HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-03-04 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (17:03): I move:

That this council notes that fair and accurate debate is important to the parliamentary process.

Since I was elected to this place nearly three years ago there has been occasion when either I or my party has been criticised in the normal course of debate on the various issues we have been confronted with. Generally speaking, I have no problem with this as parliament is, after all, a place where different opinions come together to thrash out a solution. Sometimes this can lead to robust debate as each party or individual member seeks to assert their own passionately held views. This is of course entirely appropriate and until now I have never felt the need to respond to a particular contribution made by any individual member of this chamber.

Whilst I have certainly disagreed with the substance of contributions made by other members on numerous occasions, I have not responded because those contributions have not sought to distort, misrepresent or treat unfairly the Family First position. They have been, on the whole, passionate, honest attempts to persuade other members to that member's viewpoint. Family First views this as entirely appropriate and, whilst we may disagree with the position of individual members from time to time, we certainly respect the right of each member to hold their view, whatever it may be.

Furthermore, debate in this chamber is normally done with a sense of respect for others' views, even when those views differ markedly. Sadly, the same cannot be said about the extraordinary contribution made by the Hon. Mr Hunter recently on two separate occasions during the last sitting week, when he made second reading speeches on the Equal Opportunity (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill and the Statutes Amendment (Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and Regulation of Research Involving Human Embryos) Bill.

Whilst some of the content of these speeches was unobjectionable, some of it was nothing short of patronising nonsense. The speeches contained extraordinary claims about myself and Family First, which were in some cases misleading, utterly distorting the facts and plainly wrong. Whilst I shall not bother to rebut each of the statements in the Hon. Mr Hunter's speeches which fall into these categories, I shall set the record straight on a number of the comments he made.

In elaborating, I turn, first, to the Hon. Mr Hunter's contribution on the Equal Opportunity (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill. In his contribution he stated that Family First supporters may continue to urge the burning of lesbians at the stake. It goes without saying that this is not the position of Family First or its supporters, and for the Hon. Mr Hunter to suggest that it is is not only false but a clear and blatant distortion of the facts. The suggestion that my party may be complicit in violence towards any group in the community, homosexual groups included, is outrageous and abhorrent as well as patently false.

The facts that give rise to this outrageous allegation are that on one single occasion a 15 year old boy, who was not a member of Family First but who for some reason was assisting at an event, was asked by a group of protesters whether he supported burning lesbians. Clearly this question was designed to illicit a provocative answer from a young 15 year old boy. The boy foolishly and flippantly answered 'yes' to irritate the protesters. The boy's comments were immediately repudiated by Family First, and he was not asked to assist at any future events. If the Hon. Mr Hunter had bothered to ask me about this, I would have been happy to inform him of the facts.

Using the Hon. Mr Hunter's line of argument that Family First is somehow responsible for the comments of anyone—even those of a child loosely associated with the party, such as a campaign volunteer, as was used in his example—let us apply the same test to volunteers for his own party, which by his own implication should withstand this test. Unfortunately for the Hon. Mr Hunter, the facts conclusively demonstrate that this is clearly not the case and thus demolish his flawed argument on this issue. Let us consider a report from The Age appearing on 12 November 2007. The article states that ALP volunteer Garry Burns (who is known for using the New South Wales Equal Opportunity Act to sue John Laws) launched a tirade of abuse at Lucy Turnbull (Malcolm Turnbull's wife) at the weekend, physically intimidating her in a Sydney street and leaving her shaken. Mr Burns later described Mrs Turnbull in an email to Mr Turnbull as 'a fag hag impersonator of a wife' and condemning the minister as 'a weak and pathetic excuse for a human being.

Not surprisingly, the article goes on to state:

Labor's Wentworth campaign director, Rose Jackson, said today Mr Burns had been removed yesterday as a Labor volunteer.

These are the comments of an Australian Labor Party volunteer who is a full-grown man, not a 15 year old boy, as used in the example given by the Hon. Mr Hunter. Does anyone in their right mind really believe that these comments are a true reflection of the ALP's position on this issue? Surely not. Then neither should they believe that the comments of a 15 year old volunteer in any way reflect the Family First position on this matter, and to present them as such is completely unfair, clearly unreasonable and absolutely unfounded, as well as just plain nonsense. It is staggering that the Hon. Mr Hunter would seriously attempt to do so and it reflects poorly on him. Plainly, if the standard to which the Hon. Mr Hunter holds Family First volunteers is applied to his own party, his argument collapses.

Next, the Hon. Mr Hunter attempts to continue his attack on Family First by linking a number of statements that Pastor Danny Nalliah has made, either verbally or in print, to Family First. Conveniently, he neglects to mention that none of these statements, either in print or verbal, was endorsed in any way by Family First, yet he uses this as the basis for his sustained attack on the party by saying 'that is the sort of incoherent and inaccurate speech that Family First are desperate to protect in opposing this bill'. Again, this is utter nonsense.

It must be pointed out that Pastor Danny Nalliah was not found guilty in the end, following a marathon case before the Victorian Equal Opportunity Commission. He was not found to have broken any laws; that is, he was not found guilty of any wrongdoing by the Victorian courts, despite their draconian vilification laws. Apparently, this carries no weight with the Hon. Mr Hunter as he finds it necessary to launch a scathing attack on this man, nonetheless.

The Hon. Mr Hunter then makes much of the suggestion that, in regard to a Family First candidate in an absolutely unwinnable seat—that is, No. 2 on the Senate ticket, where winning one seat looked absolutely impossible at the time—the party is somehow responsible for everything that individual candidate has said or done outside politics.

It is true that we hold candidates to a higher standard of accountability than mere volunteers, and the comments made by Pastor Nalliah during the 2004 federal election campaign were in some instances entirely regrettable. However, Family First repudiated those remarks and Pastor Nalliah is no longer a member of Family First, nor has he subsequently been a candidate.

Candidates across the spectrum of the parties sometimes make remarks that embarrass and fail to reflect the sentiments of their parties. Again, let us apply the same test to the Hon. Mr Hunter's own party to demonstrate that his own party does not satisfy the standard that the Hon. Mr Hunter seeks to apply to Family First. I wonder how the Hon. Mr Hunter would feel being held responsible for the following comments and actions made by properly endorsed Australian Labor Party candidates. I will provide a few examples. I quote from the ABC website, as follows:

Peter Knott, the Labor candidate in the New South Wales seat of Gilmore, has now apologised for saying that the terrorist attacks were a result of US foreign policy. He was spoken to by ALP national secretary Geoff Walsh and late yesterday Peter Knott released a statement taking it all back. Kim Beazley says it should now be all over and done with.

Apparently, Kim Beazley is prepared to accept that these matters can be set aside following regrettable comments, but the Hon. Mr Hunter is not. I quote from another ABC news story, as follows:

Federal opposition leader Brendan Nelson has criticised the Labor candidate in the Gippsland by-election for promoting an adult comedy show at a local arts festival. ALP candidate Darren McCubbin was a member of the committee that approved the act The Beautiful Losers in November. Dr Nelson says the show is sexually explicit and would offend the vast majority of Australians.

I now quote from the AAP general news website as follows:

Howard backs call for ALP candidate to be disendorsed. Prime Minister John Howard has backed calls for a Queensland federal Labor candidate to be sacked after his wife blamed sitting Liberal MPs for the Bali bombing. Foreign minister Alexander Downer yesterday said opposition leader Mark Latham should disendorse Ivan Molloy, the Labor candidate for the federal seat of Fairfax.

I quote another example from the ABC news website (www.abc.net.au) as follows:

Dr Ivan Molloy was the subject of the biggest story of last year's federal election. The head of politics and international relations at Sunshine Coast University was the ALP's candidate for the seat of Fairfax in southern Queensland. There was outrage when an old photograph showing Dr Molloy with a machine gun supplied by 'alleged extremists' was dug up during the election.

I quote another example from the news.ninemsn.com.au website as follows:

Labor candidate Garry Parr called Queensland couple Tom and Rosemary Arthurs 'warmongers' when they approached him at a Hervey Bay shopping centre two weeks ago. The couple's 41 year old son Julian Arthurs is currently serving with the British forces in Afghanistan. Mr Parr, who is standing in the Bundaberg-based seat of Hinkler held by Paul Neville for the Nationals, has now publicly apologised to the couple.

That is not a surprise. I will quote two final examples: first, from the website news.com.au/couriermail, as follows:

Last November Aboriginal affairs minister Milton Orkopoulos was sacked from state cabinet after being arrested and charged with 30 sex and drugs offences, including some involving minors. He subsequently resigned as a Labor MP for the electorate of Swansea.

Finally, I quote the following article:

Stephen Chaytor, the MP for Macquarie Fields, was convicted of assaulting his partner and expelled from the ALP by Mr Iemma.

All these statements and actions were made by properly endorsed Australian Labor Party candidates or, in some cases, sitting members and even ministers. Does anyone in their right mind really believe that they in any way represent ALP policy? Surely not. Then why is this absurd standard being applied to Family First by the Hon. Mr Hunter? Is the Hon. Mr Hunter happy to stand by the comments and actions that I have just outlined, as he is asking Family First to do on the same basis? I am certain he is not.

Let us be clear then. This attempt to hold our party accountable for these statements simply does not stack up when the same is asked of his own party. By any measure, this attempt to discredit our party on this basis fails miserably and, frankly, I believe that the Hon. Mr Hunter should have known this prior to using this patently flawed line of argument.

If the Hon. Mr Hunter does not accept this, then he, too, is to be held responsible for the statements which I have read earlier and which have been made by endorsed candidates, elected members and even ministers of his own party.

In future, if the Hon. Mr Hunter seeks clarification of Family First policy, he can simply ask me—something he did not bother to do on this occasion—or he could consider consulting our website which, of course, like other political parties, is where the policies of our party can be found.

The Hon. Mr Hunter did not stop there, however; he wanted to make an extraordinary attack on me by objecting to an article that I had written as an opinion piece, as if that was in some way an unusual thing for a politician to do. The article he referred to appeared in The Advertiser of 19 August 2008, stating the Family First position on the Equal Opportunity Bill. It was in response to an article published a week or so earlier by the member for Hartley.

Is the Hon. Mr Hunter really suggesting that I had no right to reply to that article? Apparently, the editors of The Advertiser disagree with him, as shown by the decision to publish my response. Somewhat perplexedly, the Hon. Mr Hunter goes on to state just a few moments later in his speech, referring to himself:

I, too, cherish the right to freedom of speech.

Apparently, his right to freedom of speech is somehow superior to my right to voice our position on this very significant issue. Again, I quote from his speech where he also objects to my 'prophesying about what was going to be contained' in the bill by writing this article. Surely the Hon. Mr Hunter understands that writing such an article forms part of the process of building up enough pressure on the issue to force change. He has, no doubt, noted that, with the greatly appreciated support of the Liberal Party and others in this chamber, we have, indeed, won the battle in the vilification clause by having it removed from the bill in its current form.

Why is it that the Hon. Mr Hunter's right to express his view should, in some way, be superior to mine? Whilst there is much more that I could say about the Hon. Mr Hunter's contribution to the Equal Opportunity (Miscellaneous) Bill debate, I now turn to his extraordinary attack on me and my party made during his second reading speech on the Statutes Amendment (Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and Regulation of Research Involving Human Embryos) Bill. In that, he picks up where he left off on the previous bill and states:

The Hon. Mr Hood has made some claims about the lack of success in developing cures and treatments from embryonic stem cells. Really, he was very badly informed.

In making such a statement the Hon. Mr Hunter seems to be trying to paint me as misleading, while ignoring the plain fact, admitted even by proponents of embryonic stem cell advocates, that there are currently, as at the day when I made the statement (two weeks ago), no cures or treatment resulting from embryonic stem cell research—not one. My statement was 100 per cent correct.

I back that up with the fact that the source for that statement was none other than the National Institute of Health in the United States, the government's own body on this matter. I quoted directly from the website and I have a print-off here. It states:

Thus, although embryonic stem cells are thought to offer potential cures and therapies for many devastating diseases, researching them is still in its very early stages. However, adult stem cells, such as blood-forming stem cells in bone marrow are currently the only type of stem cells commonly used to treat human diseases.

My statement was 100 per cent correct. Further, the Hon. Mr Hunter then went on to state a number of areas where he believes embryonic stem cell research has shown promise. However, this totally misrepresents what I actually said, which was focused on (and I am quoting from my speech here) 'cures and treatments'. I stand by that statement.

Whilst it is true that some scientists suggest that embryonic stem cell research is showing some promise in the areas outlined by the Hon. Mr Hunter, that does not change the fact that the statement that I made was absolutely correct and, therefore, the statement by the Hon. Mr Hunter—that I was 'very badly informed'—is nothing but patronising nonsense, as well as demonstrably false.

It is telling to note that the Hon. Mr Hunter does not name one example of a single cure or treatment (the words I used) resulting from embryonic stem cell research in his speech—not one. Rather, he resorts to outlining what he terms 'promising research'. Promising research is a long way from cures or treatments, which is what I said, and which was absolutely correct. It is completely accurate to say that there are no cures or treatments currently available as a result of embryonic stem cell research. Clearly, it is the Hon. Mr Hunter who has been, to use his own words, 'very badly informed'.

I stand by the statement I made because it is 100 per cent correct. The speech was checked and verified by two experts on cloning before I gave it. Further, after making the speech, I forwarded it to Dr van Gend for comment. Dr van Gend is a medical practitioner in Queensland and a senior lecturer at the School of Medicine at the University of Queensland. He is National Director of Australians for Ethical Stem Cell Research and has given expert testimony on the ethics and science of stem cells and cloning to members of the US Senate and Congress as well as the Australian Senate and five state parliaments in Australia. He wrote, in part, as a response:

That was a great read. I think anyone listening would have understood the main line of argument—that there is no longer any serious reason for using leftover embryos (that terrible phrase) will continue, but that is a different issue to the deliberate creation of new embryos solely for research.

With all due respect to the Hon. Mr Hunter, when it comes to these matters I will place more weight on the opinion of the learned Dr van Gend than on his opinion. The Hon. Mr Hunter then went on to express his concern that 'contributions in this place are so muddled that they may confuse the public'. He went on to single me out yet again by referring to a passage in my second reading contribution to this debate where I outlined the desire of some scientists to use eggs of other mammals such as rabbits, cows, sheep or monkeys, and the use of this technology on patients. I give the Hon. Mr Hunter the benefit of the doubt here, as he may have misunderstood the point I was trying to make during that part of my second reading contribution. Indeed, perhaps I did not make the point clearly enough.

My essential point here is that this bill allows for the extending of research into new and unknown realms, which allow for the mixing of human and animal genetic material, and that this by itself is a ground for rejection of the bill in the view of our party. Quoting from the Hon. Mr Hunter's speech, he sees this as 'not for any outlandish purpose '. Clearly, he is entitled to his view on this matter, and we are entitled to disagree with his view without any patronising nonsense about contributions being 'muddled'. The Hon. Mr Hunter denies that this bill allows human-animal hybrids and, in one sense, it does prohibit it. It prohibits the gestation of human-animal hybrids, but it allows the fertilisation of animal eggs by human sperm, which can be termed a hybrid.

The PRESIDENT: The honourable member should speak to his motion, not to the bill.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Thank you, Mr President. I find this abhorrent, and I made that point clearly in my contribution when I noted:

...in this bill there is a paradox. Human-animal hybrids are supposedly banned, but clause 13 would allow testing of the viability of human sperm by placing the sperm with eggs of a rabbit or cow or some other animal creating for a short time a human-animal hybrid.

Clearly, there is nothing muddled about this simple fact at all. In closing, let me again quote from Dr van Gend who, after reading the Hon. Mr Hunter's contribution, stated:

...fatal error/deception in Mr Hunter's speech (namely) the attempt to make out that cloning does not really create a living human embryo; that is somehow different to the process used with Dolly.

As Hunter states, 'The cloning used in the—

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Hunter.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I am quoting from an email sent to me. It does not say that. I beg your pardon.

The PRESIDENT: You are really having another bite at a second reading contribution on a bill.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: That is not my intention. I have almost finished.

The PRESIDENT: That is certainly the way you are going. You are not referring much at all to your motion that fair and accurate debate is important to the parliamentary process.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Sir, that is the point I am trying to make, and I am almost finished, if you will bear with me for a moment.

The PRESIDENT: I encourage you to read standing order 174 when you finish.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Thank you, sir. I will start that passage again. As the Hon. Mr Hunter stated:

The cloning used in the process of creating Dolly was fundamentally different from embryonic stem cell research.

That statement is correct if he means that ordinary embryonic stem cell research can proceed in South Australia without cloning, but in context he was implying that cloning of humans is not the same as the cloning of Dolly. Quoting from Dr van Gend, it is exactly the same. I quote—

The PRESIDENT: That was the Hon. Mr Hunter's opinion when he addressed that bill. It has nothing to do with the fairness and accuracy of debate. That was the honourable member's opinion when he was talking to the bill, the same as any honourable member in the council can have an opinion that might differ from his own. What you are doing is debating what the Hon. Mr Hunter said in addressing the bill.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I am not trying to do that. I am trying to highlight the point that the Hon. Mr Hunter made the allegation—

The PRESIDENT: Whether or not you are trying to do that, that is what you are doing; you are debating the bill.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I will refrain from doing that, sir. Dr van Gend goes on to state that he wishes to dispel this nonsense. I will leave some of this out, Mr President, in order to adhere to your suggestion.

The PRESIDENT: It is adhering to standing orders.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Yes, sir. I have only a couple of pages to go; I have always been compliant with other members and I ask that they bear with me for a few moments.

The PRESIDENT: They do not make the rules. You should ask if I would.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I ask you to bear with me, sir, if that is possible. Finally, I have also been forwarded by Dr van Gend (and I again I quote from his email), 'the valuable editorial, brief and punchy, in the leading journal Nature, which scolded those who tried to pretend cloning created anything different to an embryo in an IVF clinic'.

The editorial, which appeared in the authoritative journal Nature, Volume 436, published on 7 July 2000, plainly says:

Whether taken from a fertility clinic or made through a cloning, a blyocyst embryo has the potential to become—

The PRESIDENT: Order! The honourable member is not speaking to his motion at all.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I am trying to, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT: You are not; you are talking to the bill. You are actually having another chop at the bill and having a chop at the Hon. Mr Hunter's speech on the bill and whether or not he might have been unfair. Your motion talks about fair and accurate debate in the parliamentary process. You are targeting one bill, and you keep referring to that bill. If you keep going I will have to sit you down.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: He was suggesting I was inaccurate, so I am trying to set that straight, sir. I will leave that out.

The PRESIDENT: I am being very tolerant.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Thank you, sir. In that case I will come to my conclusion. Family First respects the right of any member in this place to voice their opinion on any issue, as they see fit. However, they have no right to distort our position for the sake of supporting their argument and to present it as fact; clearly, the standards that apply to my party must also apply to their own.

Further, members have no right to claim that aspects of a contribution are 'muddled' when plainly they are not, but rather supported by peer-reviewed science—which I was not able to mention. However, what I said was actually taken straight from Nature, one of the most respected scientific journals in the world, and, as I said, supported in some cases by editorials published in highly esteemed scientific journals such as Nature.

I unreservedly stand by the contributions I made to both bills, and the science upon which they were based—apparently, as do extremely well-qualified experts in the field. Indeed, just in the short time since I made my second reading speech on cloning only a few weeks ago we have seen eminent American senior biomedical scientist and Harvard graduate Dr James Sherley state that 'cloned human embryos are too defective to produce human embryonic stem cells'. In addition, an article published in the peer-reviewed journal Nature outlined the breakthrough discovery that now allows iPS cells to be produced without using any virus, demolishing a long-running red herring objection to the new science of iPS cells and their medical uses.

I thank honourable members for the opportunity to set the record straight on these very important matters. I seek leave to conclude my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

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