Mr COX (11:00 AM) —The potential for cloning a human being and the use of human embryos for research and reproductive medicine are issues that cannot be dealt with without controversy. Opinions are divided within the parliament, as they are within the community, and many Australians have deeply held moral views on these matters. All of those views will be accorded respect in this debate with a conscience vote. For some, their conscience will tell them that a human embryo fertilised outside the womb is a human being. For others, their conscience will tell them that a human embryo fertilised outside the womb may have the potential to become a human being but is not a human being.

Embryos created for the purpose of assisted reproductive treatment are accorded respect, as they carry with them the hopes of many Australians for children. But it is an inevitable result of that treatment that some embryos will be created that will not be transferred to a hopeful mother. Those surplus embryos will ultimately either be allowed to succumb—to be destroyed—or be used for research to bring joy or hope to others. Those who hold the moral view that each of these embryos is a human life would probably not participate in an IVF program because to do so might well lead them into an extremely difficult moral situation. For others who do not share that moral view, IVF offers the hope of children, and where there are embryos that will not be transferred there is the potential to offer hope for many who are currently suffering. To me, this hope of children and this potential hope for many who are currently suffering both values and respects life. It certainly does not contradict the teachings of the church in which I was brought up.

The Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002 is the product of an agreement between all governments in this country—state, territory and federal—and is supported here by both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. Achieving some consensus across governments and across parties has involved compromise on extremely complex issues. The bill has several strands: it will outlaw attempts to clone a human being; it will override some state laws that restrict or prohibit the use of human embryos in research; it will provide new restrictions in other states that currently do not have any restrictions; it will regulate research using human embryos; it will establish an embryo research licensing committee to oversee that regulation; and it will have some implications for people seeking treatment using assisted reproduction technology.

Probably the least controversial measure is the prohibition of human cloning. There are potential risks in creating a human being using an experimental science, as well as a range of ethical and social implications, that make its undesirability self-evident. The bill also outlaws therapeutic cloning, which is a line of stem cell research that does not involve the cloning of an individual, and here the people who have put this bill together have taken the precautionary principle. The possibility of cloning gives rise to some scenarios that have hitherto been in the realms of science fiction. However, it is important not to allow this debate to be unduly influenced by these types of concerns. A robust and transparent national licensing regime should provide a proper process within which to examine new research proposals. Where research proposals cannot be justified on the grounds of potential medical benefit or raise serious ethical concerns, they would not be licensed. Previously, this has been left to ethics committees where the work is being done. While peer review is generally effective, given the sensitivity of the issues a national regulatory regime has the potential to build public confidence.

Some states have over the years legislated to control or prohibit research using embryos. Australian heads of government concluded that these laws were unduly restrictive and now support this bill that would overturn them. The converse of that, however, is that those states and territories which had not legislated in this area will now be subject to the new Commonwealth controls. Some of these controls will inhibit potentially beneficial research and the practice of assisted reproductive technology medicine. Whether those new controls are appropriate depends on an individual's view not only on the ethical issues but also on the science.

Embryonic stem cells have three key features. First, when they are placed in an appropriate medium they will never stop dividing, hence their capacity to form stem cell lines which are useful for research and potentially for therapies that result from that research. Second, stem cell lines dividing in that medium will not change, with the exception that those cells do not maintain the capacity to form a body plan, meaning that a cell from an embryonic stem cell line could not be used to achieve a viable pregnancy. Third, embryonic stem cells are plastic; they have the potential to be triggered to produce any type of body tissue. It is that potential which can be used for therapeutic purposes by replacing unhealthy or damaged tissue with healthy tissue.

The diseases, genetic disorders and injuries for which there is therapeutic potential in using stem cells, whether for full or partial relief, are causes of great human suffering. The diseases that this research targets include Parkinson's disease, motor neurone disease, juvenile diabetes and HIV. Stem cells may have the potential to assist with relief of multiple sclerosis and Alzheimer's, but the causes of those diseases—the auto-immune disorder in the case of MS and the biochemical disorder causing the laying down of plaque in the case of Alzheimer's—would also need treatment.

There is potential to help paraplegics and quadriplegics by using cells derived from stem cell lines to repair damaged spinal tissue. Some encouraging experiments have been conducted on animals that point to this potential, but they do not prove it. If these therapies can be developed, their outcomes are likely to vary from case to case depending on the level of damage that the treatment must address. Even if independent mobility remains elusive for all but a few, in many cases a marginal improvement in movement may significantly enhance the quality of life for an individual. The possibility of achieving better control of both the bladder and bowel would be important for both the lifestyle and dignity of both paraplegics and victims of spina bifida.

There are also potential therapies for fatal genetic blood cell disorders in children like sickle cell anaemia, where the blood cells are abnormal, and thalassaemia, where the bone marrow cannot produce red blood cells. There are as yet no evidence based therapies but the use of embryonic stem cells offers an important line of research.

An alternate line of endeavour is adult stem cell research. Some successful adult stem cell therapies have been used successfully for some years—in particular, bone marrow transplants. There have been experiments with other possible therapies. Amongst a number of examples is the use of bone marrow cells in an attempt to treat heart disease. The apparent successes in these areas are case reports. They do not provide valid evidence based, scientific conclusions. Adult stem cells are currently thought to have less flexibility than embryonic stem cells. It is difficult to identify adult stem cells from most organs and to grow and maintain them in an undifferentiated state in a culture because they are inclined to become the specialised cell type of the tissue from which they were taken. That is not to say that it will not be possible to reprogram adult stem cells to manipulate and to repair a metabolic or genetic anomaly, then culture them and transplant them back into a patient for therapeutic purposes, but at the present stage, just as with embryonic stem cells, their true potential is unknown.

This science is at a very early stage. It is not possible to determine whether adult stem cells are a viable alternative to the use of embryonic stem cells for therapeutic purposes, nor is it possible at this stage to determine whether embryonic stem cells will ultimately provide superior therapeutic outcomes than will adult stem cells. It is probable that both lines of stem cell research—adult and embryonic—will each benefit from the discoveries made by the other and this will hasten progress in developing effective evidence based therapies. Some of the provisions in this bill may unnecessarily inhibit some potential productive areas for research where there are no ethical issues. In particular, offence 12:

and offence 13:

prohibit research into the creation of parthenogenic embryos. Parthenogenic embryos have no reproductive developmental potential. They could be created by taking an unfertilised egg and triggering growth using alcohol. They could be used to make stem cell lines for therapeutic treatment of the donor of that egg. I am also concerned that this bill may affect some other areas of research. Offence 17 states:

and there was intention to alter the genome in a way that was heritable. This could have implications for non-stem cell areas of research, such as gene therapy, using viral vectors. Offence 18:

has raised some concerns because it may be poorly drafted and capable of being misinterpreted. I understand that it is meant to prohibit an outdated and unnecessary technique for collecting embryos for research. This technique raises ethical issues for many and involves unnecessary health risks. It should be prohibited, but the provision which does so should not be capable of being interpreted more widely.

I am particularly concerned about the implications of this bill for IVF research and practice. Offence 21, which prohibits the import or export of embryos, is currently drafted in terms which will unnecessarily prohibit families who are undergoing IVF treatment moving stored embryos which have been created for reproductive purposes into or out of Australia if they are moving domicile. Their situation needs and deserves further consideration. Section 24 of the bill may restrict research to improve assisted reproductive techniques using embryos which are not suitable for transfer to a hopeful mother. These embryos are in fact surplus to the purpose for which they were created—reproduction. This is an area which I also believe deserves our further consideration. On balance, while the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill has some defects and deals in areas about which we are now far less than certain, and while the bill could bear some improvement, I will be voting to support it.