Mrs HULL (10:41 AM) —I rise to speak in support of the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002. I am pleased that I was here for the contribution by the member for Moore wherein he presented a reality check in this debate. There is no right and there is no wrong decision in this debate, and I believe every member of parliament has questioned themselves over and over as to the best outcome. While this bill will prohibit human cloning—an issue I strongly believe has no place in our society—it will ensure that work can continue on embryonic research, and in turn this may discover cures for many terminal and disabling diseases.

Today I refer to the process of in-vitro fertilisation. It first came to the attention of the public in the late 1970s following the birth in 1978 of the first IVF child, which attracted much criticism from sections of the community. An article in the Time magazine of 27 October 1986, entitled `Holding the baby: law and science collide over IVF research', said:

The article went on to say:

... ... ...

The article continued:

... ... ...

The article goes on to say:

Many embryos were lost during the research to try to determine successful freezing techniques. Many embryos are also lost due to an IUD commonly used to prevent pregnancy. IVF has come a long way since 1986, when that article was produced, with more than 350,000 children born thanks to this wonderful medical technology. Now the opportunity exists for remaining IVF embryos to be used to eventually give hope to sufferers of diseases like Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease and hopefully, one day, cancer. Members of this House have been given a conscience vote, and I can think of no better way to use that vote than to pass this legislation, which could one day see someone with a spinal injury walk again or an adult with Alzheimer's no longer afraid of forgetting who they are. This research gives hope to so many people. How can we deny that hope to Australians?

While IVF allows many people to become parents who otherwise would have been unable to conceive, it also means excess embryos. They are not used and they are at times destroyed. So as a supporter of IVF—as many people are—it is impossible for me not to support embryonic research. Embryonic research, just like IVF, gives hope and life to people who need it the most. There is a misconception that we are going to use the 71,000 embryos that are currently frozen. This is false. In fact, the majority of the embryos will be used by the patients to whom they belong. Maybe 15,000 to 20,000 of those embryos will be left to expire or will be disposed of. Around 50 embryos would be used for research. That is only 50 embryos.

The thought of disposing of and wasting 71,000 embryos is sometimes unpalatable to people. But when we talk of the 50 embryos that are required to form cells that will continue to multiply, I believe this is not a major hurdle to overcome. Embryonic and stem cell research offers a new hope to people with life-threatening diseases, and this government has enacted this bill to enable Australian scientists to further develop a method of preserving human life.

Research has shown that some cells can be deprogrammed and turned into a different type of cell when placed in various parts of the body. This is known as transdifferentiation and scientists have discovered that embryonic stem cells can develop more easily down different pathways before they become specialised and committed to a single type of cell—all of this in only five years, as opposed to the 40 years of adult stem cell research. This is where the hope lies. Embryos previously discarded following IVF can now be put to a most worthwhile cause.

It should be noted that in those 40 years of adult stem cell research the results have been satisfactory to say the least, but certainly not extraordinary. It is interesting that Dr Catherine Verfaillie has said that her work—and she is an adult stem cell researcher—should in no way be used as an argument for the cessation of embryonic stem cell research because her work is preliminary and is yet to be repeated by other laboratories. Dr Verfaillie said adult stem cell research should be done in conjunction with embryonic research rather than instead of so that all chances of developing therapies for diseases are pursued as soon as possible.

Sanctity of life means respect for those lives that have the potential to be saved by this research. How can we be given the tools and methods to undertake this life-saving work but then reject it? With our advanced medical knowledge, humans have been continually progressing, using developments in science and technology to save lives from thousands of diseases. Once smallpox was a deadly disease; now it has been destroyed. Why can't we further our knowledge and medical capabilities and rid our society of conditions in the future, such as Alzheimer's, diabetes, multiple sclerosis, motor neurone diseases and other neurological disorders? It is my hope, as with others in this chamber, that adult stem cells will eventually become more valuable than embryonic stem cells. The successful identification and multiplication of adult stem cells may eventually allow scientists to develop stem cell therapies without the need for embryos.

In last night's debate there was significant reference to the issue of rejection. The point was made that, even if embryonic stem cell research were to proceed, it could never be used as a treatment as the rejection would be so great and the drugs required to prevent rejection would be extremely harmful and thus render the research useless. Fact: there is now a process developed that can wake up the thymus gland. This gland sits up near the collarbone and tells us what is foreign. We can now recolonise the `woken up' thymus gland due to Professor Richard Boyd's research. This process will see tissue recognised as `self' and it will not be rejected.

Fact: adult stem cell research relies on drugs that destroy the immune system so that transplants are not rejected. This process in itself is extraordinarily damaging and difficult. One does begin to ask about the sanctity of life. However, take organ donations and organ transplants. They depend on one person dying so that somebody else has the opportunity for life. It is hoped that adult stem cells taken from a patient and grown and multiplied into the cell types required could eventually be used to repair diseased or damaged cells or tissues. However, this process has been slow and tedious.

As a modern society, we have achieved a great deal in medical science and technology with huge steps taken in finding cures for many illnesses. Australian professor Graeme Clark created the cochlear implant allowing many deaf people to hear for the first time. This was a medical breakthrough at the time and continues to be so. An Australian led the way in that field of research, and we can again lead the world by giving our medical scientists the opportunity for research in order to better our lives.

Hundreds of thousands of Australians suffer from the debilitating diseases of Alzheimer's and Parkinson's and long for a better future, something we may have the ability to provide. The benefits this research can bring to health care and life expectancies are enormous. Recent figures prepared by the Alzheimer's Association of Australia show that the number of people with dementia will grow to about 500,000 by the middle of this century. This projection means dementia will be a major and continuing national health problem for Australia. It is heartbreaking to watch somebody with dementia start to lose their memory. They slowly forget the most basic of tasks, even how to make a cup of tea. This research gives hope not only to those diagnosed with disease but to their families, who are left to care for their loved ones.

One issue raised constantly is that of Australia's ageing population, who are the most common sufferers of conditions like dementia and Parkinson's. Why then is this not a valid reason to press ahead with embryonic stem cell research, which may alleviate the symptoms for a number of Australians with terminal and other diseases? It would provide relief for our health care system, which now deals with the many patients who have been diagnosed. This research may enable doctors to repair the spinal cords of injured teenagers, meaning that they can return home at a much earlier stage, eliminating the need for a lengthy stay in hospital for rehab. Once their spinal cord is repaired, it is hoped that they would regain mobility.

Even the Australian Society for Medical Research, the peak body representing health and medical researchers, consider that the draft legislation provides a strong regulatory framework in an environment where both scientific and public scrutiny of work will be undertaken, with the appropriate consent given for stem cell research on surplus IVF embryos. They have endorsed both adult and embryonic stem cell research.

The issue that we have to be responsible for is that, if we are not going to allow this research to take place in Australia, we can hardly seek to access treatments from embryonic cell research that takes place in other countries. If we overrule this issue and prevent our scientists from moving forward in this area, surely we do not expect to benefit from research in other countries which allow and have started embryonic cell research.

Each of us are individuals with our own genetic make-up derived from our parents. I believe that creating copies of ourselves sets a dangerous precedent. That is why I certainly do not support any research into human cloning. It is a frightening thought and something that this bill completely outlaws. As a society, we could never allow fellow human beings to be used as living experiments. It is worth noting that embryonic stem cells can form many of the cells or tissues of the body, but they cannot form a whole individual.

We have the opportunity to pass this legislation permitting embryonic research and allowing our scientists to continue to work towards cures for these diseases. It is in no way ethical to reject this bill because we do not want this research carried out in Australia, yet freely accept treatments from overseas companies that have carried out this research. It is just not good enough to say that we will not condone this research in our country but accept scientific breakthroughs by scientists in other countries.

Many times people come to my office seeking assistance and ways and means of getting to another country in order that they might be able to receive treatment for their debilitating or terminal disease. If we refuse to allow this research to be undertaken in this country, then certainly we cannot help our fellow Australians to access those treatments. By refusing to allow such medical developments in Australia, we will only further encourage scientists and top medical people in this field to leave Australia for overseas countries.

We need to retain this knowledge in our own country, and this is what the federal government is doing by supporting such research right here in Australia. For the medical profession, the potential breakthroughs which embryonic stem cell research offers are exciting. This a development which many in the profession believe to be one of biggest breakthroughs in human medicine. This research gives us the opportunity give quality of life to all Australians.

This government has gone to great lengths to ensure the legislation covers all aspects of embryonic and adult stem cell research, with a commitment to review the legislation within three years. It has also consulted the state and territory governments, ensuring legislation will be across the board. Supporting a well-governed stem cell research program ensures that there are strict guidelines and laws in place securing this research and preventing it from being used in the wrong way.

I urge all members of the House to think about what this scientific breakthrough means for our society. We have now been presented with an opportunity to cure diseases for which we have striven to find cures. We now have the chance. How can we say no to the people we represent, many of whom believe that this is their last hope for a cure for their debilitating or terminal disease? I commend the bill to my colleagues and to the House, and I commend the debate that has already taken place. I hope that we can reach a successful outcome that will deliver benefits to all Australians in the future, benefits that we may never have thought possible.