HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-03-24 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 5 March 2009. Page 1577.)

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN (15:31): I thank the council for leave to conclude my contribution today. When I addressed this bill on the last occasion we were sitting, I gave an introduction to what I saw as the critical issues in this debate, both scientific and ethical, and a bit of an overview of the bill. I framed the questions that we are facing on this bill with a couple of quotations from an interview with Professor Loane Skene, who ended up chairing the Lockhart review after the untimely passing of Mr Lockhart.

One of those quotations related to whether the onus fell on those advocating change or those opposing it to justify why a thing should or should not be done—in this case, the allowing of human cloning. The second quotation went to the more ethical or moral question about whether the ends—that is, the cure of debilitating diseases and human progress—can be sufficient to overcome any concern we have about the means—that is, cloning, hybrids and other changes to our ethical understanding.

I would like to continue my contribution today by talking about the scientific evidence. When we address the question that Professor Skene addressed—that is, the matter of those to whom the burden falls in relation to proving whether a measure is necessary—I argue that, quite clearly, it falls to those advocating change to justify why it is a good idea.

In relation to the question of human cloning and advances in this area of stem cell research, the scientific evidence is more leaning towards the position that it is not in fact necessary to go down the track of human cloning and to allow the changes to our ethical boundaries that are contemplated by this bill. It is important to remember what it is we are talking about with this legislation. We are not talking about getting rid of research into human embryonic stem cells. That is not what this bill is about.

There is existing legislation which allows for the use of assisted reproduction technology embryos (or IVF embryos) and this bill does not seek to change that. This bill allows further advances or further changes in what it is permitted to do, namely, to allow human cloning in limited circumstances and to allow the creation of hybrid embryos in very limited circumstances.

There are those who have put up a number of arguments about human embryonic stem cells and why they believe that research in this area is important and needs to continue. It is important to remember that that is not within the scope of this bill, in the sense that, if you are a great advocate of research into the use of human embryonic stem cells for this sort of research, it will not be affected by defeating this bill. That research will continue whether or not we pass this bill. The question of whether or not to allow embryonic stem cells for research on human embryonic stem cells was decided some time ago; it is not the principal subject of this second round of our legislation.

However, when it comes to the scientific evidence that justifies taking these further steps, I am sure honourable members will have received a great deal of communication about induced pluripotent stem cells. The reason for that is simple: the discovery of induced pluripotent stem cells, or iPS cells, is one of the great discoveries of recent times. I am sure members are well aware of the great advance that has meant and of the recognition it has been given in the scientific community—and, indeed, in the popular press.

A number of concerns were expressed in relation to iPS cells early on in the development of that technology, particularly in relation to tumours and the limits of the potential of the technology. As time has gone on it has become clearer that those problems are being overcome and that induced pluripotent stem cells offer enormous promise and are one of the most exciting discoveries in this area for a long time.

I am indebted to a number of organisations—including the Australian Family Association, the Do No Harm group, and Medicine with Morality—for providing a lot of information to honourable members about induced pluripotent stem cells and the potential they have. I do not intend to spend a great deal of time talking about iPS cells, because I know honourable members have had a lot of that information made available to them. However, this is one of the most important discoveries that we have had in this field of research, and it is particularly important to note the promise that iPS cells offer relevant to the use of embryonic stem cells.

I draw honourable members' attention to a letter they will have received from Dr James Sherley MD PhD, a senior scientist at the Boston Biomedical Research Institute. Dr Sherley has written to all members of the Legislative Council in this state and has noted that he gave evidence to the federal parliament when it was considering this legislation 2½ years ago. He writes:

I want to impress upon you that the present moment in which you consider this issue is quite different than the earlier one in Canberra. Previously scientists on both sides of the issue could only project what they thought would happen in cloned human [embryonic stem] cell research. Proponents of the research promised that cloned human [embryonic stem] cells would provide new cures; whereas opponents warned that the cells would be too defective to yield any new medical advances—in this present moment, we no longer have to wonder what will happen. We know. The awaited future, now come to be the present, is that cloned human embryos are too defective to produce human [embryonic stem] cells.

I will repeat that, Mr Acting President. Dr Sherley says:

…cloned human embryos are too defective to produce human embryonic stem cells.

In his letter Dr Sherley goes on to refer to some coverage there has been about stem cell research and cloning in other places, noting that those efforts have not borne the fruit that a lot of scientists hoped for in the beginning.

Induced pluripotent stem cells offer great promise, and we have already seen an enormous amount of progress in a short time. I think it was in late 2007 that Dr Yamanaka and his team, as well as others around the world, first started developing the technology, and in such a short period of time—less than 18 months—it is remarkable how far things have progressed.

I draw members' attention to a story in February this year which comes from a website called scientificblogging.com. The article notes that scientists at the Monash Institute of Medical Research had created Australia's first induced pluripotent stem cell lines. They derived the cells from skin cells and reprogrammed them to behave as embryonic stem cells, a breakthrough that will allow Australian scientists unlimited access to study a range of diseases.

So, not even 18 months after the initial discovery of induced pluripotent stem cells, we have already seen this technology being developed and used in Australia, and it is hoped that that will lead to a whole range of beneficial treatments in due course. To be fair, I will note that one of the doctors at the Monash Institute said that it is too early to assume that iPS cells are the preferable alternative to working with embryonic stem cells, but I will address that argument in some detail later on.

This bill was introduced in November, and as time has gone on with this debate, a week has not passed in which there is not some new application or development of the induced pluripotent stem cell technology. I could draw members' attention to a whole range of those and also, in particular, to a number of cases where adult stem cells are being used.

Advances in the use of adult stem cells are proving more and more promising. I draw members' attention to some of the advances that have been made just in the last six months of last year. One from the United States involves a person in Florida where doctors were able to treat auto–immune disease by using stem cells from her blood.

New brain cells are necessary for learning and memory, as we know, and researchers at Kyoto University have conducted research that shows that transplanting adult neural stem cells into brain-injured mice could restore some memory. That is an example of some progress in relation to brain injury in research in Japan.

In Auckland, New Zealand, a person who was born prematurely and was therefore brain-damaged upon her birth was the first person to undergo experimental treatment using her own umbilical cord blood in relation to brain injury. Doctors have also used a revolutionary stem cell treatment to restore the power of speech to a stroke victim in the United Kingdom.

There have been advances in relation to cerebral palsy in Arizona and in spinal cord injury here at Griffith University in our own country. At Kansas State University, researchers are working on delivering cancer drugs that promise to be more efficient and reduce side effects.

There has been some further progress in the areas of immune deficiency, heart tissue regeneration, bone healing, liver cirrhosis, disorders of the digestive tract, pulmonary hypertension, knee cartilage, windpipe reconstruction, the use of adult stem cells from wisdom teeth and flexible adult stem cells from testes.

I will not go through all the details of those cases and those advances, but they are examples where, in the six months at the end of 2008, there were considerable advances made in a whole range of areas using adult stem cells.

I am not suggesting that those things have meant that we have conquered everything, or that we are now able to make disabled people walk. Of course, I am not suggesting that that means the battle is won when it comes to finding treatments and cures, but it does again demonstrate that the promise in this field has been very much on the side of adult stem cells and in using induced pluripotent stem cells, rather than human embryonic stem cells.

Growing scientific evidence suggests that human cloning is not necessary and is not the most promising field of endeavour. So, when we examine the scientific evidence before us, it is my quite firm contention that human cloning does not offer the most promising course of discovery and future investigation. There is no reason why the South Australian parliament should be a legislature that leads the way in relation to allowing human cloning and hybrid embryos with the expectation that they will lead to particularly great advances. The evidence suggests that the most promising advances are coming out of the fields of adult stem cells and induced pluripotent stem cells.

The science is an important consideration for us all to take into account but, as I said in my contribution a couple of weeks ago, this is not ultimately a decision of induced pluripotent stem cells versus human embryonic stem cells. Ultimately, this is about ethical choice—the ethical judgment to be made—about whether or not we consider that ethical boundaries should be expanded and whether to allow things that we have never allowed before in the hope that we will have advances and treatments that would have previously seemed out of reach.

There is no doubt that there are any number of scientists who will posit that the most promising course of research is one way or another. Naturally, there will be a lot of debate within scientific circles—that is the nature of science—but, ultimately, it comes to us to make an ethical and moral judgment about whether or not certain ethical boundaries should be crossed and whether or not we should allow things that we have not allowed before because we believe that the potential for benefit is so great.

The fundamental question here comes down to how we view embryos and the humanity of the embryo. I imagine that members will have a lot of different personal views about the sanctity of human life, about when life begins, and the consequences for us as legislators. Those differences are important, and they are to be respected but, ultimately, it is not simply a case of when the life of an embryo begins. I appreciate that it is very unlikely that we will get a consensus amongst members of parliament or amongst people in the community that life begins at conception. That may be a position to which I adhere, but I understand that other people will not take that point of view.

What is important is that the humanity of the embryo is intact and that it is acknowledged. There is no doubt that, at seven or eight days' development, not all of an embryo's organs are developed. It is not at the point at which a baby is when it is born after nine months. Of course, we know that to be the case, but that does not mean that we can dismiss the embryo as being, essentially, a bunch of cells.

We have heard that point of view advanced in this debate: that, at the end of the day, what we are dealing with here is a bunch of cells in a Petri dish; that they do not really mean an awful lot. We can have this sort of interesting philosophical debate about life, the universe, and everything but, ultimately, we are talking about a few cells that most of us have no ability to see or understand much about. So, we really should not get bogged down in these sorts of ethical debates.

I firmly reject that notion because ultimately we have to consider the humanity of the embryos created if this legislation goes ahead. No-one is suggesting that these embryos are the same as you and I in terms of our development, but it is absolutely certain that all of us began at the same point that these embryos did. We may not have been fully formed, had all our organs, emotions and the ability to love, laugh, feel, run and all the rest. We did not have all those things as an embryo of 13 days, but we were certainly there at some point. That is where we began and that is how we got to where we are now. It is too flippant and dismissive an argument to suggest that we are talking here about a bunch of cells and that it is not something that can be considered human life, because in reality that is where we all started and how every human being, alive and dead, began—as an embryo. That is to where we can trace our development.

The important thing to note about this bill is that it allows human cloning for what are described as therapeutic purposes. It allows for the cloning of a human embryo through somatic cell nuclear transfer. This human cloning creates a living human embryo like any other. We may have different views about the humanity of the embryo, about its status and about when its life begins, but we cannot dispute that those embryos are the same as embryos produced through assisted reproduction technology or naturally. Professor Loane Skene of the Lockhart committee said in evidence to the Senate:

We do not shy away from calling it an embryo because it is conceivable, as happened with Dolly the sheep, that if that entity were put into a woman, after a lot of care it could in fact develop into a foetus, so we did call it an embryo.

A 1997 report to President Clinton, 'Cloning Human Beings', from the National Bioethics Advisory Commission in the United States, states:

The commission began its discussions, fully recognising that any effort in humans to transfer a somatic cell nucleus into a nucleated egg involves the creation of an embryo, with the apparent potential to be implanted in utero and developed to term.

It is very important to acknowledge that a cloned embryo produced, as provided for in this bill, is to be considered in the same light as embryos created through the combination of egg and sperm, whether naturally or in a laboratory. Both are able to be brought to term, both are able to become fully human in anybody's ethical conception of it. That is an important point to note. We cannot say that embryos created through assisted reproduction technology or embryos naturally created can somehow be distinguished from cloned embryos, from embryos produced through somatic cell nuclear transfer. That is not a logical conclusion to draw because both have the capacity to be brought to full term and be implanted in a women, if we are talking cloned embryos or assisted reproduction technology embryos, and brought to birth.

It is a fallacy to say that we can play a semantic game where we say that these cloned embryos are really just a bunch of cells and can only live, under this legislation, for 14 days and that therefore we should not get too worked up about them. The reality is that those cloned embryos produced through somatic cell nuclear transfer have the potential to be brought to full term and to walk around as do you and I. That is of course what happened with Dolly the sheep.

I am not suggesting that this legislation allows that to happen, and I do not believe anyone opposing this bill has suggested that it would allow anything of that kind. This bill does have important safeguards which ensure that all that is permitted is for the cloned human embryo to be brought to the stage of 14 days. Nonetheless, it is important to note that it is possible for these cloned human embryos to be brought to birth; and I have no doubt that, if we pass this legislation and continue down this track, it will not be very long at all before we are asked to extend the boundary from 14 to 28 days, then perhaps to two or three months, and who knows where that could end?

Essentially, I suppose, we could say that this is the slippery-slope argument, and that is often dismissed by those who would support this sort of legislation and research as scaremongering. However, in only five or six years in this field we have gone from saying, 'We are so confident that we don't need human cloning that in fact we will put "prohibition of human cloning" in the very name of the bill', to saying, 'Just imagine what might be possible if we go down that track of human cloning.' Even in a very short period of time we are pushing that boundary, and we are seeking to extend the limits.

Certainly there is no doubt in my mind that there will be future moves to expand further that boundary to allow even further development from where we are now. It is important to take that into account. If we do take this step now and if we do accept the principle that because the potential for treatment, progress and cures is so great that we can overlook and overcome our ethical concerns and allow the cloning of human embryos, allow the creation of human embryos, and once that principle is enshrined we will find it so much more difficult to draw a future line.

If we draw a line in the sand here, having already established the principle that the end does justify the means, it is so much easier to push the line in the sand a bit further and a bit further still, and that is what I believe will happen if we go down the track of allowing human cloning. We have seen in the area of in-vitro fertilisation—or assisted reproduction technology—how much has changed since that technique was first introduced. All sorts of restrictions are now considered old fashioned or have been changed. I am not reflecting on the worthiness or otherwise of what has happened in that field but use that as an example of what has happened over a period of time when a new technology in this field has been introduced.

There is no doubt that a cloned human embryo is able to be brought to term, and therefore we need to weigh that up very carefully and not dismiss that embryo as simply a bunch of cells. This legislation allows the creation of cloned human embryos for the first time with the express intention of destroying it. The ethical argument advanced back in 2002 and 2003 for the first round of legislation allowing human embryonic stem cell research was that some spare or surplus IVF embryos would perish. I cannot quite recall the technical word that was used, but the argument was that those embryos would essentially cease to be and therefore why not make use of those human embryos for the benefit of humanity?

The essential argument that many people advanced in 2002 and 2003 was, 'We are talking here about embryos which already exist and which will be surplus, that will never be transplanted in utero, that will never be brought to birth, therefore why not make the best use we can of them for the benefit of everyone?' That was the principle argument, yet here we are, not even a decade later, saying, 'Now we want to create human cloned embryos.'

It is true that this is legislation that allows it narrowly, with safeguards, but it takes that vital important step. It takes that critical step of allowing for the first time the creation of cloned human embryos with the sole purpose of destroying them.

It is not sufficient to say that, because there is no sperm involved in the creation of a somatic cell nuclear transfer human cloned embryo, it is not really an embryo or should not really be considered human. That is exactly what happened with Dolly the sheep. There was no sperm involved in the creation of Dolly the sheep but that does not mean that a sheep was not brought to birth—and we all know the final point for Dolly.

The reality is that all embryos have to be considered human embryos. We may have ethical differences about when life begins or at what point of development it can be considered that a person is invested with full personhood or humanity, but we cannot dispute that a distinction cannot be drawn between naturally conceived embryos, IVF embryos and cloned human embryos in terms of their humanity. We cannot simply dismiss human cloned embryos through somatic cell nuclear transfer as being a bunch of cells not really to be considered in the same light as embryos that are produced through sperm and egg combining.

It is important to go back for a moment to the slippery slope argument. There is no doubt that there are those in these fields of research and those who advocate a vast expansion of the ethical boundaries far beyond what this bill contemplates, and we know there are certain practitioners in the world who fully intend to be the first to bring a human cloned embryo to birth. I draw to honourable members' attention what Melbourne's Daniel Elsner, in the Journal of Medical Ethics in 2006, said:

People who wish to reproduce by cloning should be permitted to do so provided there is no reasonable alternative.

In the same journal another person from Melbourne, Julian Savulescu, raised the prospect of essentially farming cloned foetuses for organs. In an article entitled 'Cloning as a source of transplant tissue', Professor Savulescu, who is a professor of practical ethics at Oxford, writes:

it is...morally required that we employ cloning to produce embryos or foetuses for the sake of providing cells, tissues or even organs for therapy, followed by abortion of the embryo or foetus.

I am not suggesting that this bill allows those things to happen—of course not—but it is an indication of where some of those—I am not suggesting these people in particular—involved in this research would like to see us end up. There is no doubt that there are people—prominent people—in our community who quite happily advance the notion that we should, in fact, be able to use embryos and even bring such embryos to a late period of development before birth in order to be able to obtain organs or save the lives of others. That is not envisaged by this bill. That is not what we are being asked to do here.

However, there are certainly those—as I say, some prominent people and scientists and ethicists—who are happy to advance that argument. There is no doubt that there are those who believe that, once we accept the principle that the potential for cures, treatment and human progress is so great we should cross ethical boundaries we would not have contemplated crossing before, we should continue to expand those boundaries to a point which at the moment would seem unthinkable, yet a lot of things which are considered unthinkable at some point can become quite acceptable at another time.

So, while we are not being asked in this bill to vote on the entire future of this field, it is nonetheless important that we weigh up where we sit—where we find that balance between the potential for progress, treatment and benefit to humanity against the ethical considerations and the allowance of technology which we would once not have contemplated.

I think it is important to note that a lot of the improvements and advances using human embryonic stem cells that are talked about are treatments or progress which do have problems associated with them or are work that can be done using adult or non-embryonic stem cells. It is often suggested by those advocating this sort of research that, essentially, if you put the brakes on you will call everything to a halt and you will stop a lot of advances being made, whereas the reality is that a lot of the advances can be made without using human embryonic stem cells and, indeed, as I have argued, the use of induced pluripotent stem cells and adult stem cells is the most promising of all.

A number of arguments are generally advanced for this legislation—or, perhaps I should say, against those who oppose it. One of those arguments is that essentially only religious fanatics oppose this sort of thing; there is a small, hard-core group of people who are opposed to scientific progress, and they will conjure up all sorts of scare campaigns and spectres to try to suggest that we are going down a track that we are not actually going down. The argument is advanced that these people have a particular view about when life begins. They draw that from their Christian or other faith, and we cannot allow that to be imposed on everyone else.

In my view, this is essentially playing the man, not the ball, to use a football aphorism. Rather than trying to engage in the debate on its merits; rather than trying to talk about what is the most promising scientifically; rather than focusing on the ethical questions at hand, it is much easier to say, 'Look, we're dealing here with a bunch of slightly mediaeval reactionaries who are against the general advance of human progress because of their religious beliefs, and we can't let them become the barrier to where we want to go.'

That is simply not a valid argument; that is just sophistry, but we hear it again and again. Undoubtedly, many who advocate for this sort of legislation spend a great deal of time talking about things which are not strictly relevant and which are not at all part of what this bill encompasses and do so in order to try to discredit those who oppose it.

I am not aware that any of those opposing this legislation have got up and said that the Bible says you should do this or that or the Catholic catechism says you should do this or do that and therefore that is what you should all do, but that is the argument that is responded to, whether or not that argument has ever been made.

I think we need to keep perspective and balance and not allow ourselves to try to use some hostility to religious fanaticism as the basis for deciding on important legislation. We need to examine this legislation on its merits; we need to look at what it does; we need to look at whether it is the right thing to do; and we need to look at whether it will advance the lot of humanity. Voting for a piece of legislation because you do not like the people who are opposed to it or because you do not like people coming to your door on a Sunday morning trying to convert you to their religion is hardly a just reason to support a very significant change in our ethical framework.

The second argument I would like to touch on that is often advanced for this legislation is to say that the promise of cures is so great, and so often we hear emotive appeals about what might be possible: 'Wouldn't we like to see children with type 1 diabetes being cured? Wouldn't we like to see people with Parkinson's Disease, motor neurone disease, spinal cord injury being cured? Wouldn't we like to see incredible, unthought-of advances in those areas?' Of course we would; we all would.

In my view there is far too great a reliance on that emotive appeal by those who advocate this sort of legislation. It is often those like me opposed to such legislation who are accused of being emotive or irrational, yet that glorious prospect of cures that we can only imagine is so often held out as the most likely result. I pointed out the quote from Professor Loane Skene in my last contribution. In relation to people having a moral objection to cloning, she said:

This is the sort of objection we are getting from some people. My view on this is that if there were a cure this objection would immediately be overridden...Can you imagine that somebody would be arguing that sort of moral right against the right of somebody else to get up and walk?

There we have the professor who ended up chairing the Lockhart committee after the death of Mr Lockhart conjuring up the prospect of people getting up and walking from incurable diseases and suggesting that those who oppose this sort of legislation on moral grounds are having the audacity or temerity to look those people in the eye and say, 'You have no right to walk and you have no right to a cure.' Of course, I do not say that. I do not believe anyone who opposes this legislation has ever taken the view that we want people to suffer, that we want people not to be cured or that we are happy that there are kids with diabetes and people bound to wheelchairs or people who are quadriplegics and what have you. Of course, none of us likes to see those things happen.

We all want to see progress and better treatment. We all are amazed constantly at what is now medically possible that was unheard of even a few years ago, let alone a century ago. We all are hopeful that medical science will continue to progress so that there will be advances in treatments and cures, but to hold out this emotive lure that people will be cured of degenerative, debilitating disease and restored to full health—which may not be possible, no matter what happens, because of the damage done to their body—is a most unfair thing to do to those people; to use the suffering of others to justify a position when in fact there is little evidence to suggest that that position will lead to those advances for those people.

Another argument commonly advanced for the legislation is that we should make every post a winner. Induced pluripotent stem cells are good and adult stem cells are good, and it is good that there is progress in those areas. However, we cannot limit ourselves. We need to let 1,000 flowers bloom and try every avenue of endeavour we have in order to see what comes up trumps. The problem with that is that we need to go with what works. I believe the scientific evidence is more clear that going down the track of human cloning does not work. It has not produced the sorts of advances that were promised.

Human embryonic stem cell research has been around for some years now. At the beginning there were great promises of incredible, unthought-of progress being held out. I am not suggesting that no progress has been made, but we certainly have not got to nirvana in a short time just because we opened up those ethical boundaries. If we vote for this legislation, the likelihood that people will be cured of debilitating disease in a few short years because of what we do is simply not there.

While it is important to follow fields of scientific endeavour, we should not say that we need to go down the track of doing something we are unsure of because, otherwise, we might be depriving ourselves of potential cures and treatments. We need to make every post a winner is the argument and, therefore, we should allow all possibilities.

If there is any doubt or concern about what it is we are proposing here, surely we should err on the side of caution. When we are talking about allowing the cloning of human embryos and allowing the creation of hybrid embryos—something we have never done before—surely in such a fundamental matter we need to err on the side of caution. If there is doubt or concern, if it is unclear (and I would argue that it is), about whether this potential course of research will lead to an incredible wealth of discovery, then surely we must err on the side of caution.

We have a whole range of promising treatments—such as using induced pluripotent stem cells and adult stem cells—so surely, if there is some doubt about whether cloning will lead to the sort of progress we want to see, we would err on the side of caution; we would not go down that track but would at least give ourselves some time to see how these other techniques pan out, rather than saying, 'Let's smash down boundaries and see what comes up, see what works.' If we do that, we essentially accept the principle that the ends do justify the means; we have to cross ethical boundaries that we would not have considered crossing and allow things we do not believe are ethical because we are so keen to get the progress we seek. If we accept that principle as being at the root of our decision-making then we have to ask ourselves, 'Where do we draw the line; what is no longer possible?' I argue that if there is doubt, if there is concern—as there is—in the minds of many honourable members and people in the community, then surely we should err on the side of caution.

The final argument I wish to address, which is often advanced for this legislation, is that those who oppose it are simply running a scare campaign, talking about The Island of Dr Moreau and raising the spectre of all these clones and half-breeds running around—all that sort of nonsense. No-one is suggesting that this legislation will lead to that kind of outcome. It provides for the cloning of human embryos up to the point of 14 days and allows for the combination of animal eggs and human sperm up to the second day. No-one is suggesting that it will lead to some sort of absurd parody of science fiction; however, if we cross those ethical boundaries and allow this sort of research, and if it does lead in certain directions, there is no doubt that if the genie is out of the bottle things will happen internationally that we do not want to see happen.

I have raised that point before: that there are those who clearly, publicly, and quite happily advance the idea that we should be able to grow embryos to term in order to harvest their organs if that is for the benefit of saving other lives. I do not think many people share that view, but if it becomes possible to do that then there are those who will do it. I believe that scientists in Australia generally adhere to important ethical standards, but I understand that there is a range of opinions about that, with some members expressing the view that we need to trust the scientists and others saying that they are not sure we should trust them. I do not doubt that Australian scientists are, on the whole, ethical people who accept the boundaries of research they are given, but there are many around the world who do not, and there are places in the world where our highly regulated environment does not exist.

If we are at the forefront of allowing certain progress that develops certain techniques, we cannot stop that being utilised elsewhere in ways we do not want to see. There is no way that we can quarantine ourselves and say that we will allow cloning and research on human cloned embryos here in very limited circumstances, but will not let other people utilise that technology: whether we like it or not, they will. If we allow the edges of this research to be entered into then there is no doubt that there are others who will take it much further—others around the world who will not worry about ethical boundaries and who will do whatever they think is possible, because their desire to be the pioneer of some discovery is greater than their ethical considerations.

I have spoken on this bill for a while now, including my contribution on the previous occasion, but it is a fundamentally important bill for us to consider. We need to ask ourselves whether it is necessary scientifically, and I argue that the evidence is overwhelming that it is not, that the advances and progress promised by other techniques—particularly by the use of induced pluripotent stem cells and adult stem cells and the existing human embryonic stem cell research that is going on, which is not threatened by this legislation—offer far more avenues of promise. I do not pretend that I would be a supporter of research in human embryonic stem cells but, for those who believe that is a promising field of research, that will continue. That is not the subject of this bill.

So, is it necessary, from a scientific point of view, to do this? The answer is no. Is it wise, from an ethical point of view, to do this? The answer is again no, because for the first time it allows the creation of cloned human embryos for the sole purpose of research with the intention, from the very moment of their creation, of destroying them. It allows for the creation of hybrid embryos—the combination of animal eggs and human sperm—again, in limited circumstances, but it allows that boundary to be crossed, something that we have never done before.

In voting for this legislation we would be establishing the principle that we want to see great progress and are prepared to cross ethical boundaries in pursuit of that goal. If we allow the creation of cloned human embryos, allow the creation of hybrid embryos, we will do so in a limited and controlled environment but we cannot put limits on where that will go. We can in this legislation. We are not proposing to open the floodgates, but we are creating a situation where we are establishing principles that can lead to dangerous situations in the future.

I think we need to ask ourselves some simple questions in relation to this bill. While it is complicated legislation, the following matters are before us. Is it necessary scientifically? I believe the answer is no, because other avenues of scientific research are more promising. Is it necessary ethically? I believe the answer is no, because it will allow the creation of cloned human embryos and hybrid embryos for the first time, and that is an ethical boundary that is not in our best interests to cross.

We have the capacity now, as members of the South Australian parliament, to make it clear where we stand on this matter: that we are excited about the prospects of the other avenues of research and we want to foster those, and we see them as important to progress. We do not see it as necessary or ethically correct to allow human cloning and, so, we should not pass this legislation. That is the position that I advocate to honourable members. I encourage all members to oppose the bill. It is not necessary, and it is not wise.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (16:23): I rise to speak in favour of the bill. As other honourable members have indicated, this bill emanates from commonwealth legislation of 2002. At that particular time, two pieces of legislation were passed relating to the prohibition of human cloning and the research involving human embryos and then, in 2003, we addressed two bills with identical names.

I remember that the shadow attorney-general, Isobel Redmond, in another place recounted that the purpose of those bills was to make certain provisions for the use of IVF for people with fertility problems. The thrust of the bill was to allow the harvest of more eggs than were potentially required. There then arose the ethical dispute over the treatment of eggs which would not be needed should the process be successful before they had been exhausted.

The legislation was reviewed some time later, and recommendations were made which were passed by way of a bill with a conscience vote. I recall that debate as one of the early ones in my parliamentary career and, at the time, I certainly supported the use of these particular embryos that had been created but were not needed by their owners—the mother and the father. I saw it as an absolute waste if they were to be washed down the sink and disposed of in that way when the research had gone into the actual ability to harvest these eggs and fertilise them. If they had some potential to offer—cures for diseases and also increased wellbeing for humanity—then it was, in my view at the time, certainly something that we should support.

It is interesting to note now that parliament faces a very similar question. This legislation having been passed, we now have young adults who are leading healthy, happy lives because they arrived in this world through in vitro fertilisation. Now, we are dealing with research embryos which come from a more technical manipulation of egg cells which is by no means based on the natural process of fertilisation as it has been with traditional IVF.

Effectively, though, the bill will allow the production of therapeutic cells through the use of an egg in combination with DNA. As the Hon. Bernard Finnigan has said, a number of views have been expressed and it is something that I know he feels very passionate about. He has spoken at length today, and it was the conclusion to a lengthy contribution that he made last time we sat.

There are different views. One view is that support for the bill is an ethical atrocity of the highest order, and the other is that the legislation will provide quick solutions to medical hurdles that, as yet, have not been overcome. I do not believe that either of these is correct, but I do think, possibly, there is an opportunity for an answer to medical problems in the longer term.

Therefore, I find myself—and I will not be making a particularly lengthy contribution—in a position where I am happy to support the legislation. The eggs that are dealt with are not fertilised, so I do not believe that we are dealing with the potential destruction of human life—an issue that has been raised and was certainly the issue that was raised with respect to the embryos that were surplus to requirements because of the IVF process where the expiry date had been reached.

Here, we are not dealing with something as close to human life. I think this is more comparable to the donation of other human cells such as, perhaps, the donation of blood. I have been a blood donor for a number of years, although I chastise myself because I have not given blood recently, and I must make sure I get back to doing so.

We hear of family members who donate organs to each other. They match kidney donors and the like. I think there is a significant community benefit from allowing those procedures to take place, notwithstanding the hybrid issue that the Hon. Mr Finnigan addressed in his closing remarks.

I certainly do not support the creation of hybrid cells between humans and animals or animals of different species. To me, that is going too far. I am aware that one or two members may well put forward amendments to address that, and I would certainly be interested in those. If none are put on file, I may look at one myself.

I was looking through the list of diseases that the Parliamentary Research Library provided to me for which a cure or solution could potentially be provided, and I will just quickly run through them: Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, spinal cord injury, stroke, burns, heart disease, type 1 diabetes, osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, muscular dystrophy and liver disease.

There has also been an indication that there is a range of cancers that could not so much be cured but there is the possibility of replacement organs and a whole range of interesting medical opportunities. I was contemplating that list when I was thinking about what I would say. Sadly, in this modern world, as we get a little older, we realise that our lives are touched more and more by disease and sickness.

Most members would be aware that my mother is still alive. She is in a nursing home at Bordertown suffering from Alzheimer's and a type of dementia. I am sure that she is comfortable and relatively happy. She is as physically fit as one would expect an 86-year-old lady to be. She has been almost a vegetarian since I was born so, for some 48 years, she has actually looked after herself in a dietary sense. She was physically quite active, but she is now mentally incapacitated through a lack of brain function—dementia and Alzheimer's. I love my mother dearly. If it was at all possible that other families could receive some benefit—it certainly will not help my mother in her lifetime—in the future, I think that we should progress it.

On my list are two cousins who had leukaemia. Sadly, one has died—my cousin's daughter. I have three children. I remember my cousin and his wife going through the trauma of treatment after treatment with their little girl, and how she would scream the moment she was put in the car, because she knew she was going to the hospital for her next lot of treatment. I can still vividly see my cousin and his wife weeping at the funeral of their daughter. My cousin's wife was pregnant with their next child, because they were advised that having a child would help them—as part of the healing and grieving process—to move on with their lives.

My father died of cancer. At present, my father-in-law is dying of cancer. Sadly, I suspect that he visited our house in Adelaide over the weekend for the last time. He is not a well man, and it is a pretty tough thing for my three children to have to go through. This time last year, one of my cousins passed away with cancer. I have a cousin whose husband died of a brain tumour. Of all those people, the eldest was a few weeks short of 72, so they were not elderly people. In fact, some of them were quite young. My cousin's daughter, from memory, was only four years old.

Certainly, if there is an opportunity for families in the future not to have to go through such a terrible loss, it should be supported. Most deaths have been premature. Of course, when you are a child, somebody in their 70s seems quite old. As someone who is nearly 50, to me anyone in their 70s is not old at all. Sadly, my father died almost before my children can remember. They have enjoyed their other grandfather (my father-in-law) for some years. If technology was available to help people who suffer from diseases, it would be of tremendous benefit to the individuals involved.

It is for all of those reasons that I support this legislation. I have always supported research, whether it involves this type of research or genetically modified crops and foods. I think we should always look at research to progress ourselves, our communities and the wellbeing of the people in those communities.

The Hon. Bernard Finnigan made some comments about people expecting cures within a few short years. I do not think that is the case. While we have this research and these techniques, I think people expect that, over time, our scientific community will actually develop methods of treatment for a whole range of ailments. Sadly, a whole range of new ailments will afflict society in the future. For those reasons, I support the legislation. I am aware that at least one or two members are seeking an amendment in relation to hybrid embryos and, as I have indicated, I will be looking to see the effect of those amendments. However, at this stage, I support the legislation.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (16:35): I indicate at the outset that I was one member who spoke about this matter at length almost six years ago, on 5 June 2003. I expressed my views at that stage, and I do not intend to repeat all that I said on that occasion. I will repeat some bits, and make some additional comments as a result of what has transpired over the past six years in this particular area.

The first point that I want to make in relation to this legislation, referring to the minister's second reading explanation in this chamber, is that this bill does not stop embryonic stem cell research. As a number of members have highlighted, we have existing legislation from 2003. We have federal legislation which allows embryonic stem cell research using so-called surplus embryos. It is permitted and it is allowed to continue, and it is continuing as we speak. Again, my contribution in 2003 highlighted what the research at that stage told us in terms of the numbers of what they called surplus embryos that were available for research at that time. I think 70,000 was one particular estimate. I think that is certainly more than enough to allow the people concerned to continue the research in that field of endeavour for many years.

It is important for those who read these contributions to acknowledge or recognise that this is not a vote for or against stem cell research: it is a question of where the boundaries will be drawn and whether or not the boundaries ought to be further extended from those that exist already.

The second point that I want to make—referring again to the minister's second reading explanation—is what, in practical terms, the impact of this legislation will be. I refer members to the section which the minister highlights as coverage of commonwealth and state laws.

In that explanation the minister acknowledges that in summary the commonwealth laws cover Australian government authorities, constitutional corporations and trade and commerce. The minister then goes on to indicate that all current South Australian human reproductive medicine embryo research and training activity is being conducted within either a corporation—Repromed laboratories—or a university—the University of Adelaide Medical School laboratories.

The minister said that it is thought to be unlikely that future research or training proposals will emanate from facilities that are not a university research institute or a corporation. The minister then, having acknowledged that, in essence is saying that the people undertaking research in this area, irrespective of how we vote on this legislation, will continue because federal law actually allows them to continue. Some would argue that in one respect it is essentially an academic argument in terms of the practical impact of whether or not this legislation is passed and in what form.

Clearly the strongly-held conscience view that many of us hold on this issue means that nevertheless we want to express our view and should do so. One of the issues that ought to be explored with the minister in committee is whether my reading of her second reading explanation is correct, namely, given that we already have a change to federal law, whether or not we make this change will not inhibit or prevent what is already going on under and sanctioned by federal law.

The minister goes on to say that there might be some legal uncertainty about whether our universities are constitutional corporations and therefore facilities, and then she goes on to say that there may be some doubt about research being done collaboratively through our universities. I do not profess to be an eminent legal expert like my colleague the Hon. Mr Lawson QC, but from my understanding of what the minister has said and from my understanding about this section of the commonwealth law it is clear that Repromed laboratories and the University of Adelaide will be covered by federal law and, in essence, will be able to do whatever they wish to do under federal legislation. That is an issue members ought to pursue. It may be that we have a long and interesting debate here, but in practical terms it will come to not very much in terms of impacting Repromed or the University of Adelaide in terms of what sort of research they end up doing.

I refer to the contribution of the Hon. Mr Hunter and others in another chamber who sought to dismiss what they term to be the slippery slope argument. The Hon. Mr Hunter said:

The other argument often conjured up is the slippery slope argument, one which is very emotive and is used to stir up images reminiscent of Huxley's Brave New World. It is also completely nonsensical.

The Hon. Mr Hunter then goes on to further explain why, in his strongly-held personal view, he believes it to be nonsensical. I was here in this chamber in 2003 voting on the legislation and, as the Hon. Mr Finnigan and others have indicated, there was in this parliament—and I think in every other state parliament and the commonwealth parliament that voted on the legislation—100 per cent agreement on the issue of the banning or prohibition of human cloning of any form or another. There were not vast majorities outvoting a small minority: my understanding is that nobody wanted to even contemplate going down that path, that is, we will only vote on embryonic stem cell research to this limit and no way in the world would we ever contemplate any form of human cloning. As the Hon. Mr Finnigan rightly pointed out, it was actually the title to the bill. That was just a short five or six years ago in this and all chambers around that time that we were told that that was the limit and that we would not go beyond it. Within that short space of time we are back with legislation completely contrary to that indication.

The second example of what some might call the slippery slope argument in this area is the indication in the legislation in relation to hybrid embryos. The Hons Mr Hood and Mr Brokenshire and even the Hon. Mr Wade raised this issue in relation to hybrid embryos. For the avid readers of Hansard, I will read what Mr Rann, on behalf of the government and the vast majority of government members, is supporting:

Hybrid embryo means:

(a) an embryo created by the fertilisation of a human egg by animal sperm; or

(b) an embryo created by the fertilisation of an animal egg by human sperm; or

(c) a human egg into which the nucleus of an animal cell has been introduced; or

(d) an animal egg into which the nucleus of a human cell has been introduced; or—

and this is the clincher—

(e) a thing—

I do not know whether I have ever seen that reference in legislation, but the Hon. Mr Lawson may be able to give previous examples. So, a hybrid embryo is:

(e) a thing declared by the regulations to be a hybrid embryo;

That is the best Mr Rann, parliamentary draftspersons and others who support this could do in terms of defining a hybrid embryo.

They are the four specific examples of combining human eggs, animal sperm or various combinations. Then, just to cover it all, in the bill Mr Rann wants us to support something which defines a hybrid embryo as a 'thing' declared by the regulations to be a hybrid embryo. How extraordinary for Mr Rann to ask us to support this sort of proposition in legislation. He wants us to support a hybrid embryo being defined as a 'thing' declared by regulations. So, it is anything that he and his government want to promulgate by way of regulation, because it is only Mr Rann and the government who can promulgate regulations: we cannot do that as individuals. If Mr Rann wants to promulgate a 'thing' and declare it to be a hybrid embryo—any particular variation of combinations he might contemplate or would like to support—then that thing will be a hybrid embryo for the purposes of this legislation.

I am appalled that the Premier of my state and the others who have supported him are prepared to seek the support of members of this chamber for this proposition of a hybrid embryo, but importantly that aspect, a 'thing', declared by the regulations to be a hybrid embryo. As other members have highlighted, at this stage we are being told that this will be used for only 24 hours, although I think in the original drafting the House of Assembly contemplated 14 days. Mr Rann's Minister for Health, Mr Hill, said, 'Well, whoops, we didn't really mean that. Thank you for highlighting that'—one of the members highlighted it in the House of Assembly—'and we will tidy that up in the legislation.' I think they are now talking maybe 24 hours, and at this stage it will be for a specific test in relation to sperms.

The Hon. Mr Hunter says that this argument about the slippery slope is nonsensical. Let me assure the Hon. Mr Hunter, who has not been in the chamber (and he is probably grateful) for as long I have, that in the short space of 5½ or six years this whole debate has moved from what we were told in 2003 was an outright prohibition on cloning to now allowing cloning in a significant way, but now also asking us to contemplate the combinations of human and animal sperms and eggs. If that had been raised in 2003 there would have been a scream.

It shocks me that, when you have the Premier of the state supporting and voting for this definition of hybrid embryos, a combination of human eggs and animal sperm and vice versa, and a definition of a 'thing' being a hybrid embryo, that should not be an issue of some public debate. Not one member of the media so far (and it has not been for the want of trying because the Hon. Mr Hood and the Hon. Mr Brokenshire have spoken passionately on it, as have other members) appears to be interested in this notion; and a number of members in this chamber who are supporting the legislation are indicating their support for this proposition as well.

I hope that even those members who might ultimately support the legislation will be at least prepared to support the amendments that have been floated in relation to the removal of the issue of hybrid embryos; that is, I hope that enough members in this chamber—Liberal, Labor, Independent and minor parties—will strongly enough disagree with the views of the Premier and his supporters on this issue and let us put a stop to what I would term 'Rann's madness' in relation to this issue of the hybrid embryos being included in the legislation.

My well-intentioned and cautioning advice to the Hon. Mr Hunter and others who say that it is nonsensical to talk about the slippery slope is to look at the history in relation to these issues. At the moment we are being told that the 'foot in the door', if I can use that inelegant expression, in relation to the hybrid embryo provision is that it will be allowed for only 24 hours or so—it will be allowed only in relation to this specific test. That is now. But in three, four or five years Mr Rann and co. will be coming back to us saying, 'Look, 24 hours is not long enough; we'd like to have it for seven or 14 days. We'd like to do another range of tests. There are these wonderful potential benefits if we are able to do this further round of testing.'

Mark my words, if this legislation is unamended in that area we will see at some stage in the future inevitably the Premier—if he is still in the parliament at that time, or the member for Ramsay, whatever his title is—and others with similar views wanting to extend these provisions even further. That has been the history, and the people of South Australia ought to be warned.

The next matter I want to raise is the rapid pace of change we have seen in this area, even since the contribution I made in 2003. I have referred in part to the issue of what is being sought in this legislation. I want to refer very briefly—and other members have done it much more comprehensively—to the groundbreaking research of just two years ago in relation to induced pluripotent stem cells. I referred in my 2003 speech—and I will come back to it in a moment—to the significant advances in adult stem cell research. As members have mentioned, in the past two years there has been groundbreaking research in relation to induced pluripotent stem cells, and I refer to two quotes, the first in The New York Times of 22 November 2007 headed 'Man who helped start stem cell war may end it', which states:

If the stem cell wars are indeed nearly over, no-one will savour the peace more than Dr James A. Thomson.

Dr Thomson's laboratory in 1988 plucked stem cells from human embryos for the first time, destroying the embryos in the process and touching off a divisive national debate.

And on Tuesday, his laboratory was one of two that reported a new way to turn ordinary human skin cells into what appear to be embryonic stem cells without ever using a human embryo.

The fact is, Dr Thomson said in an interview, he had ethical concerns about embryonic research from the outset, even though he knew that such research offered insights into human development and the potential for powerful new treatments for disease.

'If human embryonic stem cell research does not make you at least a little bit uncomfortable, you have not thought about it enough,' he said. 'I thought long and hard about whether I would do it.'

He decided in the end to go ahead, reasoning that the work was important and that he was using embryos from fertility clinics that would have been destroyed otherwise.

Now with the new technique, which involves adding just four genes to ordinary adult skin cells, it will not be long, he says, before the stem cell wars are a distant memory. 'A decade from now, this will be just a funny historical footnote,' Dr Thomson said.

More work remains, but he is confident the path ahead is clear. 'Isn't it great to start a field and then to end it,' he said.

In and about the same time, 16 November 2007, an article on telegraph.co.uk headed 'Dolly creator Professor Ian Wilmut shuns cloning' states:

The scientist who created Dolly the sheep...is to abandon the cloning technique he pioneered to create her.

Professor Wilmut believes a rival method pioneered in Japan has better potential...and will be less controversial than the Dolly method, known as 'nuclear transfer'.

His announcement could mark the beginning of the end for therapeutic cloning. 'I decided a few weeks ago not to pursue nuclear transfer,' Professor Wilmut said.

Most of his motivation is practical but he admits the Japanese approach is also 'easier to accept socially'.

Professor Ian Wilmut said: 'The fact that introduction of a small number of proteins into adult human cells could produce cells that are equivalent to embryo stem cells takes us into an entirely new era of stem cell biology. We can now envisage a time when a simple approach can be used to produce stem cells that are able to form any tissue from a small sample taken from any of us. This will have enormous implications for research and perhaps one day for therapy'.

I use those couple of quotes, and there are thousands of others, to highlight the enormous advances since our debate in 2003, and it is due to the groundbreaking research in 2007 in a couple of separate places in the world, and that is clearly going on at an enormous rate right across the board.

To highlight the tremendous rate of change, I refer to the minister's second reading contribution in this place, which states:

Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells...

The use of induced Pluripotent Stems Cells (iPSCs) has not superseded embryonic stem cell research as some members in the other place have suggested.

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.

So, the minister is referring to one of the arguments against iPSCs, that is, the fact that viruses, or viral vectors, are used in their creation. The speech the minister gave is dated November of last year.

I will refer to a number of news stories from this month. In an item entitled 'Researchers advance in stem cell treatments' dated Monday 2 March on ABC News, it was reported:

British and Canadian researchers say the ability to create stem cell treatments without using embryos is a step closer.

The team has manipulated human skin cells to act like embryonic stem cells without using viruses, making them safer for use in humans.

The head of the Centre for Regenerative Medicine in Edinburgh, Professor Sir Ian Wilmut, says the researchers have created something that behaves like an embryo, but is not an embryo.

'This technique has been refined even further and we've done more detailed studies,' he said.

'We will find that there is no longer a benefit in recovering cells from embryos and that work will just naturally draw to a close'.

The source was the BBC. Another report came out of Paris, again in March of this year, and I quote from a media report:

Pioneering work by Japanese stem cell researchers two years ago has taken a major step forward, helping the quest for versatile, grow-in-a-dish transplant tissue, according to papers published on Sunday.

Further, it states:

But the downside of the technique for creating these so-called induced pluripotent stem cells...is that the genes are delivered by a 'Trojan horse' virus.

Reprogramming cells using a virus modifies their DNA in such a way that they cannot be given to patients without boosting the risk of cancer. In the new studies, published by the British-based journal Nature—

and the reference is 'Virus-free induction of pluripotency and subsequent excision of reprogramming factors', an article by Kaji, Norrby, Paca, Mileikovsky, Mohseni and Woltjen, joint authors of that study published in the March edition of Nature—

two squads of researchers from Britain and Canada recount a method by which the four genes are delivered into the cell without using a virus—and then are removed after the reprogramming is done.

The insertion is carried out using 'piggyBac', a tried and tested technique in genetically modified crops in which mobile genetic sequences called transposons are slotted into the genome.

In the iPS work, it has been tested successfully on mouse and human skin cells. Tests on the reprogrammed cell lines show they faithfully reproduce the behaviour of embryonic stem cells.

'I was very excited when I found stem cell-like cells in my culture dishes. Nobody, including me, thought it was really possible,' said Keisuke Kaji from the Centre for Regenerative Medicine at the University of Edinburgh, Scotland.

In a sense, the minister prepared her second reading contribution in November of last year highlighting that one of the concerns about induced pluripotent stem cells was the fact that we were using viruses and they were dangerous and could cause cancers and a whole variety of other things like that; therefore, we needed to be very careful about those and we should to go back to the embryonic stem cells. Since that statement we have now had this quantum leap, with researchers indicating that now it will be possible to use techniques that do not use those viral vectors with those downsides in the research that they do.

The final issue I want to raise is one that a number of my colleagues have raised. As I said in 2003, it was a difficult issue for me, and I indicated at that stage that my mind was open in relation to how I would consider legislation in the future, because the potential benefits indicated by members and others who lobby for this legislation are very attractive. Back in 2003 I referred to some quotes, and I will quote them again and put them on the record. During the second reading response I want the minister to provide whatever factual information she has available either to accept that these statements are correct or to indicate that time has moved on and they are no longer as accurate as perhaps they were in 2003.

I refer to contributions made in 2003 in which I quoted from my federal colleagues. The Liberal Party being a broad church, I will quote from contributions from Christopher Pyne and Nick Minchin who, on this issue, had almost unanimity of view. Christopher Pyne's contribution in the federal parliament was as follows:

However, right now, today, as we speak, adult stem cells are being used following research to benefit the injured, the diseased and those people who are disabled. Adult stem cell research is being used right now as we speak to help humankind. The potential of it is even greater but in fact adult stem cell research is making the breakthroughs that those proponents of embryonic stem cell research claim may be possible in the future.

Let me give you some examples. In July 2001, German doctors used stem cells taken from a patient's own bone marrow to regenerate heart tissue damaged by heart attack, successfully improving his coronary function. American doctors have reimplanted stem cells taken from the brain of a patient with Parkinson's disease, resulting in an 83 per cent improvement in the patient's condition. The Washington Medical Centre treated 26 patients with rapidly deteriorating multiple sclerosis with their own stem cells, stabilising the condition in 20 patients, improving the condition in the other six. Israeli doctors implanted adult stem cells taken from a paraplegic woman's blood into her spinal cord, allowing her to regain bladder control and the ability to move her own toes and legs.

In Canada, another paraplegic had movement in her toes and legs restored after stem cells from her immune system were implanted in her severed spinal cord. Surgeons in Taiwan have used stem cells taken from a patient's eyes to restore vision. In the US adult stem cells have been used to treat sufferers of the sickle blood cell disease. Stem cells taken from umbilical cord blood have allowed doctors to restore the immune systems of children which were destroyed by cancer. In the UK, a 3-year old boy was recently cured of a fatal disease by the use of stem cells extracted from his sister's placenta. American doctors have reported that adult stem cells have been used to improve the condition of 15 people with insulin dependent diabetes. Blood cells have been used to repair gangrenous limbs. Adult stem cells have been used to repair the cornea of an eye to restore sight and at Cedars-Sinai in LA adult stem cells have been found to treat Parkinson's disease.

The University of Minnesota has published research in the last three months that shows that adult stem cells are as versatile as embryonic stem cells, meaning that the only feature of embryonic stem cells which was regarded as unique to embryonic stem cells—being their versatility and their ability to change into many different organs of the body—has been swept away by the fact that adult stem cells have now been shown in recent research from the United States to be able to be as versatile as embryonic stem cell research without the disbenefit of being rejected by the immuno system and requiring major immunosuppressant drugs.

I quote also from a contribution from Kevin Andrews in the federal parliament in relation to this issue:

By contrast, I am informed that research involving adult stem cells is already producing cures. Bone marrow stem cells have been used to regenerate heart tissue. Brain stem cells have been used to treat Parkinson's disease. Multiple sclerosis has been stabilised in patients using adult stem cells. Spinal cord damage has been repaired using blood stem cells. Adult cells have been used to restore vision. Sickle cell blood disease has been treated with adult stem cells. Placental stem cells have been used to restore immune systems destroyed by cancer, and diabetes sufferers have had their condition improved using adult stem cells. The successful use of adult stem cells goes on and on. Recently the so-called bubble boy was restored to health with gene therapy using adult stem cells.

At that time, in 2003, having quoted Christopher Pyne's and Kevin Andrews' contributions, I highlighted that those members and others were indicating that adult stem cell research was at that stage actually being used to treat patients, whereas embryonic stem cells were not being used to treat patients at that stage. They were talking about the potential value at some stage in the future: that was in 2003. Let me quote from what I said in 2003:

I return again to the Bresagen presentation to some South Australian members of parliament. Even they acknowledge that with embryonic stem cells it may take years to produce patient benefit. So, even the proponents of the legislation are acknowledging that it may take years—although the critics will say even longer—in terms of producing patient benefit.

Finally, I quote from the contribution from Senator Minchin on this issue. He actually quotes as follows:

On this matter, Dr David Prentice, the American expert who visited Australia earlier this year, said: 'Embryonic stem cells have not yet produced a single clinical treatment; there are few and limited successes in animal models; and problems of immune rejection, tumour formation and genomic instability continue to be unresolved.'

If I can summarise the contributions from that broad church of Liberal members in the federal parliament, Senator Minchin, Mr Pyne and Mr Andrews, the essential point and the information at that stage given to me as a member of the upper house from BresaGen, one of the companies supporting research in this area (although I should not include BresaGen in relation to all of what I am about to say) was, in essence, that adult stem cells were being used at that time in relation to producing treatments for patients with many of these diseases but that embryonic stem cells were not, at that stage.

Given that we are 5½ years down the track, will the minister provide information to members in relation to the summaries produced in the federal parliament by members to whom I have referred in relation to embryonic stem cell research in terms of actual treatments of many of these very desirable and worthy aims and about where, in practice, that research and application is at present as opposed to the use of the examples I have given of adult stem cells, for example?

I think it is important. I know that some members are supporting this legislation because they believe that it might in some way help cure some of the diseases that have been listed here. If that is the case, this parliament deserves a factual and comprehensive update from the minister, on behalf of the government, as to where the real state of the research and application is at present in relation to embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells, and induced pluripotent stem cells, as well.

I indicate that my position at this stage is that I will support the second reading to allow consideration of debate in the committee stage. I will be trenchantly opposed to the proposition of Mr Rann and other members in relation to hybrid embryos and I would be wanting to seek some amendment to those particular provisions. I reserve my position on the third reading, but at this stage it is likely I would oppose the third reading of the legislation.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON (17:10): I rise to indicate that I will not be supporting this bill, and I will not rehash the arguments of the Hons Dennis Hood, Bernie Finnigan and Rob Lucas. There is a great deal of concern as to the necessity for this kind of research to be going ahead. Dare I be brave enough to say that stem cell research itself has produced few outcomes for the amount of kerfuffle that has been raised in the public and scientific arenas of the need for this kind of research. I note that very recently President Barack Obama in the United States lifted the ban on embryonic stem cell research but said at the time that he would not condone human cloning for embryonic stem cell research because it was found to be repugnant to the American people and, also, to him. I hope he has the tenacity over time to stand by that statement.

I heard the Hon. Mr Ridgway talking about family members who have died because of cancer and illness. Indeed, it is a sad thing that children, especially, contract serious illness. The point to be made here is that none of those particular illnesses or cancers could have been assisted at all with embryonic stem cells. In fact, as the Hon. Rob Lucas said, adult stem cell research has gone ahead in leaps and bounds. In fact, 73 illnesses and disorders can be treated with adult stem cells. The score for adult stem cells versus embryonic stem cells is adult stem cells 73, embryonic stem cells zero.

I will painstakingly read out the disorders and illnesses that can be treated by adult stem cells because it is important that each one is on the public record as being able to be cured with treatment by adult stem cells. A lot of these illnesses and disorders are used in the embryonic stem cell debate to stir up emotion. In fact, we can already apply medicine and science to them. All these disorders and diseases can be treated with adult stem cells: brain cancer, retinoblastoma, ovarian cancer, skin cancer (merkel cell carcinoma), testicular cancer, tumours abdominal organs lymphoma, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, Hodgkin's lymphoma, acute lymphoblastic leukaemia, chronic myelogenous leukaemia, juvenile myelomonocytic leukaemia, chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia, cancer of the lymph nodes, multiple myeloma, breast cancer, neuroblastoma, renal cell carcinoma, various solid tumours, soft tissue sarcoma, Ewing's sarcoma, diabetes type 1, systemic lupus, Crohn's disease, juvenile arthritis, multiple sclerosis, acute heart damage, chronic coronary artery disease, corneal degeneration, severe combined immunodeficiency syndrome, Parkinson's disease, spinal cord injury, stroke damage, sickle cell anaemia, sideroblastic anaemia, aplastic anaemia and red cell aplasia. By the way, I am reading out only those that I can pronounce. There is also chronic Epstein-Barr infection, limb gangrene, surface wound healing, jawbone replacement, skull bone repair, Hurler's Syndrome, osteogenesis imperfecta, chronic liver failure, liver cirrhosis, end stage bladder disease—and there are another 60-odd that I have not read out.

I think that those 73 diseases and illnesses cited, which can be treated with the medical application of adult stem cells, should be a pretty clear indication that this is the way we need to go with the research and the science. The whole use of embryonic stem cells, this move to human cloning, is quite a concern to many people who are aware that this sort of debate is occurring, and I am sure people are even more shattered now, as I am, to find out that this is just an academic exercise and that federal legislation will, in fact, override whatever we do here. That is most disappointing. I think Theodore Roosevelt said it best, when he said: 'To educate a man in mind and not morals is to educate a menace to society.'

I think we can only put so much trust in the scientific profession. As the Hon. Mr Finnigan said, most people abide by the rules, most people do have respect and see that there is a need for clear boundaries, but there is always that radical few who will want to push the envelope. As the Hon. Rob Lawson stated, only 5½ years ago this place was debating one level of this kind of legislation and research and here we are again, taking it to that next level. That is indeed the beginning of the slippery slope that we would all prefer to believe does not exist—but there are plenty of examples that it does.

I would also draw to the attention of honourable members that in November last year 60 Minutes did a report on stem cell research which showed that we are now able to grow hearts with a scaffold from a cadaver (or not even from a cadaver) that has been treated, cleaned and brushed with stem cells—and not embryonic stem cells. A fully functioning heart can now be grown and transplanted, and they did that with a rat.

On the 60 Minutes program I watched they were able to transplant the heart, which had been grown in a test tube, and the rat survived with no signs of rejection and no need for any anti-viral medications to prevent rejection, because it was the rat's stem cells that were used to grow the heart over a scaffold. Ellen Fanning did the story, which was quite fascinating, and she said:

I've just had the most amazing experience. A glimpse of the future. I've seen a living, beating heart built from scratch in a laboratory. It's a major breakthrough. A vital step towards custom-made human body parts for transplants. Now say you had a serious heart or kidney disease. There would be no more waiting months, maybe years for a donor. Your doctor would simply order a new organ designed especially for you. Imagine what that would mean to thousands of Australians now on the list for organ transplants. As you will see, this isn't some scientist's crazy dream—it's already happening.

In fact it's happening at the University of Minnesota, where they not only grew a heart in a jar but where they also helped a young girl who was born with spina bifida whose bladder had never fully developed. They grew her a new bladder. Prior to this process, although she was studying at university she had to do all that from home. She could rarely leave there because she had no bladder and, as you can imagine, it was just too embarrassing for her. They grew her this bladder, it was transplanted, and she now attends the university campus. She can go anywhere and has a whole new life ahead of her. I stress that this was not because of embryonic stem cell research; it was adult stem cells that assisted in this.

I would also like to read from a paper that I had hoped members would be able to access before they made their decision on the bill, because it is a monitor of stem cell research. In a paper by Dr David A. Prentice PhD, a professor in the department of life sciences at Indiana State University, he states:

Within just a few years, the possibility that the human body contains cells that can repair and regenerate damaged and diseased tissue has gone from an unlikely proposition to a virtual certainty. Adult stem cells have been isolated from numerous adult tissues, umbilical cord, and other non-embryonic sources, and have demonstrated a surprising ability for transformation into other tissue and cell types and for repair of damaged tissues.

Adult stem cells have received intense scrutiny over the past few years due to surprising discoveries regarding heretofore unknown abilities to form multiple cell and tissue types, as well as the discovery of such cells in an increasing number of tissues. The term 'adult stem cell' is somewhat of a misnomer, because the cells are present even in infants and similar cells exist in umbilical cord and placenta.

So we have had the information about this skin technology and the ability to extract stem cells and grow organisms and so forth. This adult stem cell technology, according to the Hon. Rob Lucas, was raised in the federal debate by the Hon. Christopher Pyne. This is an old technology; it is not new technology. This science, this information, has not just dropped out of the blue; it has been around and it has been basically buried in all the hype around embryonic stem cell research and human cloning.

I am going to be very brief with this because everybody has basically said everything that there is to say on it. However, I do have one concern and that relates to a comment made by the Hon. Ian Hunter. I believe he said that this bill would now perhaps make it easier for the process of parthenogenesis to be explored and used in the application of IVF, and that, to me, is a huge concern—parthenogenesis being an asexual way of reproducing and not being specific to mammals or humans.

There has already been quite a bit of experimentation, if you like, with this process and, as we know, that slippery slope may not be as far away as we think. In 2007, I think, there was research into this, and we have now seen that a mouse developed from a parthenogenic process has been born and has created viable offspring.

This sort of science, although it seems like sci-fi, is not that far away, and I think that comment of the Hon. Ian Hunter brought up for me a number of concerns as to where we would be in perhaps 10 or 20 years and how many more allowances we would be prepared to make all in the name of science.

Really, we are asking ourselves: is this necessary? In my opinion and in science's opinion, adult stem cell research has a lot more to offer and, therefore, I think it would be wise of us to tread very carefully with the processes to which we may be opening the door.

As I have said, other members have raised all the information and research that shows that this is a bill that is outdated and has been already surpassed by science, by medicine and by treatment and the application of stem cell technology from adult stem cells. I think that this is a bit of an indulgence for us to be considering human cloning at this stage of medical and scientific research.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for State/Local Government Relations, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister for Government Enterprises, Minister Assisting the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Energy) (17:27): By way of concluding remarks, I thank all honourable members for their very valuable contributions. There have been many, and a great deal of detail and consideration has gone into the individual contributions that have been part of the second reading debate.

This bill raises important moral and ethical questions that require deep consideration. I note that both major parties have accorded members a conscience vote on the amendments to the South Australian laws and that some members have spoken very passionately about the proposed amendments.

First, it is important to distinguish between reproductive embryos and research embryos. The amendments differentiate between embryos created by fertilisation of an egg by a sperm for the purpose of creating a baby and embryos created by technical manipulation of cells and DNA for research and potential therapies.

Human reproductive embryos are embryos created using human sperm and eggs and, under this bill, are able to be used only for assisted reproduction treatment—that is, to form a family. In 2003, this parliament determined that only embryos deemed excess by the couple obtaining such treatment can, once the proper consent process has occurred, be used for research.

This research has led and will continue to lead to better treatment outcomes for people who need assisted reproductive treatment to form a family. I will refer to the creation of embryos by other means, for example, somatic cell nuclear transfer, as research embryos. This is where the distinction is important. Some members have said that life is precious, and I certainly agree with that. However, research embryos are not a person, and it is not possible for them to become one. There is no sperm involved: merely an egg which is encouraged to divide by other artificial means.

Before addressing some of the issues that have been raised, I would like to remind members what this bill permits and what it does not. The bill retains the prohibition on creating reproductive embryos, that is, those created with sperm and egg for a purpose other than assisted reproductive treatment. The bill allows research embryos to be created by somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) and parthenogenesis (stimulating the cells to divide by other means).

It allows such embryos to use genetic material from more than two people and precursor cells (immature eggs). These research embryos must not be implanted, are subject to a strict licensing, monitoring and compliance regime and cannot be developed for more than 14 days.

Other prohibitions which will still apply are: heritable alterations to the genome (preventing 'designer babies'); chimeras (adding components of an animal cell to a human embryo, or vice versa); importing and exporting prohibited embryos; commercial trading in eggs, sperm or embryos; and implanting any type of human embryo into an animal or any type of animal embryo into a human. So, they all remain prohibited.

Enabling for the creation of hybrid embryos—that is, when human sperm is introduced into an animal egg—allows for a diagnostic test for sperm quality. This can occur only with a licence in a reproductive medicine clinic, and only as part of assisted reproductive treatment. This procedure tests the fertilisation capacity of human sperm using animal eggs. Ensuring that only robust, healthy sperm will be used on a woman's egg, thereby giving the best possible chance of creating a baby, will obviously save valuable human eggs.

To test the robustness of sperm, hybrids will be able to be created only until a detectable change indicates a result. This is generally the first cell division which happens on about day two. This testing can be undertaken only with a licence. I remind members that the licensing regime is obviously very strict. The NHMRC applies a strict set of criteria on a case-by-case basis and only when: there is a likelihood of significant advances which could not reasonably be achieved by other means; a human research ethics committee has approved the research project; the number of embryos is restricted to only those likely to be necessary; there is evidence of proper informed consent by all tissue and gamete providers; there is a separate account of each embryo; and there is transparent reporting (six-monthly reports to federal parliament).

The bill increases penalties for prohibited practices from 10 years imprisonment to 15 years imprisonment. There is a wide range of prohibited practices that would attract a maximum 15-year term of imprisonment. Increased penalties also relate to the prohibited practice of trading, importing and exporting gametes (oocytes or sperm). In addition, the human tissue acts nationally (the Transplantation and Anatomy Act 1983 in South Australia) prohibit payment for any organs or tissues, including eggs.

The commonwealth legislation, together with equivalent legislation in all states and territories and the National Health and Medical Research Council's Embryo Research Licensing Committee, creates a strict national legislative scheme prohibiting human cloning and regulating human embryo research.

I will now address some of the specific issues that have been raised in the council during the second reading debate. The Hon. Mr Brokenshire proposes amendments to the bill which will prohibit the use of precursor cells for the research and development of hybrid embryos for testing sperm quality. First, I will talk about precursor cells. The Lockhart Review Committee, which was established to review the national legislative framework, recommended that a licence be permitted for the creation of human embryos using precursor cells from a human embryo or foetus for use in research—including the production of human embryonic stem cells—as one means of addressing a potential future shortage of human eggs for somatic cell nuclear transfer.

It is clinically impossible to fertilise precursor cells from foetuses with sperm. However, precursor cells extracted from late term aborted foetuses of sufficient gestational age that the ovaries are identifiable could, in future, be matured in laboratories and used in somatic cell nuclear transfer. It would only be the egg shell that is used with the genetic material of the foetus removed; the DNA in the resulting embryo would be from another source, such as a skin cell. The resulting embryo would therefore not be progeny of an unborn foetus. It would not be allowed to mature past 14 days and it would be prohibited from being transferred to the body of a woman.

The specific consent of the mother of the foetus, and her partner, is required to use foetal material for research or for any other purpose, in the same way as parents can consent to the donation of tissues from their children. The NHMRC ethical guidelines specific to the use of foetal tissue would apply. These guidelines stipulate that the foetus is available for research only as a result of separation by natural processes, or by lawful means, and that proper and separate consent has been obtained. These guidelines have been in existence since 1992, and research using foetal tissue has been conducted since then.

The NHMRC ethical guidelines also specify that, if a foetus or foetal tissue becomes available as a result of a termination, the process through which the woman is informed about donation, and her consent sought, should be separate from that under which she decides to terminate her pregnancy and should not begin until a decision to terminate has, in fact, been made.

South Australia does not take terminations of pregnancy lightly. South Australia is one of only two states with specific abortion legislation. The use of precursor cells from foetuses will not mean that more women will terminate their pregnancy; nor will it result in increased miscarriages.

As members will appreciate, such an event can be a very traumatic experience for a woman, her partner and their families. However, women who terminate a pregnancy because of an abnormality or disease—or women who miscarry—may want to donate foetal tissue to research that could benefit their family.

We should remember that research permitted by the bill is not just about growing healthy stem cells but also about generating stem cells with specific genetic disorders to enable study into how these diseases act on other cells at a molecular level. Such study would also assist in the identification of therapeutics and treatments.

The Hon. Mr Brokenshire is proposing that the bill be amended to prevent the development of a hybrid embryo under any circumstances. The prohibition of human cloning legislation regulates not only the creation of embryonic stem cells but also embryo research that leads to improved clinical outcomes in assisted reproductive treatment. Research in clinical practice in assisted reproductive medicine in South Australia is considered to be world class. Well-regulated embryo research is critical to maintaining and improving the standards of reproductive medicine. This is necessary to preserve the safety and effectiveness of treatments for those South Australians who rely on reproductive medicine for family formation and for children born through assisted reproductive medicine.

The bill allows a hybrid embryo to be created or used solely for the purpose of testing sperm quality, that is, to see if a sperm is robust enough to penetrate an egg. This knowledge helps assisted reproductive medicine specialists to tailor treatment for those affected who are seeking to have a family. Further, this diagnostic test can only be carried out in an accredited ART centre and only with a licence. The bill makes it an offence to develop a hybrid embryo past the point where the embryo reaches the first mitotic division early on day two and, again, only for the purposes of testing sperm quality for a couple undergoing reproductive medicine treatment.

The bill and the commonwealth legislation prohibit the creation and use of hybrid embryos for any other purpose, and they cannot be transferred into a woman. An offence attracts a term of imprisonment of 15 years, which has been increased from 10 years. If South Australia's laws are not amended, infertility research and development would continue to be constrained. New techniques and treatments using embryos would not be able to be developed nor tested, and South Australian couples may be denied the benefits of increasing choice, quality and safety available to those in other states.

IVF treatment is not always painless. If we do not allow the testing of sperm using animal eggs, then more woman will have to undergo ovarian stimulation to produce extra eggs for diagnostic testing. This is a process whereby women are given drugs in an attempt to make them release more than one egg at a time. This treatment comes with its own risks. Ovarian hyper-stimulation syndrome (OHSS) is a common complication of pharmacological ovarian stimulation. The severity of the side effects ranges from mild—things like abdominal pain and distension—to critical—things such as blood clots and collapsed lungs and, in extreme cases, death can result. To suggest that women should continue to go through this process for what amounts to a diagnostic test of sperm to test its robustness is disgraceful. We have the opportunity to put the welfare of women higher on the priority list.

Most members speaking on the bill have suggested that induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) have superseded embryonic stem cell research. This is not necessarily the case, and only time will tell. It was only last month that a joint Victorian and New South Wales team produced the nation's first human iP stem cell line. Although iPSCs may be a promising tool for basic research, disease modelling and drug trials, they are still a relatively new discovery compared with embryonic stem cell research.

Embryonic stem cell research has been conducted using animal cells for over two decades. It has been replicated and proven reliable. The same cannot be said for iPSC research. It has not being adequately reproduced; therefore, at this early stage it cannot be considered reliable. It is far too soon to tell, and it will take decades before more research is conducted and methods made safer to see whether it will be appropriate for therapeutic use. That addresses some of the issues raised by the Hon. Ann Bressington.

In terms of the list of successes for stem cell research, much more time has been available in the development of those techniques, whereas for embryonic stem cell research to date that has mainly been for use in animals, and this will allow us to do further testing involving humans, which should allow us a broader scope of knowledge and understanding in these matters.

iPSCs remain an unknown quantity. Until recently iPSCs have required genetic modification through the use of viruses in their creation, which has made them less predictable and risks causing tumours. Professor Peter Rathjen informed the briefing session for members of parliament last year 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 embryonic stem cells follows the normal direction of developing early cells into mature cells. After 20 years of research, it is now relatively well controlled, has been verified and is reliable. He advised that much more work is needed before iPSCs could prove safe or useful in humans.

Australian research Professor Alan Trounson, who heads the world's biggest stem cell research project at the California Institute of 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.

Ever since the latest breakthroughs in iPSC research, which did not use the tumour-causing viral vectors but which used foetal skin tissue and something called electroporation, there have been no calls from scientists to halt work on human embryonic stem cells. In fact, Rich Weiss from the Democratic think tank at the Center for American Progress insisted that it would be foolish to abandon human embryonic stem cell research for a new and unproven alternative. He points out:

this is the first paper to show this technique and the findings have not yet been verified by others;

it uses human foetal skin cells, not adult skin cells, which are more difficult to convert into embryonic stem cells; and

it will take years to compare these cells thoroughly with 'gold standard' human embryonic stem cells to see whether they are biologically and medically equivalent.

The majority of scientific opinion seems to be that embryonic stem cell research should continue while the problems with iPSCs are being investigated and have been scientifically verified. Embryonic stem cells can address questions about early human development and, in particular, infertility research 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. Many in the scientific community argue that both types of research should continue to occur.

The question of how much money is being spent on embryonic stem cell research has been raised. In truth, very little is being spent on human embryonic stem cell research. Sydney IVF, Melbourne IVF and IVF Australia are the only organisations with licences authorising the use of excess ART embryos. Since amendments were passed in other jurisdictions only four licences have been granted to create human embryos for research purposes. All four licences have been issued to Sydney IVF. Sydney IVF and Melbourne IVF invest approximately 10 per cent of their revenue back into research. Many other organisations, including those in South Australia, fund their own research.

The Centre for Stem Cell Research in Adelaide provides early career research fellowships to attract and retain researchers to Adelaide and to continue to build the already substantial critical mass of stem cell researchers within Adelaide. Initial funding for the fellowships has come from the University of Adelaide and Bellberry Limited, a not-for-profit company that manages a private human research ethics committee. It has since attracted almost $7.5 million worth of research grants to the state for research commencing in 2008. The Australian Stem Cell Centre based in Victoria (with a node in Queensland) has the largest funding base, having been awarded grants from the commonwealth and Victorian governments valued at around $98.5 million. It is yet to get a licence so would not be undertaking any human embryonic stem cell research.

In 2007, approximately 9 per cent of NHMRC funding was committed to research involving the use of animal or human stem cells; of this, approximately 1.9 per cent is dedicated to research involving the use of human embryonic stem cells. The amendment bill is also about enabling South Australia to be part of a national scheme that regulates human cloning and embryo research across Australia. Some members appear to be unclear about what research could still be conducted if the South Australia, acts were not amended to realign with the national scheme.

South Australia ceased to be a party to the national legislative scheme in June 2007, when the current South Australian acts were declared no longer corresponding to the amended commonwealth laws. The NHMRC Embryo Research Licensing Committee is authorised to issue a licence only to researchers covered by a corresponding act. The NHMRC is also not authorised to inspect premises if it suspects wrongdoing unless authorised by a corresponding act. Since June 2007, the licensing committee has not been able to license any use of human embryos for researchers covered only by the South Australian laws. Even research that is lawful under the current South Australian acts cannot be licensed because our laws are no longer part of the national scheme.

There is a great deal of ambiguity and uncertainty about who is covered under the state and commonwealth legislation for these matters. There is no certainty that the licensing committee would grant a licence to researchers operating under commonwealth legislation in a state where the local laws do not correspond with commonwealth laws. The licensing committee will not be authorised to issue licences to researchers under the South Australian laws unless the South Australian acts are amended in a way that the commonwealth accepts as corresponding to the commonwealth acts.

In closing, I would like to point out that it was not all that long ago that other research that was considered equally as 'icky' led to scientific breakthroughs. Think back a few decades when many considered it immoral and unethical to think about using animal products in humans. Today it is considered mainstream clinical practice to use pig valves in human hearts to prevent, treat and cure congestive heart failure, heart attack and other serious cardiovascular illnesses. I believe that, amongst other things, pig pancreatic cells are injected in the treatment of diabetes. Transplantation of hearts, lungs and kidneys may have led to Frankenstein-like images, yet to today we actively encourage people to become donors, and organ and tissue donation and transplantation are widely accepted. Embryonic stem cell research has the potential to cure or to prevent many diseases, such as diabetes, repair spinal cord damage and replace tissue after injury or disease.

At the moment, our South Australian laws only permit excess reproductive embryos to be used for such research. Whereas in the past couples undergoing assisted reproductive technology treatments had many embryos created, better procedures and processes mean that today fewer reproductive embryos are being created and, as a result, fewer excess reproductive embryos are available for research. This bill will ensure that further advances in the field of embryonic stem cell research are made within a responsible regulatory framework, with strong oversight, protection and consent processes. I commend the bill to the council.

Bill read a second time.

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