 
Return to speeches menu
PARLIAMENT OF TASMANIA
Excerpt from Hansard
Wednesday 24th October 2007.
HUMAN CLONING AND OTHER PROHIBITED PRACTICES AMENDMENT BILL 2007 (No. 38)
Mr GUTWEIN (Bass) - Mr Deputy Speaker, I first of all would like to comment regarding the immense privilege that all in this place have been provided with. Unfortunately, too often the work we undertake is portrayed as political theatre. That devalues the fact that all of us in this place, regardless of our differences, sacrifice our time, our previous careers and, too often and more likely than not, our families to do the work we do on behalf of fellow Tasmanians. It is when faced with decisions like the one before us that the full weight of that privilege and responsibility we bear becomes apparent.
We do this work, I believe, because we all have, regardless of our political, ideological or philosophical differences, the best interests of our State and the communities in which we live at the forefront of our minds. That is why in a debate such as this, once the votes are counted and the decision made, there will be no personal losers because everyone, regardless of their views, will have had an opportunity to place on the record the view of their constituents and importantly their own private thoughts regarding the matters before us. All members in this House will, I know, cast their vote based on their own beliefs and in doing so will have done that which in their own hearts they believe to be right. Debates like this bring out the best in people and the debate yesterday and contributions from all speakers gave a high example of this.
It would be true to say that, in considering the matter before us, I have had to revisit my own personal set of beliefs and values, as I know other members of this Parliament have done. I would have to say, as someone who has always considered myself to be a progressive as opposed to a conservative, someone who would lean towards the side of pragmatic scientific argument rather than faith, that the outcome of this personal introspection whilst considering this legislation has caused me to gain a deeper understanding of the settings of my own moral and ethical compass.
Before I deal with the matter before us I want to reflect on the debate on the principal act which was passed in 2003, the Human Cloning and Other Prohibited Practices Act. That bill was principally about enabling and regulating research on human embryos which were in excess of the needs of assisted reproductive technology, or ART, patients, and which would otherwise have been destroyed. I was comfortable about supporting that legislation once I had satisfied myself that it was worthy of support after considering what intent the surplus embryos were created for in the first place. Very clearly, the initial intent was to create human life.
It was in this context that after examining the intent of that legislation, I was able to support it, as the purpose of allowing those excess embryos to be used in the manner that the 2003 legislation prescribed was for research to occur that ultimately was for the betterment of human life. I satisfied myself that what we were considering was whether or not a spare embryo created by two people whose sperm and egg had been used to create that embryo surplus to their own needs in their quest to create life, and which would otherwise have been destroyed, could be used if they consented for medical research that could ultimately be for the betterment of other lives.
However, Mr Deputy Speaker, the legislation before us goes a step further; in fact this legislation, in my opinion, is completely contrary to the intent of the 2003 legislation. In reviewing the debate from 2003, you need go no further than the then Minister for Health's second sentence in his contribution to the debate, when he said:
'All States and Territories and the Commonwealth have agreed at the 5 April 2002 Council of Australian Governments meeting to introduce and maintain national consistent legislation that would ban human cloning and establish a national regime to regulate scientific research using embryos.'
What we are being asked to do now is to amend that previous legislation to allow human cloning to occur. Only four short years since this legislation was first introduced, we are asked to consider altering the intent of the legislation which we originally passed, which specifically limited the type of scientific research that could occur with embryos, and principally precluded the option of cloning in any form. The biological argument is settled. Cloning creates a human embryo and that fact determines the ethical question we are being asked to answer. Is it morally permissible to create human embryos with the sole intent of destroying them in research?
Mr Deputy Speaker, I have thought very deeply about the proposed amendments before us, as I am certain that all members of this House have, regardless of their support for or against this proposed legislation. I have listened very carefully to the arguments both for and against what is proposed. Those who support the bill before us argue that not to support it will deny scientists the opportunity to conduct research and therefore will mean that the chances of future success will be negatively affected in discovering treatments and cures for diseases and other degenerative illnesses such as - and I will quote the current Minister for Health - 'Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, arthritis, stroke, heart disease, spinal cord injuries, type 1 diabetes, liver diseases and muscular dystrophy'.
It is an argument which has found favour with the majority of the Federal Parliament, albeit by only the tiniest of margins. However, it is not one that I can support. It was not until the weekend just gone that I finally made up my mind which way I would vote on this bill before us, and it was as a result of watching my children play in our garden on the weekend. I am certain that, like all members of this Parliament, and as a parent, I would do whatever I could to ensure the health of my children, and whilst I speak from the relative though fragile security of the position of having two healthy children, I firmly believe that we have not as yet exhausted all of the existing and currently known options available to us in search of the cures and treatments which we seek regarding the diseases mentioned previously.
Furthermore, in relation to a number of the diseases and other degenerative illnesses that I and other members in this place have previously mentioned, it should be noted that whilst the stem cell research currently allowed may ultimately provide the cures that people seek in many cases, there are many other preventive health measures that we as lawmakers could consider that would not challenge the ethics or beliefs of many people in our society. The onset of heart disease, for example, could be mitigated by reducing a range of risks such as smoking, the onset of high cholesterol, high blood pressure or obesity as a result of diet or exercise levels. Members would be aware that the number one cause of liver disease worldwide is as a result of alcohol abuse. Could this be managed among the current generation with preventive measures rather than requiring the measures proposed in the bill before us? Of course it could. In fact in Tasmania, the ABS stats confirm that unfortunately over 10 per cent of our adult population drink alcohol at levels that are considered to be high risk.
In relation to adult stem cell research, at the recent briefing which was provided by the minister, Dr Foote from the Menzies Centre was gracious enough to concede that the potential for adult stem cell research was far from exhausted and in fact we could see a situation arrived at over the next few years that the requirement for embryonic stem cells may become redundant, depending on what outcomes are achieved from the current research under way. Furthermore, there is continuing and ongoing research being conducted already as a result of the measures that were agreed to in the 2003 legislation, research which, at best, could be described as promising and, at worst, as providing false hope.
What surprised me in relation to embryonic stem cell research is that back in 2003 when we passed the original bill, the National Health and Medical Research Council reported that there were 104 830 embryos in frozen storage. Just last year I understand that under the four licences that had been issued to allow the derivation of human embryonic stem cells, only 122 of those excess ART embryos had been used, so let us be absolutely clear about this. The reason that we are here today is not because there are not enough embryos available for research. The embryonic stockpile is not exhausted and members need to take that into account when they consider their vote later on today.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the other area of research which I understand still has potential when seeking cures for particular illnesses, and particularly those of the blood, is in the area of umbilical cord blood stem cells, and again, it is an area that needs to be explored until all opportunities have been exhausted. We are a long way from exhausting the research possibilities that are currently under way. We are a long way from exhausting even the supply of embryos potentially available for research as a result of the legislation that we passed only four years ago.
One of the other arguments that has been brought forward by those who intend to support this legislation is that therapeutic cloning, if allowed, could assist in ensuring that the likelihood of rejection is reduced should the derived stem cells be transplanted back into the individual that the cloned stem cells were derived from. It needs to be placed firmly on the record today that there is current and ongoing research occurring in relation to a number of matters on the issue of rejection. New drugs that exhibit fewer side-effects are continually being investigated. Researchers are also working to establish stem cell banks which contain tissues of many different types, allowing for that that is most closely matched with a patient to be used, thereby reducing the incidence of rejection. Furthermore, as members in this place would be aware, the thymus gland is the organ which is most responsible for programming our immune system and as it ceases to function shortly after birth, scientists are currently researching ways of possibly reactivating the thymus gland so that our bodies will not reject transplanted tissue.
Mr Deputy Speaker, very clearly we have not exhausted current research opportunities and those who support this bill have not convinced me that we are at the point, or conceivably will ever arrive at the point, where we should allow the creation of life only for the purpose of ultimately destroying it in the name of research. For these reasons I am not willing or prepared to support this legislation. It takes us a step too far without there being any sound justification that I find myself able to support.
|
