HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-02-03 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 11 November 2008. Page 599.)

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS (15:35): I will make a brief contribution. I acknowledge that a number of members have chosen to take a detailed look at the science behind this legislation. I mainly wish to share the reasons for how I will vote, and from the outset I indicate that I will not support the bill. I have received many letters on this issue, and the majority of this correspondence has been from people who have the qualifications and expertise to comment on the legislation. I have certainly done a lot of reading and have been interested in the material people have taken the time to send me.

Members would have received a letter from Professor John Martin, Emeritus Professor of Medicine at the University of Melbourne. This highly regarded professor has written to me about IPS cells or induced pluripotent stem cells. Professor Martin states in his letter:

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.

To me this is compelling evidence from a highly respected professor of medicine, and I have received several other letters to support this argument—many letters—and very few which support the bill. Essentially the main point I have taken from the correspondence I have received, and my major reason for voting against the legislation, is quite simple. This legislation is not required at this time, and that is the overarching reason I have chosen not to support the bill. I have other reservations and historically I have been cautious and conservative when it comes to similar legislation.

Members in both places have shared their concerns regarding the need for tight regulation of the medical profession and have shared their concerns from a moral and ethical perspective. Their concerns are well documented and I share many of them. It is really the latest scientific evidence that has made me much more comfortable in choosing to vote against this bill. Dr David van Gend, National Director of Australians for Ethical Stem Cell Research, made the following point in his recent letter to me:

Cloning has been very clearly left behind by new science which obtains exactly the same type of stem cells.

I am sure other members have received the same letter and other advice that points to the fact that this bill is now outdated and has been superseded, because now we have pluripotent stem cells being made much more efficiently and without what we describe as ethical difficulties.

As I get older—and hopefully wiser—I try to see things from different perspectives, but in this case my decision to not back this legislation was quite easy. I considered the evidence presented to me and made up my mind quite swiftly. I again refer to the letter from Professor John Martin, who explains how debate has moved on to a new form of technology and in his view there is no need for the parliament to pass this bill. Professor Martin made the following succinct conclusion, which best defines why I am voting against the legislation:

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. There is no reason for any parliament to consider or maintain legislative approval for therapeutic cloning.

For members who support this bill and for proponents of the bill who read my contribution later in Hansard, I choose at this stage to do what I consider the responsible thing by not lending my support to this bill. With that, I conclude my remarks.

The Hon. C.V. SCHAEFER (15:39): My contribution will be even shorter than that of my colleague; in fact, I could probably say 'ditto' to his contribution. I have not found it easy to make a decision on this because I am instinctively concerned, if not repelled, by the idea of creating a human embryo for the sole purpose of destroying it for the sake of science. However, I recognise that, had I a child or a grandchild with one of these dreadful diseases and there was the possibility that science could cure one of these diseases, the temptation would be very great to bend one's principles. In my view, it has not been necessary for us to take that heartbreaking decision because, as my colleague the Hon. Terry Stephens has just pointed out—and, indeed, a number of other members of parliament—science has superseded this bill and there is no need for it to progress any further.

I will refer to a small article in The Advertiser today in its entirety. The article is entitled 'Breakthrough stem cell research' and states:

Australian scientists have made a stem cell breakthrough that promises to uncap research efforts whilst skirting the contentious issue of needing human embryos.

A joint Victorian and NSW team has produced the nation's first human induced pluripotent stem cell line—a cell that acts like an embryonic stem cell but instead is made from an adult skin cell.

The technique allows scientists to continue their work on crippling illnesses without the ethical problems raised by using embryo stem cells.

Not only is this technology available overseas in experimental stages but it is available within South Australia. I think that, should we go down the path of allowing human embryonic stem cells to be used for experimental purposes, we will probably make it too easy for our scientists and remove again a basic ethic, a basic human tenet that life is precious, regardless of what stage that life is at. I will not be supporting this bill.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO (Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Road Safety, Minister for Gambling, Minister Assisting the Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (15:42): I also rise to speak to this bill and I also will not be taking up a great deal of the chamber's time. I will not be supporting this legislation; however, I do wish to outline some of the concerns that I have about the bill. Put simply, I cannot in good conscience vote for a piece of legislation that I believe does not protect the sanctity of human life.

In researching this issue, I have come across a number of arguments that suggest that scientists are now able to source pluripotent stem cells by reprogramming ordinary skin cells rather than using human embryos. I understand that pluripotent stem cells have the potential one day to help in treating and possibly curing terrible diseases. Nevertheless, if scientists have the ability to produce the necessary stem cells through reprogramming ordinary skin cells, I feel that the need for embryonic stem cell research is unwarranted and unjustified.

In late 2006, the commonwealth government amended national legislation in the regulation of human cloning and embryo research. The former federal health minister, Tony Abbott, wrote to the state government the year before last and called for the state to amend its law so that it is compliant with national law. However, so much in the world of science has changed since 2006. As I have mentioned, scientists are now able to manipulate cells from adult human tissue and have generated the same potential as embryonic stem cells. Essentially, this discovery offers a new field of research opportunity that does not pose the same ethical questions that surround embryonic stem cell research.

I accept that many of the arguments that were originally put forward when this legislation was debated nationally were made in good faith. However, I feel that these arguments are no longer valid, and the same arguments cannot be made today. If federal parliament had known in 2006 what we know today, I question whether this legislation would have been supported.

In May last year, the Western Australian state parliament rejected this very same legislation. Members of the Western Australian parliament put forward the same argument that I am putting now: if ordinary human skin cells can be reprogrammed to behave like embryonic stem cells, let us avoid the very difficult ethical issue of creating and destroying embryonic human life.

I strongly believe that the issue of embryonic stem cell research is an ethical and moral matter that, as politicians, we have an important duty to carefully consider. Quite simply, I feel that cloning a human embryo with the intention of then destroying it is wrong. I oppose the bill.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.M. Gazzola.

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