Mr PEARCE (6:26 PM) —I rise today to speak on the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002 that is currently before the House. From the outset, I would like to break through much of the rhetoric that has been surrounding this issue and say that, despite some views, this is not a simple black-and-white issue. It is a complicated and a complex issue, and I have personally found it to be one of the most challenging and difficult decisions I have had to make.

Although I support the party system, it is an interesting demonstration of our democracy when all members of parliament have to decide an issue on its merits and on their conscience rather than simply voting along the party line. I am sure most people would agree that it is probably good for all of us. Indeed, it is a measure of our maturity and the maturity of our democracy that such a bill should be decided by each elected member making his or her considered and personal decision.

Although this debate is about one bill before this parliament, it mirrors similar debates taking place throughout the world. The rapid pace of science is presenting humanity with ethical problems never before seen. President George Bush of the United States has recently been placed in the same position in which we find ourselves today. Like many of us here, he had reservations about giving a free hand to the scientists. But, like the bill before us, he eventually settled on a limited opportunity for scientific research on embryos under strict and limited conditions. In announcing his decision, President Bush provided a succinct summary of this issue by saying:

Many of my colleagues, in their respective speeches on this issue, have already dealt with the technical aspects of the bill, and therefore I do not propose to repeat these elements. The bill clearly has two components, and I oppose outright the human cloning component. In relation to the other component, research involving embryos, what I hope to do in my speech is to go directly to what I consider to be the core and fundamental issues of this actual debate.

I use the words `actual debate' because it seems to me that many people involved in this debate have lost sight of what we are actually here to review, to consider and eventually to vote upon. The fact is that whenever you combine the issues of religion, politics and—now more than ever in the 21st century—science, you will have friction. It is this friction that creates emotion and drive within individuals to form views and take positions on important matters.

In recent times, and in particular in recent days in this place, we have heard many arguments and many positions both for and against research in this area. All of the arguments have strong merit. When you think about it, both sides of the argument are, at least to some extent, right. This is an important point that must be stressed: both sides of the argument are to some extent or another right. It is important that we support cutting edge research into the major diseases afflicting humankind, but it is also most important that we respect the sanctity of human life.

What is important, I believe, in this debate is to keep our eyes on what we are being asked to consider and not on what might be. We are not being asked to determine the fate of these embryos. Whatever we decide, their fate is to be destroyed. We are only asked to determine how they should be destroyed: as part of a research program to benefit future generations or simply as discarded waste product. I believe that those who created these cells would prefer them to be used to benefit the community, and for that matter the world, rather than be destroyed. Embryos will only be used for research where the IVF parents have given their express permission.

The philosophical argument revolves around when life begins. I am no wiser than anybody else. I do not know for certain when life begins. There are many theories in this regard but no-one knows for sure. What I do know is that it is now not the destiny of the embryos in question, which have already been declared surplus, to ever become life in the sense of living, breathing human beings. By passing this legislation, we are not depriving them of that destiny.

It is possible that future scientific discoveries will render this whole debate academic and that the scientists will indeed be able to do their research with adult stem cells or in some other way. It is also possible that, as the opponents of the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002 claim, this will prove to be the thin end of the wedge and will be followed by requests for more wide reaching legislation in the future. As legislators, we cannot be concerned with what might happen in a hypothetical future. As legislators, we have to be concerned with what this specific legislation permits or indeed does not permit. It is important to keep our eye on what we are dealing with today in relation to this particular bill.

There have been two major factors influencing my decision on this matter. The first is my own conscience; the second is the will of the people I represent, the people of Aston. In the case of my own conscience, as a Christian I cannot believe that God would wish the means of improving the health of future generations to be withheld from the scientific community when the alternative is the destruction of the embryos involved. There are many other potential uses of human cells which I would oppose and my support for this bill should not be seen as signalling any likelihood that I would support other legislation on which the church and the scientists are at variance. I want to stress that point: my support for this bill as it stands does not signal that I would support other legislation on which the church and the scientists disagree. But on this occasion it seems to me that the arguments, both philosophical and practical, are, in the end, in favour of the bill.

In terms of the will of my constituents, it is obviously impossible to please everybody. I have spent a great deal of time consulting widely in Aston on this issue. As with all other members, I have received many representations and submissions on both sides of the argument. I have to say that I honestly respect the honesty and integrity of those on both sides. They are all pressing for what they individually believe is the right course of action. I also have to say that it is clear to me that far more people support this legislation than oppose it. Simple numbers do not necessarily make a wrong argument right, but on this occasion I believe that the clear majority of my constituents would wish me to support the bill as it stands, and that is what I propose to do.

I apologise to all who feel that this is the wrong path, but there is no middle ground on this issue. I can only say that I have seriously considered the arguments on both sides and have not come to my decision quickly or lightly. I believe that in this sensitive area we should move forward with great care and with great concern. I do not believe that supporting this bill would be offensive to God. I believe that it is what the majority of my constituents would expect me to support and I believe that it is the right decision in the long-term interests of the wider community.

One of the wonders of human existence has been our ability to use science to conquer disease. In my lifetime we have eliminated smallpox and polio, and in this country almost eliminated tuberculosis. Thousands of lives have been saved through this and similar research. Today the forefront of research is in genetics. It is a new, and in many ways a very frightening, sphere. But if it holds the promise of less disease and disability for our children and for their children, surely it is our duty to them and all future generations to give our considered support to those who seek to unravel the mysteries of the illnesses which so adversely affect our society. These stem cells may in the end—and I stress `may in the end'—play a key role in the prevention or cure of many diseases. Even if one of these diseases were to be cured or prevented by our decision, I believe that this would be a positive outcome. Furthermore, I believe the structure of this bill provides us with a framework that allows some investigation to occur in what will be a controlled and regulated environment.

I am also conscious that if we restrict this type of research it will take place anyway. It will take place in other countries, using stem cell lines already available elsewhere, and all that we will have achieved is driving our best scientists offshore so that we lose all of the potential benefits to our homeland, Australia. Furthermore, many of the state governments throughout Australia have already clearly indicated that, if necessary—that is, if federal parliament rejects research—they will individually legislate. This is a scenario that I am sure most people would want to avoid wherever possible in order to ensure consistency and control.

On balance, I am convinced that the widest community interest lies in this parliament providing this limited support for this important research. I do not know what life or the future holds for me. What I do know is that I care—I care for all people and I care for the future of our country. My decision to support this bill continues to challenge me. I hope that those whose views differ from mine will accept that my decision is not intended to reflect adversely on their beliefs; it is just that, on balance, after a great deal of personal reflection, I believe the greatest good for the community will come from supporting this legislation. I hope and pray that the position I have taken is acceptable to God.