Ms CORCORAN (10:03 AM) —I want to put on the public record my reasons for voting the way I intend to vote on the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002. I think it is important to explain to the people of Isaacs—particularly to those who have taken the time to write, email or talk to me about this issue—how I have arrived at my decision. The legislation is controversial. It touches many people in different ways. Some of my constituents have expressed very strong views in favour of the legislation; others are just as strong in their opposition. I have listened to the arguments put forward by those for and those against, and I am now comfortable and confident that supporting this legislation is the right thing for me to do.

The legislation does two things. It bans human cloning and it allows research on embryos in certain circumstances. I have not heard anyone argue that we should allow human cloning, so I assume that this part of the bill is agreed by most. The contentious part of the bill is, of course, those provisions that deal with research on embryos, and I will focus my remarks on this part of the bill.

For me, my decision comes down to one thing. The bill is concerned with embryos that are developed as part of the IVF program, a program that aims to give parents who cannot conceive naturally the chance to have a family of their own. The embryos in question are those that are no longer wanted by their parents. That is, the parents of these embryos have decided that they do not want these embryos and, importantly, that these embryos are to be destroyed. These parents have decided that, in the process, their embryo may be used for research before it is destroyed.

It is important to note that this bill prohibits the creation of an embryo for any purpose other than achieving pregnancy in a woman. This legislation does not allow the creation of embryos for the purpose of research. I must stress this point: this legislation will apply only to those embryos that come from the IVF program and that are now to be destroyed. The decision to destroy has already been made, and it has been made by the parents of the embryos: it has not been made by a researcher, a scientist or anybody else. This is the crucial point, and one that is missed in many discussions I have heard about the legislation. So now we have an embryo that has been committed to its imminent death. The only question now is whether it will simply die or whether it will die and in the process may contribute to the wellbeing of others. I do not see any choice in this matter. My conscience tells me that it is far better for this human life to contribute to the betterment of our society than for it to die without that opportunity being taken.

I want to make it quite clear that in coming to my decision I am not moved by arguments about when the embryo becomes a human. For me, this is an irrelevant, academic argument. For me the embryo is alive and human and everything else from the moment of its conception. I am also not swayed by the argument that it is important for Australia's scientific future that this research be allowed to happen. I do not dismiss the validity of this point, but in my mind it does not come into the decision about whether or not to allow the research. In coming to my decision, I am swayed only by the fact that we are dealing with an embryo which is about to die. This is a fact. It is its fate. But at the same time humanity may benefit through research which may find cures for a range of diseases and medical conditions.

There are two other matters that I want to raise in this debate. The first is the need for consistent legislation across Australia. At present, legislation concerned with human cloning and research on embryos does not exist in all parts of Australia, and where it does exist it is inconsistent. It is very important that we have consistent legislation which regulates these important issues and which legislates for a mandatory review of this legislation.

Current Commonwealth legislation bans human cloning and certain experiments involving a combination of human and animal cells. Victoria, Western Australia and South Australia have legislation banning human reproductive cloning and legislation which regulates research on human embryos. This legislation is slightly different from state to state. New South Wales, Tasmania, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory have no legislation about cloning, and research is subject only to the guidelines issued by the NHMRC. These guidelines are just that and they have no legal force. Queensland is different again and has adopted a Code of Ethical Practice for Biotechnology. It is time for consistency across Australia. This legislation, combined with mirror legislation to be introduced in each of the states and territories, will do just that.

The second point is that it is also important that we do not make decisions now that will be set in concrete forever. Science moves very quickly in this area and decisions taken today based on the best advice available need to be reviewed constantly as our knowledge improves and develops. This legislation also does that. In finishing, I encourage those who have not yet made up their minds on this issue to consider the facts carefully—the facts both for and against this research—and to reject the hysterical and irrelevant arguments that are around. The issue is whether we are prepared to allow embryos that have been committed to an imminent death to contribute in a real and lasting way to improving our society. I am strongly in support of doing so.