HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2008-10-29 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

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

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 28 October 2008. Page 593.)

Mr RAU (Enfield) (12:06): I will finish the remarks I started making yesterday when I canvassed briefly two questions: first, whether I felt capable as an individual of passing judgment on the technological arguments whizzing around the place, and I confess to be sufficiently ignorant and insightful enough of my ignorance to say that the answer to that question is, 'No, I am not capable of making that decision,' so I am resorting to matters of principle or other matters to assist me to come to a decision on how to deal with this matter.

I mentioned yesterday that I have a difficulty with the creation of a potential person as we know a person—and I will not get into the argument about when it becomes a person, whether it is at fertilisation or whatever: that is not my point. The creation of such an opportunity for the express purpose of destroying it, or the collection of the raw material necessary for the creation of a person for the express purpose of destroying it for experimental purposes, does not appeal to me, and something seems inherently wrong with that.

I draw the attention of the house to section 16 of the bill which, as it is designed, would appear to prevent what amounts to a trade in eggs and sperm. For the purposes of this bill, sperm is not particularly important, but eggs are very important. As I was saying yesterday, when the bell rang and terminated my contribution, it has been argued (and to the best of my knowledge, from what I understand from having read things) that the collection of sperm is not an expensive, painful or particularly lengthy process, but that cannot be said for the process involved in the collection of eggs.

Everybody in this place would have a friend, relative or somebody they know who has undergone the IVF process. Never having gone through it myself, as I am not a female, I understand that that process is unpleasant, it takes some considerable time and it is very inconvenient for a whole range of reasons. In other words, it is not the sort of thing a person would sign up to do just for the fun of it, or because somebody asked them and it was a relatively minor inconvenience to accommodate that request.

I asked myself the question: why would any female wish to participate in a process by which eggs would be harvested (as the terminology is) from her? I understand that some women, when asked by an infertile relative or friend, are prepared, on the basis of their love, respect or care for that relative or friend, to go through this process on their behalf to assist them and donate an egg to them in order that they and their partner may be able to have a child. I also understand that to be relatively rare—for very good reason. The experience is not an easy one for someone to go through, not to mention the question of how they might feel about the child when it is ultimately born—but that is another matter.

The point is why would any sane woman wish to go through the process of contributing eggs to a research program which will destroy them? When I ask that question, unfortunately, I come to the conclusion that this legislation creates a market for human eggs. That is what brings new section 16 into focus. New section 16 make it an offence for a person to seek to buy, in effect, an egg from another person. It also makes it an offence for a person to agree to sell an egg to another person. Both sides of any such transaction are prohibited. It is not only prohibited but also creates an offence which involves 15 years gaol for them both.

Without casting any aspersions on the institutions that might be interested in this process and without being too histrionic about it, members of parliament may recall that some of the most respected medical schools and medical practitioners in the United Kingdom were ultimately the customers for Burke and Hare, the famous body snatchers. I am saying that if there is a market and a demand for these eggs, the market will find a way of supplying that demand, even if it means that both the person receiving the eggs and the person contributing them are guilty of an offence under this act. Why would either of them talk? Let us face it, they both could go to gaol for 15 years if they do, so there is good reason not to say anything about it.

I also ask the question: who would be the most likely target if a market in eggs actually develops—in effect, a black market? Of course the answer is people who are desperate, people who are poor and women who are desperately seeking an additional source of income or whatever. People might say, 'Well, that is fantastic, it will not happen.' I hope they are right. I cannot imagine why any woman, other than through reasons of desperation and for financial reward, would go through the process of contributing to a program such as this. I cannot imagine it. That is a reality we have to consider. As much as anything else that worries me because, unfortunately, amongst the people whom I represent, many people are suffering and very short of money. They are the sorts of people who would be placed in a position where, possibly, unscrupulous people might try to take advantage of them. Again, I am not comfortable about that.

The last point I make is that, to some extent, what we do here today is entirely academic because the federal parliament has passed legislation which enables this process to occur. Indeed, I have just gone to the library to look at the operational provision of the federal act. It refers to the corporations power of the commonwealth, which means that any company engaging in this practice—whether in South Australia, New South Wales or Victoria—is able to do it. As I understand it, the only ambiguity is whether a university constitutes a company for the purposes of the federal provisions. I also know that it is not beyond the wit of a lawyer (who might be engaged by a university) to make the fairly simple suggestion that they go to their local solicitor and pull a shelf company off the shelf for $20—which then does what the university wants to do on the university's behalf and attracts all the so-called benefits of the federal legislation.

I point out to members that whatever we do here today in practical terms will have very limited effect. It is a question, nonetheless, that we all should approach as if what we are doing here will have significance and as if we are basically bringing our best endeavours to answer the question of whether or not we agree with it, even though the reality is that what we decide here will make little difference.

I will listen to the rest of the debate with interest. Members might have gleaned that I have serious misgivings about the bill from what I have said. I point out that, largely, whatever we do, will be an academic exercise, for reasons completely beyond the control of this parliament. I think those are probably the only contributions I have to make on it. I do wish to finish, I guess, with the point that I personally have found all the contending scientific material to be confusing and unhelpful—and that is no disrespect to those people who have offered that material: it is a reflection on me. I was as enlightened after listening to all that material as I would have been after sitting down for an afternoon with Albert Einstein and Mr Hawking, who, unfortunately, is suffering from motor neurone disease.

I did not find that helpful. I suspect that, buried amongst that information, there are various shades of meaning and various spins that might be put on it, and I suspect that both sides of the argument did a fair amount of spinning and censoring of the material in order to make their point which, no doubt, is what they were trying to do. In any event, I conclude on those inconclusive remarks.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (12:16): I suppose in the 2½ years that I have been in this chamber many challenges have presented themselves, and one is trying to form an opinion on this bill. I know it has created many confusing thoughts in my mind. The member for Enfield has confessed to his inability to understand all the information that has come through—and I am sorry if I am putting different words in his mouth, but he is nodding in agreement. It is a very difficult bill for members who have gained knowledge in various areas throughout their lives. However, when they are faced with an important bill—and there is no doubt about that—which does impact in so many ways, we try to ensure that we possess all the knowledge we need to make the best and most informed decision we can. However, there is no doubt that anxiety builds up in one's own mind as to how to vote on a matter.

I am grateful and I put on the record that, in the consideration of this bill, the shadow minister for health has provided an information paper to Liberal members of parliament. There is no doubt that the minister's second reading speech also contributed to the knowledge that I have of the bill. The research unit of the parliamentary library prepared a very detailed paper—and I commend Dr Zoë Gill on the paper—which certainly sets out the pros and cons for the position on the bill. I also thank the member for Newland who, yesterday, via email, forwarded information to us about other details as they had become known and what had occurred in Western Australia and thereabouts. However, it is the individual member, especially in matters of conscience, who has to decide how he or she intends to proceed.

The member for Enfield pointed out an important fact (which I picked up in the material which I have also read); that is, no matter what the decision of the South Australian parliament, the federal legislation will override, to a large degree, what can occur here, anyway. However, it still leaves that doubt in one's mind as to how one should proceed. There is no doubt that, since the human species first managed to stand upright and walk, it has evolved, developed and challenged itself. It has developed technology at an amazing rate. If we look back over the past century alone, man has learnt how to fly and put a man on the moon. Cars have developed to an amazing level. We now have engineering applications across the world which could never have been dreamt of even in the wildest dreams of Jules Verne.

There is no doubt that issues that we now consider in this parliament, in many ways, will be overridden by developments in technology in future years. Other members who have spoken to this bill have mentioned the fact that technology has already improved and research undertaken in Japan has proven that other options do exist, for example, using skin. In my opinion, it is important that we accept that that information has an influence on the decision we make when we vote on this matter eventually.

Normally, I try to come into the chamber with a firm conclusion on what my position is on matters of conscience, but on this one I am still probably debating it in my mind. As I have mentioned before, technology is a great thing. Although I am married to a good Catholic girl, I am not an overly religious man myself, but I do have a belief. While I believe species have improved upon themselves as the centuries have progressed, I also recognise the fact that technology and evolution have proven that other options are out there.

The big question that I have in my mind though—and I know it is talked about in the information that has been provided—is as to when a consciousness is formed from conception occurring. I believe that there is a 14 or 15-day rule as to when the nervous system develops, but I am more of a believer in the fact that, from the moment of conception, there is a human that is growing. I know that the thought of the fertilisation of an egg to create an embryo to allow research to be undertaken does not sit comfortably with me. I know that there are many members in this chamber who have quite firm opinions on this and others who will probably be somewhat unsure as to how they should proceed. Therefore, I hope that as many people as possible will stand up in the house (in both chambers) and express an opinion on this matter, because it is important that the people of South Australia (whom we represent) do know where they stand on it and the issues that have occurred in our minds when it has come to forming an opinion on it.

I have tried to read as much as I can about this issue, especially this morning when I have read the contributions made yesterday by members of both chambers. It is clear to me that there are serious issues for people to consider when they come to forming their opinion, and they are also in my mind. I have the same degree of concern as to how we should proceed and what we need to do to ensure that the legislation that we enact in this house will serve South Australians. I am also very concerned about the fact that there are so many people in our great state who do suffer terribly from afflictions or diseases, or physical ailments that to some degree could be overcome by advances in technology. Importantly, we have done that in so many ways; we have managed to keep alive people who, 50 years ago, would have died not long after a diagnosis, and that is because technology has improved to ensure that we can treat these people now, and drugs have been developed that can help them.

There are amazingly intelligent people out there who have allowed these advances to occur, and there is no doubt in my mind that the use of human cells has helped develop some of those, and that the testing that has occurred on volunteers has assisted in ensuring that drugs are deemed to be suitable for use by the human species which can help people.

I hate to see suffering, and probably all of us in our electorates know quite well people who have suffered terribly through illnesses and afflictions, and we would do anything that we could to assist them. The member for Finniss yesterday, in his contribution, referred to a friend of his who is blind and whose greatest wish is to be able to see again, and if there is a possibility that research could be undertaken using this technology that would allow that to occur, that person would want it to happen. But the member for Finniss has also confirmed with me that since he made that contribution he has spoken to this fellow. He has talked about the research that has been undertaken using skin cells in Japan, and this fellow is quite comfortable with that fact; that that is the technology that should then be pursued. This is a man who desperately wants to see and he would do anything he could do to regain his sight, while recognising that other issues are involved here.

In the contributions from all members various examples have been provided. The member for Hammond talked about his own father who has suffered from osteoarthritis and had serious hip problems for many years. His father is now 88, but he was physically active until he was 80. I know that people in my own family have left this world far earlier than they should have and that, although technology managed to help them immensely, it could not keep them alive any longer. So, that is why I have the debate in my mind as to whether I should support the bill or vote against it. The great dilemma is whether allowing this research to be undertaken using these embryonic cells would improve the knowledge that is out there in the medical field, therefore ensuring that these people are able to live longer. When it comes to the vote, I think there will be a degree of anxiousness from some areas.

I am still trying to sort out my thinking on this matter. I suppose my natural tendency would be to support medical research, as we all should, but there is this overriding issue of when the embryo becomes a human being. Is it the 14 or 15-day period when the nervous system develops or is it from the moment of conception? Does it have a soul then? Luckily my wife and I had no problems with our children, but we have often talked about what we would have done if there had ever been a need for an abortion, and we are very firm on the fact that we would never have done that, no matter what the circumstances—and the argument I am debating on this matter extends to that issue, too.

I look forward to the contributions of all members in the chamber. I confess that it is a great challenge to accept the various opinions that have been expressed and the literature that has been provided to us, as difficult as much of it is to understand. However, it is important, especially with respect to this bill, that there is a total consciousness of the gravity of the decision we are making here today. While it appears as though the numbers will be in support of the bill, I know that the Western Australian bill did not pass. I am certainly aware of what the federal government has resolved to do. Even though the vote there was relatively close, the measure was still supported by the majority of members. I think the vote in this chamber will be relatively close, but I hope that we make the right decision. It is a bit like how the Hon. Peter Lewis must have felt when he was deciding which party he would support when it came to forming a government in 2002.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: By the sound of it, he made up his mind while he was making his speech—and in some ways, after considering all the facts, I have, too. Although it has been hard to express myself in the last 10 minutes or so, while I have been speaking I have reached the conclusion that I do not think I can support the bill.

The Hon. L. STEVENS (Little Para) (12:27): I rise to support the bill, which I note amends the principal acts, the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2003 and the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2003. When I was minister for health, I brought those two bills into the house, and I obviously supported them then. The bill before us is the result of a review of the two original acts and amendments made as a result of that review.

As a result of the 2003 acts, we currently have in place in South Australia a complete ban on human cloning, not taking into consideration the newly passed commonwealth law. We have the ability to use human embryos which have been created for reproductive medical treatment but which are surplus to the needs of the person (or couple) concerned in relation to that reproductive medical treatment. These embryos can be used for research, teaching, quality control or commercial applications under certain conditions if a licence has been issued by the NHMRC Embryo Research Licensing Committee, a body set up under those acts. Those for whom the embryos were created can determine to what use their surplus embryos may be put.

I might add that the NHMRC licensing regime is very robust, with stringent licensing conditions, and I feel very confident in terms of its ethics and the robustness of its processes. To date, in Australia, according to information that was provided to us by the South Australian Department of Health, 10 licences have been issued nationally since 2003, that is, four for research on infertility; five for stem cell research; and one for using embryos to train embryologists. To date, no South Australian researcher has sought a licence. South Australia's stem cell research has focused more on animal embryos. Research using human cells has used adult stem cells or embryonic stem cell lines created elsewhere. South Australian researchers have indicated their intention to seek licences to use human embryos to progress their work.

As I said before, after those acts had been passed around the country the Lockhart review came down with 54 recommendations. The commonwealth bill, which was, incidentally, a private member's bill introduced by former health minister and senator the Hon. Kay Paterson, picked up the intent of those 54 recommendations. I congratulate Kay Paterson for her work and commitment to this issue. It was quite clear that the then federal health minister, the Hon. Tony Abbott, had no intention of progressing the matter further and would not bring the matter before the Australian parliament. I commend and congratulate Kay Paterson for taking a bit between her teeth and bringing forth the bill. The bill came into operation in June 2007. After the commonwealth bill was passed, COAG then agreed that the states would put before their parliaments complementary legislation, just as had been done under the previous bills in 2003.

In relation to the two bills that we have before us, essentially a number of things have changed, and the minister's second reading speech outlines them. The most significant changes are the focus on medical research and the new acts allowing embryos to be created for research by new techniques such as somatic cell nuclear transfer and stimulating cells to divide by other methods. Those processes must be licensed, again, under the NHMRC licensing structure. Of course, the embryos that are created for research cannot be implanted, nor can they be allowed to develop over 14 days.

The other important thing for people to understand—and I am not sure that this is the case, listening to some of the contributions that have been made previously in this debate—is that creating reproductive embryos—that is, those created by fertilisation, the way that we have been referring to them so far in the current legislation—remains prohibited. But, again, couples who are undergoing fertility treatment may still donate excess embryos to research, which is what they are able to do now. It is a really important point. The use of any reproductive embryos that have been created by fertilisation for research remains prohibited except in cases where couples determine that these embryos are excess to their own needs and agree that they can be used as they are now.

What is now the case for South Australia? As the member for Enfield mentioned in his contribution, since 12 June 2007 South Australian researchers, who are licensed under the commonwealth acts, have been legally able to apply for a licence under the newly passed commonwealth legislation. They can conduct research that is currently not permitted by state legislation. However, researchers covered only by South Australian law—and that includes those who work in South Australia's public hospitals—cannot be part of the national scheme.

So, they are no longer able to seek a licence from the national NHMRC Embryo Research Licensing Committee to conduct any research using human embryos. Also, it is not clear whether the licensing committee would approve licences for any South Australian research if South Australian laws did not match commonwealth laws. This has ramifications for the future of some of our most eminent research establishments.

I am a very strong supporter of ethical medical research that has adequate and stringent safeguards, and I believe that is the case for what has been established here in Australia. I believe that the general public are very strong supporters of medical research, hoping that the work that can be done with stem cells will lead to new breakthroughs in a whole range of (so far) intractable conditions like cystic fibrosis and many other medical conditions. I am sure that other members have also received letters from various groups in relation to that.

A number of members mentioned the issue of pluripotent cells; the use of other cells, skin cells and even, as I understand it, testicular cells. Just recently somebody somewhere indicated that they were looking at the possibility of using testicular cells instead of embryonic stem cells. A couple of people have said, 'You know, that's the end of it. We don't need to use embryonic stem cells.' Unfortunately, it is not as simple as that. In terms of scientific research, the fact that somebody writes a paper, or one set of researchers obtain a particular result, does not mean that we can say, 'Okay, that's fine. This is the new deal'—and away we go.

The fact is that, in terms of scientific research and the adoption of scientific outcomes, this has to be a very extensive, replicated, peer-reviewed, clinically-researched process. We had an interesting briefing by Professor Robert Norman, Associate Professor Mark Nuttall and Professor Peter Rathjen earlier in the year in relation to this matter. Rob Norman said that these were exciting developments but that they are not at the point where we can say that they are scientifically validated. He made that point very clearly. He said that if these things were scientifically validated scientists would be using them like a shot because they would not have to go through all the issues, concerns and dilemmas around embryonic stem cells. However, the point is that they are not there yet.

I am not prepared to hold up research. I believe that what we have in place is a stringent code which means that we can safely and ethically proceed and allow our scientists (along with other scientists around the world) to do the very best they can in order to get some of the answers we need for these intractable problems.

A more practical consequence is the fact that we have a commonwealth law that says one thing and a few states that have passed complementary legislation—but some have not. It is very important to understand that, when we are trying to attract high quality researchers into our public hospitals, as well as trying to attract other doctors to come and work with them, we need to enable them to do the same work that they were able to do in other places—certainly nationally, and hopefully internationally in terms of such countries as the United Kingdom and other highly developed countries. What we could quite easily find is that these very bright scientists will leave South Australia and go where they can do their work. So, there is this other subordinate consequence we need to mindful of.

With those words, I state again that I will be supporting the bill, and I urge other members to give it very favourable consideration and also support it.

Mr PISONI (Unley) (12:40): Understandably, this bill has certainly stirred emotions in the community and in the parliament, and it is a decision that is a bit different from others that members of parliament need to make because it is not really about politics or outcomes: it is more about how we feel about particular practices to achieve outcomes.

We had this debate many years ago when parliaments approved the use of IVF, and the genie was let out of the bottle then; I think only lone voices in the community would say that that was a bad thing. I think it would be very difficult for anyone to say that it was wrong for science to give a couple the gift of the life of a child and that it should not have happened.

My view is that that moral decision has now been made. We know that embryos are created, stored and destroyed in that process, but this bill enables those embryos to be used for further scientific research. As parliaments and communities, we have agreed that we are happy to use science to give the gift of life, but what I am saying is: why can we not use science to give the gift of life to a lifeless body, for example, such as that of a child born with severe spina bifida or someone with a spinal injury? My understanding of stem cell research is that it will lead to not only those types of cures but also cures for diseases such as Parkinson's disease and type 1 diabetes, diseases that cannot be fixed through a change in lifestyle or diet.

One of the reasons I believe I should support research and this legislation that will keep our research here in South Australia is my personal experience with a close personal friend, Richard Mavrovic, who, at the age of 21, was tragically thrown from a horse and broke his C6/7. He spent four months in traction with bolts through his head while his spine was mending; however, permanent damage had been done. Consequently, for the last 22 years he has been a quadriplegic in a wheelchair. He can raise his arms and push his wheelchair, but he cannot use his hands to pick up a glass. He has developed new skills. When Richard had his accident in the 1980s, he was a self-employed livestock drover at Gepps Cross, which I think is now a housing development. He was a very entrepreneurial fellow at the age of 16.

Ms Bedford: He still is.

Mr PISONI: As the member for Florey reminds me, he still is—and I will get to that. At the age of 16, he had already been working part time for a couple of years. He had been full time for only a short while in this business and was in the process of buying out his former boss, who was retiring. He went into what was Salisbury Toyota and pointed to a bright shiny four-wheel drive and said, 'I'd like to buy that.' The salesman looked at him and said, 'And how do you expect to pay for that?' He said, 'Cash,' and the guy laughed at him. He had the cash in his pocket to pay for this ute, but the salesman lost the sale to a competitor because he did not take Richard seriously with his purchase of a motor vehicle.

Richard still lives a very full life. He has gone on to be, I would argue, a minor celebrity. He is an award-winning artist, and he has sell-out exhibitions around the country. His paintings are now selling for $8,000 to $10,000. He has work that has been purchased in the national parliament. He was just recently commissioned for a piece for the national estate, so he is recognised, not just by his customers but by those who represent us in high office as well, as having something to contribute in that field.

In order to achieve that, he must actually strap his brush onto his hands, and it is quite an extraordinary process to watch. The brush goes in his mouth, his hand then passes his mouth and the brush transfers from his mouth to his hand, and he uses his teeth then to lock the velcro in to hold the brush in place. Of course, he needs to repeat that process every time he uses a different sized brush, so it is an extraordinary process.

He specialises these days in watercolours and acrylics. So impressive is his work and some of his subjects that he had a visit at his studio in Hyde Park by Jeffrey Smart, who we all know is a very famous artist, and the first thing he said to Rick was, 'Your work's too cheap; put it up.' It was great recognition for work that he had done.

In my friendship with Rick (because we went to school together), I had the opportunity to meet other people in his position, particularly in the early days when he was recuperating and he took up wheelchair sports. Wheelchair rugby was the sport that he played. So many of those lads were car accident victims who had suffered spinal injury because they were either very severe car accidents or, in some instances, because they were not wearing their seatbelts—silly mistakes that have led to lifelong consequences.

It is usually not due to a choice that they have made that these people suffer from disabilities such as this, and that is one of the main reasons why I feel that we should not be getting in the way of medical research. I do not feel that it is my role to make a moral judgment for others. This bill does not compel anybody to hand over their embryos for scientific research: they still have the choice to do that. If they are participating in the IVF program and do not want their embryos used for research, they have that option not to hand them over.

I do not believe that my position in society means that I can impose my values on other people. I think that this is a classic example where it is a very personal decision that should be made by those involved and, consequently, I do not want to get in the way of that.

Something else that I think was picked up earlier by the member for Little Para is that we really do have a brain drain here in South Australia. Many of our brightest and youngest minds move interstate and overseas because we do not have opportunities for them here in South Australia. Being the only jurisdiction in the country after Western Australia that will not be allowing this research, we will see a further deterioration of opportunities for our best and brightest, particularly in medical research.

I am happy to support this legislation for scientific research and for the advancement of the human race. We have all been given brains to develop, and our brains have developed extraordinarily over the past couple of thousand years. In particular, we have seen an enormous advancement in humanity because of the influence of medical research.

It was not all that long ago when doctors used to bleed patients to get rid of poisons and other sorts of things in their bodies because, through lack of medical research, they believed that that was the way to cure someone; and, of course, they were cured of the ailment but they bled to death.

I support this bill and I certainly encourage other members to do so. I acknowledge the difficulty that some members will have in supporting it and I accept and acknowledge their reasons—that is their right. My reason for supporting this is because I do not believe that I am in a position, neither should I be, to impose my moral judgment on others.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (12:51): I rise to indicate that I will be voting against this bill. I think the member for Enfield summed up the debate quite succinctly this morning. I will just make a few comments, given that there are only nine minutes left before the break.

The reality is that I find the science of this confusing, as the member for Enfield said this morning. It is not a field in which I am qualified; therefore, I am relying on expert advice from the medical profession. Those who are involved in this form of research will, of course, argue their case in the positive, and those who are not will argue it in the negative.

The latest letter I received was from John Martin, Emeritus Professor of Medicine at the University of Melbourne, who argues that the debate has moved on to a new form of technology and, in his view, there is no need for parliaments to pass this law. I accept his advice in voting against this bill.

I say to the member for Unley that I am intrigued by the argument about not imposing values on the community. The parliament does that every day of the week: we do not allow people to sell themselves for sex; we do not allow euthanasia; we do not allow people to drink or smoke until they reach a certain age; and we have an age of consent for sexual activity. There is a whole range of things where the parliament imposes restrictions on the community. Even now, I do not think that parliaments around the world allow research involving the cloning of humans to create exactly the same human, as in Dolly the sheep. I do not think that sort of research is allowed worldwide.

I am of the view that medical research needs to be regulated. Some very nasty medical research has been done around the world in nasty regimes that existed in other countries in the past. We need only look at some of the research done by some very aggressive regimes over the past 100 years to see what happened to people in the cause of medical research—and the Nazi regime is one. I am not for one minute suggesting that any universities are involved in anything like that. All I am saying is that, as a principle, medical research needs to be regulated to some degree.

There will always be another researcher coming around the corner with the latest proposal to find a cure. I certainly support medical research; obviously the human race has benefited greatly from medical research, and it will continue to do so. The reality is that the research we are debating is taking place in a number of states in the commonwealth, and the way the minister's second reading explanation reads to me is that, if a corporation wants to undertake this research in South Australia, it can do so now. To my knowledge there is nothing stopping that, or indeed stopping the university setting up a corporation to achieve that end—and I am sure some legal expert will do that in the universities if they so wish.

I believe that I have had only two letters on this matter. My electorate has been very quiet on the issue—I am not sure whether that is because they think the federal law applies right across Australia—but I think we should move slowly on these matters. We can watch developments in other parts of the world. The research will not stop; medical research will go on and the information will be transferred overnight, because that is the way the world works with the internet. So the world will not be denied the research, for those who believe it will find cures for all sorts of ailments; the world will not be denied that. However, my view, based on the advice of Mr Martin and others, is that this legislation is not needed. On that basis I will not be supporting it.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (12:57): I also speak in support of those members on both sides of this house who oppose this particular piece of legislation and, as such, I will not support the bill. I have always taken a quite cautious approach on what I regard as serious social issues, and I think the member for Davenport quite succinctly and accurately summed up the situation in relation to a number of areas to which this legislation goes. I would like to take the next few minutes to expand on some of those areas that I regard as being of importance.

This is a very emotional issue, and I have received emotive pleas from a handful of constituents. Going back to 2002, when legislation was before this place concerning the use of what were regarded as surplus embryos (as a consequence of IVF treatment) for embryonic stem cell research, some elderly ladies came to me pleading that I support the legislation. They had grandchildren who suffered from some quite significant medical conditions—they were wheelchair-bound because their conditions were such, or their handicap was such, that they required that level of assistance. These people were pleading with me to support the legislation, but on the other side of the ledger I received quite a number of letters and correspondence asking me to oppose it.

It was a difficult decision to make, as are quite a lot of these conscience issues that come before the parliament, but I chose not to support the legislation then. As such, and even though the situation is slightly different in relation to the use of what are supposedly surplus embryos, I continue my opposition. I do so for a number of reasons.

Being the representative of a specific electorate, I try to assess what the decision of my electorate would be to matters such as this. I did it with the legislation concerning the same sex couples issue, and I was queried by the media on my stance on that when I opposed those proposals. I have a personal belief, a personal philosophy and ideology about these issues, but—being an elected representative in this place—I also assess what my electorate would feel in relation to this. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.


[Sitting suspended from 13:01 to 14:00]


PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT