is why stem cells are an exceedingly valuable resource.

Many members have suggested in their contribution that the only source of embryonic stem cells are cloned embryos. This is, however, not correct. Stem cells can be yielded from embryos that have been artificially grown in Petri dishes. In this way, such embryos are created and grown under the same conditions as embryos grown for IVF purposes. This yields a valuable supply of stem cells that can be used for a variety of therapeutic research purposes.

Stem cells can also be derived from somatic cell nucleus transfer or therapeutically cloned embryos. Therapeutically cloned embryos are created in a multi-step process. First, an egg is taken from person A, and the nucleus, which contains the DNA of an egg, is removed. Secondly, a cell from person B is selected. The nucleus of this selected cell is removed and placed into the egg (now containing no nucleus) from person A. Thirdly, the egg containing the transplanted DNA is given a short electrical stimulation which, effectively, tricks the egg into thinking that it has been fertilised. At this stage, the cloned embryo is treated and cultured like any other embryo grown outside the body.

Ultimately, like the non-cloned embryo, the cloned embryo will be able to yield valuable stem cells which can be used in many different research applications. However, the one important difference is that the cloned embryo would contain DNA that is derived from somebody other than the donor of the egg. In the example given, the DNA in the stem cells would be a genetic match with person B, rather than person A. This, therefore, makes a very important type of research possible that is not available from non-cloned embryos.

Just as when whole organs are transplanted in a human body, one of the complicating factors with using adult stem cells is the possibility of rejection of the foreign cells from the recipient. By cloning stem cells, they are effectively being tailor-made to the donor's genetic constitution.

Therefore, cloned embryonic stem cells open up the possibility that research can occur for developing stem cell therapies tailored to individuals, which are more likely to be successful. This type of research cannot currently be reliably performed with stem cells from sources other than from cloned embryos.

I turn now to the issue that was raised by at least one member: who will donate eggs for stem cell research? Under the proposed changes, women who undergo assisted reproductive treatment will be able to donate surplus eggs for cloning. At the moment, surplus eggs are able to be donated for research. However, eggs are only able to be fertilised for the purpose of creating embryos intended to be used to form a pregnancy. This means that, at the moment, surplus eggs can be used for research excluding that relating to stem cells.

The proposed changes will permit surplus eggs to be activated for the purpose of creating embryos to harvest embryonic stem cells. Women with sufficient emotional motivation could include women who have significant personal attachments to people afflicted with debilitating or life-threatening conditions or diseases that would potentially benefit from stem cell therapy. Such people could include their family friends or even themselves.

It will not include women wishing to profit financially. Limitations have been put in place to enable women to be compensated for acceptable associated costs surrounding donation but to prevent the generation of profit. It will not involve a black market whereby women who want money can secretly donate eggs for fees. Establishments that engage in any form of research involving embryos, including stem cell studies, must prove adherence to strict standards during routine comprehensive auditing procedures to ensure that licences are not revoked.

Without licences, research cannot be performed and many forms of funding are not supplied which provides a strong motivation to comply with strict licensing requirements. Research centres are also required to publish all relevant data. The more research that is published, the more competitive is the research institute and, therefore, the more likely to secure future funding. Results that have been obtained in improper ways cannot be published. This provides further motivation for complying with strict licensing requirements.

I turn now to the creation and use of hybrid embryos for research purposes. The member for Morphett claimed that my second reading explanation may have given incorrect information regarding the inclusion of the creation of hybrid embryos. The creation of hybrid embryos, as indicated in my second reading explanation, is only permitted with a licence and for the purpose of the diagnostic testing of sperm within an ART clinic.

The bill (like the commonwealth legislation) prohibits the creation and use of hybrid or chimeric embryos for any other purpose and attracts a term of imprisonment of 15 years. In recommendation 24, the Lockhart review recommended allowing hybrid or chimeric embryos so as to reduce the number of eggs required. However, the commonwealth parliament did not adopt the recommendation, and I am not moving it in this legislation.

Even if the state act were amended to allow for the creation and use of hybrid or chimeric embryos for embryonic stem cell research, the NHMRC could not issue a licence because the creation and use of hybrids is prohibited under the commonwealth act (and there are heavy penalties increased from 10 to 15 years as I have already said) except under licence for diagnostic sperm testing in an accredited ART facility.

I have received today a letter that should have been sent to all members from Professor Robert Norman, the Director of the Robinson Institute and I would just like to read that out to members of this place. It is dated 29 October, and it states:

Dear Honourable Member,

Statutes Amendment (Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and Regulation of Research Involving Human Embryos) Bill 2008.

I am writing on behalf of the leaders of the newly established Robinson Institute for research in reproductive health and regenerative medicine at the University of Adelaide. I lead over 150 research and clinical scientists who bring more than $25 million per annum of competitive money into the State for medical research. I represent the University of Adelaide's Research Centre for Reproductive Health, Centre for Stem Cell Research and the Centre for Early Origins of Health and Disease, also incorporating (but not representing) researchers from the Hanson Institute, IMVS, and the Women's and Children's, Royal Adelaide, Queen Elizabeth and Lyell McEwin hospitals.

We urge State Parliamentarians to support the current proposal to amend the Bill regarding stem cells and embryo research (Prohibition of Human Cloning For Reproduction and Regulation of Research Involving Human Embryos). The success of this bill is essential for University and Hospital based researchers to continue their studies into use of stem cells and embryos for cures for diseases including cancer, neurological and blood disorders, infertility and renal disease to name but a few. Therapeutic cloning would allow patients or groups to have personalised stem cells which minimise their need for immunosuppression and would allow disease specific cell lines to be made from patients which could be used to study a disease and test drugs. In addition, elements of the Bill are essential for us to continue to improve embryo culture conditions and maximise outcomes for embryos from couples undergoing IVF and fertility treatment.

We welcome recent development in human adult stem cells and induced pluripotent stem cells as being of great potential for future breakthroughs but, as scientists and clinicians, we recognise that we need access to all technologies to adapt rapidly to scientific advances. Although promising, all scientists including the inventors of iPL cells, agree it is too early to rule in or out any one type of stem cell technology. In addition these adult derived stem cells are genetically modified with viruses. They contain multiple copies of a particular transcription factor, they do not have the same expression pattern as embryonic stem cells and we do not know if they can do everything embryonic stem cells can do. The transcription factors may also be oncogenic.

We are the leaders in reproductive research in Australia and have several researchers in stem cell biology who are highly innovative and internationally competitive in their field. If the Bill does not proceed through State Parliament our research will be severely curtailed and will place South Australian medical research at a disadvantage compared with some interstate colleagues and international competitors.

Our members are representative of the full range of differing ethical, moral and religious views found in the general community. We share our research and discoveries with our peers in medicine and science as well as with our communities and families. We submit all our research proposals to ethics committees based on NHMRC guidelines and some of our work is regulated by State and Federal statutes regarding reproductive technology. As a result, we are well aware of community opinion regarding issues in this bill and obey all regulations and laws regarding our research. We have no desire to be involved in research that the community considers to be unethical or inappropriate and therefore wish to see this Bill passed so we can practise our research with the support of the population of South Australia.

Yours sincerely.

Professor Robert Norman

Director

Robinson Institute.

On behalf of the Robinson Institute, Research Centre for Reproductive Health (Associate Professors Jeremy Thompson and Sarah Robertson), Centre for Stem Cell Research (Associate Professors Mark Nottle and Stan Gronthos), Centre for Early Origins of Health and Disease (Professor Julie Owens) and Dr Michelle Lane (NHMRC Senior Fellow and Scientific Director Repromed).

That finishes my remarks other than to say that I want to thank all members once again for their contributions to this debate. I particularly want to thank the officers in SA Health who worked on this over a long period of time, and they include in particular Jean Murray, Kathy Williams, Rebecca Horgan and Cheryl Schelbach, and I also thank the parliamentary counsel, Rita Bogna, for her assistance. I commend this bill to the house.

The house divided on the second reading:

Majority of 12 for the ayes.

Second reading thus carried.

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 3 passed.

Clause 4.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Madam Chair, standing orders prevent me from participating in the second and third reading debates of this bill, so I crave your indulgence and that of the committee in speaking to this clause, which I guess is the first clause that attempts to establish a distinction between therapeutic and reproductive cloning, which goes to the heart of what the bill seeks to achieve.

I spoke at length in my contribution to the 2003 debate on why I thought the human embryo should be afforded protection from scientific exploitation. I will not repeat those arguments: they are as valid today as they were in 2003. I encourage any members interested in the reasons for my opposition to the exploitation of embryos to read that speech.

The central argument for the 2003 legislation that allowed destructive research on embryos was that it was restricted to so-called surplus embryos that were going to die, anyway; that is, these were embryos that were surplus to IVF programs. Why, the argument went, might not some good come of these embryos that were going to die, anyway? I think many members who supported the previous legislation did so because they were convinced by this argument.

What we are presented with in this bill, and what is new about this bill, is that it will allow the specific creation of an embryo by the process of somatic cell nuclear transfer, that is, cloning, for destructive research. These embryos will be created for one reason only: the harvesting of their stem cells. When this debate first erupted onto the public square, this was widely considered if not unethical at least morally dubious. The federal parliamentary committee that first looked at this entire issue divided on whether to permit destructive research on human embryos left over from IVF programs but was unanimous in its opposition to the specific creation of embryos for destructive research. In a little over four short years, what was widely considered beyond the pale is now being put to us to permit. The principal reason for this is the promise of cures for a range of ailments.

I think that some of the proponents of destructive embryonic research have been perhaps a little cynical in their wildly optimistic promises of cures. Information has been distributed already on why we might be sceptical about these promises. Even if embryonic stem cells have the potential to create cures, such cures are likely to be many years away and are unlikely to be of any benefit to those who are suffering from those ailments today. It seems to me worse than dishonest to offer a false hope to people who are suffering. It is little more than snake oil salesmanship.

Arguments of cures are, of course, attractive. It is easy to put aside what seem just mere ethical quibbles in order to achieve what we think might be a good outcome. But our way of life is built on certain moral principles, and this parliament is charged with a duty to uphold those principles. When we fail in this trust, it will be the most vulnerable who will suffer. The understanding that all human beings, by virtue of their being a member of the human species, have an inherent dignity is a cornerstone of our law. When in the past this principle has been set aside, even under strictly controlled conditions, disaster invariably follows.

I understand this may sound alarmist, and I respect members who in good faith want to see cures for some of the terrible diseases which afflict those we love. However, I ask members to remember that the ends never justify the means. You cannot put aside important moral principles that some good may come of them.

To conclude, I would like to echo the member for Enfield's remarks in the second reading debate when he questioned where the egg cells—oocytes, I think is the scientific name—that are needed for therapeutic cloning will come from. Members will be aware of the difficulty ART providers have in attracting sperm donors. As the member for Enfield pointed out, sperm donation is non-invasive, whereas egg harvesting is highly invasive and involves the use of very powerful drugs.

It seems to me that, despite the prohibition contained in the legislation on the trade of reproductive material, women will have to be provided with some inducement to undergo such invasive procedures, and it would seem to me that the women who would be attracted to some inducements are likely to be the poor and the vulnerable; and it will be poor and vulnerable women who will effectively become providers of the egg cells needed for so-called therapeutic cloning.

With those words, I thank the committee and the minister for their indulgence in allowing me to make a contribution to this debate that I otherwise would not have been able to make.

Clause passed.

Clauses 5 and 6 passed.

Clause 7.

Mr KENYON: I move:

Page 9, new clause 19A—Delete subclause (3) and Note.

This amendment seeks to prevent the hybrid embryos—the animal egg and a human sperm. I do not think I am going to put forward a very cogent argument here, but it just seems wrong to me that we would be contemplating this. It seems to me that this is just another increment and we are falling away step by step from our respect for ourselves as a species, if you want to say that—as humanity. It is very straightforward. I do not know that it is particularly well thought through, and it is something that I would certainly oppose. Hence, the amendment I have moved.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I rise in support of the member for Newland's amendment, which seeks to delete subclause (3) of clause 19A, which provides the offence of creating a human embryo. Subclauses (1) and (2) provide that it is an offence to create a hybrid embryo. Subclause (3) goes on to provide that the creation of hybrid embryos would be unlawful unless you have a licence, and it provides the circumstances under which a licence might be provided for the creation of hybrid embryos. The amendment of the member for Newland simply deletes that subclause (3), which provides for a licence. While I acknowledge there is general community support for embryonic stem cell research, for destructive embryo research, I think there is strong community feeling against the creation of hybrid embryos, that is, embryos that are created with genetic material from both humans and non-humans.

I think that such a practice goes beyond the pale. I do not think there should be circumstances under which the creation of such embryos should be allowed, and I think there would be strong community feeling against such a practice. On those grounds, I support the member for Newland's amendment. As I say, it simply seeks to delete that subclause (3), which would provide for a means by which licences might be able to be provided for the creation of these hybrid embryos. I also point out that the creation of hybrid embryos would present us with enormous ethical difficulties in establishing the exact status of those embryos. I support the amendment, and I ask the committee for its support.

The Hon. J.D. HILL: I will address the issue raised by the members. I understand that it is a sensitive issue. My advice is that this technique is used to test the quality of the sperm in IVF clinics. At the moment, the only way the scientists have of doing this is to inspect the sperm visually, and, of course, that is not a very good test at all. This demonstrates whether it has sufficient potency, in effect, to create life. In fact, it aids the creation of life. If this were to be passed, more women who go to IVF clinics for treatment would be successful in their treatments because the failure rate would be less.

In effect, it has the advantage of helping create a human life. It is just to test that the embryo created cannot last for longer than 24 hours. That is the point at which the test is completed, and the development does not last beyond that. I understand that it is a moral thing for people, but it is a practical thing that is necessary for IVF clinics in order to undertake the appropriate testing to ensure the sperm that is given is good quality.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I cannot support this amendment. The need to assess sperm quality has been a part of both veterinary and medical science for many years. Certainly, it has been my experience to assess sperm quality through a microscope, and if a better technique is available, whether for veterinary or in this case human medicine, I would strongly support that. The member for Playford spoke about the difficulties in obtaining human eggs, and that is precisely the reason why I strongly support what the British Labour government and many other governments around the world have done, that is, allow the use of evacuated animal ova to then enable a somatic cell nuclear transfer process to take place to create hybrid embryos, which would then be allowed to develop. The stem cells would be harvested but for no longer than 14 days, and that is the important part.

It is all about the development of the techniques and the availability. You restrict that availability by restricting it to the use of human ova. You also restrict the ability to test sperm by supporting this amendment. Therefore, I cannot support this amendment. I wish there were an ability in the bill to go a little further with the use of hybrid embryos.

[Sitting extended beyond 18:00 on motion of Hon. J.D. Hill]

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I appreciate what the minister has said to the committee. However, the bill does not restrict the creation of hybrid embryos for the purposes of assessing sperm quality. It provides:

A licence to create or develop a hybrid embryo can only be issued under Part 2 Division 3 of the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2003—

(a) for the purposes of testing sperm quality—

which is what the minister is saying—

…or

(b) in the case of hybrid embryo created by introducing the nucleus of a human cell into an animal egg—for not longer than 14 days.

Paragraph (b) specifically broadens it beyond the reasons that the minister is putting to the committee of assessing sperm quality. It is broadening it so that it allows for the creation of hybrid embryos, the only proviso being that they are not allowed to develop longer than 14 days.

The Hon. J.D. HILL: The honourable member makes an interesting point. I cannot answer it directly at present, but I give an undertaking that, if the measure is passed, I will look at the matter again between this place and the other place. I am happy to talk to him about it in order to come up with something that might limit it in some way to the set of provisions I have outlined. If there is some greater reason why it needs to be as it is, I will explain that to the other place, as well.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I appreciate the minister's undertaking to do that. However, I urge the committee to support the amendment of the member for Newland, not just leave it to be dealt with between houses.

The Hon. J.D. HILL: I will give the honourable member a better undertaking: I will suspend the committee stage now and I will look at it overnight.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

At 18:04 the house adjourned until 30 October 2008 at 10:30.