HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-03-03 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 19 February 2009. Page 1398.)

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS (16:06): This is a conscience issue for members of the Liberal Party, as was the case in 2003 when we debated the Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill and the Research Involving Human Embryos Bill.

I support the legislation. I have taken considerable note of the debate in the House of Assembly and also the contributions that have been made in the Legislative Council so far in this debate. There are a range of views across the political spectrum, and I think that is one of the good things about debate on a conscience issue. Certainly, most of us agree that you cannot run a government on conscience issues, but it is good to have that across party debate, and I welcome that.

It was also interesting to go through the range of views expressed by my colleagues on both sides of the political fence in the federal sphere, which again showed that a number of close allies in a political party have differing views on this matter, and sometimes it is the case that our colleagues in other parties share our view.

I have had a lot of lobbying on this issue, as I think most members have, and a lot of that has come from people I respect and admire, but I do not necessarily agree with those people on this matter. I have had quite a bit of encouragement—some of it has probably been stronger than encouragement—to consider the new advances that have been touted, particularly induced pluripotent stem cell techniques.

Over the time I have been a member of this place, I think I have consistently supported measures that have advanced the quality of life for people. I have given support for medical research that can enhance the quality of life, and that encompasses my support for voluntary euthanasia and surrogacy. I have consistently believed that we should support the medical advances that are available and not shut the gate on measures when we do not know that alternatives are absolutely proven.

I would like to read from a letter which was forwarded to me last October from Professor Robert Norman, the Director of the Robinson Institute at the University of Adelaide. I have had quite a bit to do with Dr Norman through the debate on surrogacy, and he among others gave very good evidence to the Social Development Standing Committee in relation to the surrogacy bill. This letter was sent to most members, if not all, and 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 into 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 this state for medical research. I represent the University of Adelaide's Research Centre for Reproductive Health, the 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 Women's and Children's, Royal Adelaide, The 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 transportation 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 Australia 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 practice our research with the support of the population of South Australia.

Yours sincerely, Prof 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 is a very relevant piece of correspondence. It sums up the situation in my view and emphasises the question that many of us may ask, namely, will it be a number of years before the alternatives put forward are proven? That is a strong indicator to me and the reason I support the legislation.

Another interesting factor has come up in this debate. Someone has said to me, 'You're a Christian, a former chairman of the Parliamentary Christian Fellowship, how could you support this bill?' This person made the assumption that all Christians would be against this bill. I was interested to read the debate in the House of Assembly. The Hon. Trish White, the member for Taylor in another place, touched on this issue.

The Hon. S.G. Wade: A former Labor minister.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: She is. She touched on this issue and I thought that what she said was worth repeating in this place, as follows:

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 on this bill is to support the bill. I think the member for Mitchell said, 'Why close a door?' and I say, 'Why put up a road block?'. 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 cell research any more. I do not see it that way.

I concur with the member for Taylor, I have a very similar view about my Christianity, and my stance on this legislation is similar. I strongly believe we should not shut a gate when we do not need to. I also believe that we should not make a move that potentially could lose a lot of that research effort to the state. For those reasons I strongly support the bill.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (16:19): I rise to speak on this important bill and, in so doing, acknowledge the difficult task that all members of this parliament were faced with in considering this issue. I am sure all members of the council have been lobbied heavily by representatives from both sides of the debate, as have I—a debate that I recognise in a rather simplistic way as moral opinion versus scientific advancement.

The practice of creating embryos in a laboratory environment (or research involving embryos, as it is commonly referred to) purely for the purposes of destroying them for scientific research has evoked strong community reaction. The question of at what point an embryo becomes a life has been raised a number of times and is not a question that I wish to address today. However, I would like to highlight the controversy that surrounded the original research involving the human embryos bill in 2003, when there was vocal opposition to the use of excess reproductive embryos for the purpose of scientific research. Had South Australia not progressed with the original bill, we would not be leaders in reproductive research in Australia.

The practice of using excess reproductive embryos is not one that I take issue with as I understand these embryos would otherwise be destroyed. I see the advantages that these excess reproductive embryos have given to the scientific community in terms of advances in medical research. I am told that the process used to harvest eggs from a woman is emotionally and physically draining as well as expensive. Further, eggs donated to scientific research are limited in number and, as there is a way in which to continue research into embryonic stem cells without these limitations, I believe it should be pursued.

It is also for this reason that I believe it is necessary to create hybrid embryos, provided it is purely for the purpose of testing sperm quality as human eggs are not readily available and should be used carefully. This is not to say that I am entirely comfortable with creating research embryos with the intention of destroying them or with the creation of hybrid embryos. However, I am able to see the benefit that both these processes can produce and have confidence in the strict licensing and monitoring requirements that this bill outlines.

As previously mentioned, South Australia is the leader in reproductive research in Australia, and I encourage the continuation of this and other related research. Should this bill not pass, South Australian medical research may be at a disadvantage, especially when compared with other states.

I highlight that I do not discourage research into induced pluripotent stem cells. On the contrary, I believe that both methods of research should be explored in order to see which method produces the best results. I do not believe that we should concentrate all our prospects or resources on one method, especially given that both methods are in their early stages of research. Having said this, I indicate my support for the bill.

The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA (16:22): It will come as no surprise that I support this bill. I also suggest that there are compelling practical reasons to support it. Vigorous debate has preceded the passing of this bill in federal parliament and, backed by the Lockhart report and further considerable debate in the other place, there are considerable safeguards and penalties. These have been debated at length during the passage of this bill so far and I will not take us through this again. It is also clear that the passing of this bill will not drag us into an instant cure for everything, for years of research still need to be undertaken. We need, then, to give our scientific community the assurance and authority to advance research. If we fail to do so, we face a considerable loss of scientific expertise.

Many consider that there are far more important considerations than these, and a free vote on this bill, both in the federal and state parliaments, has seen the expected range of debate. If we read the Lockhart report, we see both sides of the debate buttressing their stand with expert opinion. Central to the debate, though, have been assumptions about degrees of religious perspective, appeal to authority, the potential for abuse of technology, and what are the standards for truth.

Some people have commented on the difficulty with scientific exposition, so I am grateful for the assistance provided by Dr Zoe Gill and the research staff of the Parliament Research Library in their report. I also note the remarks in the Lockhart report by Senator Fielding, leader of the Family First Party, where he said that it is 'important that people in the embryo cloning debate do not use language designed to confuse people or hide the truth'. We all endorse these sentiments as to what clear understanding and the truth may be.

Such a debate produces interesting argument, and I would like to sift through some of these contributions which lie at the heart of this debate. Senator Bernardi pointed out in his second reading speech to the federal Senate that no-one has a mortgage on definitive truth. The real question is about the grounds for belief. The proposition on the sacredness of human life and the complete prohibition of human interference here as morally prescribed by fundamentalist religious values is very much at the heart of his argument on truth. If this is to be settled at the time of conception, I wonder about the lack of rational consistency when scientific research has endeavoured to ensure the worth and sacredness of human existence in the myriad examples of service to humanity.

I also wonder why religious positions on the sacredness of human life do not consistently extend to and include the consequences on humankind of climate change, war, the ravages of AIDS, economic inequalities, and so forth. The embryo, as Senator Bernardi points out, is, for him, the start of human life—a fact for some, but not all, I point out. We do not have a hotline to God on these matters, and we need to trust the authority of reason, as this bill does, and act on this consent.

We have no other sensible foundation of truth if we are to move ahead and improve the human lot. There are, however, more tolerant religious and inclusive attitudes to the issue, and I refer to the second reading speech by then senator Amanda Vanstone on the bill in the federal parliament. She uses at length the reflections of Bishop Richard Holloway (evidently an eminent theologian and a member for seven years of the British Fertilisation and Embryology Authority). I refrain from quoting his opinion in what resembles, at times, a pyrrhic battle of the quotes in this bill. Suffice to say that he sensibly endorses reasoned ethics over divine warrant.

Many are concerned about where such research could take us—the slippery slope argument: the path of unacceptable experimentation or extreme and exploitative social practices. We do not need to make a distinction between science and technology to loosen the hold this argument may have, and again point out the punitive provisions that this bill contains as well as reminding ourselves, as others have, of the social and ethical constraints that we and the scientific community accept, live and work under.

In closing, I say that it is a sensible bill—a cautious bill that offers the possibility of hope to many and confidence and opportunity to the scientific community, and it reflects expectations of accountable, rational and moral standards.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. S.G. Wade.

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