Mr CHARLES (11:40 AM) —I rise today to support the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002. This legislation has two parts. The first involves the outlawing of human reproductive cloning, and I absolutely support the outlawing of cloning. The second part of the legislation deals with the use of excess IVF-produced embryonic stem cells for scientific research under tightly defined conditions. I do not intend today to go into the details of the bill, as others before me have done that in great detail and have more than adequately described what the bill says and how it will operate. This is indeed a complex community debate. I think it involves four major issues. Firstly, it involves ethics; secondly, it involves the practicalities surrounding the research; thirdly, the debate deals with technical issues—the science of perhaps using cells to help repair body tissue; and, lastly, it deals with the kind of economy we expect to have in the future.

Before I address each of these issues in turn, I feel compelled to advise the House that, firstly, I have a university degree in science; and, secondly, my mother died of Alzheimer's disease and a favourite uncle died of multiple sclerosis after some 30 years of agony in living with that horrible condition. It is my understanding that both Alzheimer's and multiple sclerosis fall within the range of human conditions that might be alleviated or, indeed, cured by stem cell research. In saying that, I am not just talking about embryonic stem cell research but adult stem cell research as well. Before dealing with the four issues in the debate that I want to discuss today, let me say to the House and the community that I believe exceedingly strongly in the sanctity of life. I always have and I always will.

The first issue is ethics. The ethical debate deals with this issue of the sanctity of life and whether or not the few cells that we call an embryo are life itself or the precursor to life. I have searched the literature and I have searched my heart and it seems to me that, until a foetus is formed in the womb, a grouping of cells that we call an embryo at four or five days, which is when they are proposed to be divided, is not life but is a precursor to life—as a single egg and a single sperm are before joining to form an embryo.

I think it is important that we consider in this debate that we do no harm. It seems to me that the do no harm debate centres around the argument, which has been made in this place by many, that the embryonic stem cells that are to be separated come from embryos which have been stored for the IVF program, which are not to be used and for which the parents, who donated the egg and the sperm, have agreed that they should be used for research to try and help to improve the human condition.

I note, as part of the ethical debate, that the government has recently authorised the Not-2-Late emergency contraceptive. In searching the literature on this contraceptive, I asked myself whether the use of the emergency contraceptive causes an abortion. I am advised that it does not. The literature that I read states:

I simply note that approval of the emergency contraceptive should be considered in this debate when we talk about killing embryos. `Use of embryos' is perhaps an unfortunate term. If science had decided to call embryonic stem cells something else—to give that grouping of cells another term—we might not be having this debate today. In discussing ethics, it is my view that it is certainly ethical to save life and reduce misery, but we also have to agree that we do not want to do that at any cost. In this debate, there are those who believe strongly that the embryo is the beginning of life, and they believe that using excess embryos, even though they will be destroyed if they are not used, is a violation of the sanctity of life. I believe that that is not the case.

I do acknowledge that the debate that we have been having in the House has generally been free of rancour and hyperbole and it has been well-ordered. People on both sides of the issue have strongly held views and are able to express them without resorting to name-calling or going over the top in terms of their arguments. Most have modulated their language—there have been a few who have not been quite so helpful—and I trust that the remainder of the debate will remain that way.

As an issue surrounding this debate, I am advised that as many as 3,000 to 5,000 excess IVF embryos that have been stored are destroyed per year in Australia alone. It just seems to me, as one who has a great belief in science, in the future of humanity, and in the ability of science to contribute to the future prosperity of humanity, that to not allow some small portion of those embryos to be used for research which might help improve the human condition would be negligent.

The second major issue that I want to address today is the practicalities. One of the first practicalities is the rights of the embryo. The chairman of Melbourne IVF, Dr John McBain, and his colleague, Dr Gordon Baker, recently reported:

The second of the practicalities that I wish to discuss is the argument that the proposed $44 million of funding to a research consortium established in Melbourne will deal only with embryonic stem cell research and not with adult stem cells. An article in the Courier-Mail in late May said:

The third issue is the debate regarding embryonic versus adult stem cells. I have a view that we should give science the opportunity to examine both of these potentialities at the same time. Some argue—I think quite illogically—that because there have been no great breakthroughs yet, at this very early stage in embryonic stem cell research, it should not proceed anymore. That is like saying that, because we have not yet landed a man on Mars, we should make no further efforts to land man on Mars.

I quote from a Department of the Parliamentary Library research paper produced by Rod Panter. It states:

The fourth issue of practicality is the view of ACCESS Australia's National Infertility Network. In a letter to the Prime Minister on 31 March, they said:

The third major issue I want to debate today is the science and technology surrounding this debate. In a paper, Daniella Goldberg wrote:

So the science needs to continue. That, in essence, is what we are debating today: whether we will tell science in Australia to not participate in this worldwide research activity or whether we will be a very major player in it. Professor Trounson has said to me that we need four legs to the table. The first leg is adult stem cells; the second is embryonic stem cells; the third is research into the pancreas; and the fourth is the structure of the research and of how we move forward with the use of the cell lines which will be developed.

Finally, I ask simply: what kind of an economy do we want in Australia? Do we want to continue with our great efforts in biomedical research or do we want to stymie our scientists and cause them to not progress as far as they might? We are very good at taking minerals out of the ground, and we have got better at radically transforming manufacturers in recent years—despite some predicting the complete demise of the manufacturing industry, we have got better. Education, tourism and so forth offer huge benefits to Australia as export markets. But that notwithstanding, we need to continue our efforts and our research into basic science, and then we need to transform that science into useful drugs which, as I have said before, will help improve the human condition.

Professor Bob Williamson, in a conversation on the 7.30 Report, has said:

I want to see our scientists come back. We have gone through the stage where scientists, engineers and highly qualified technical people have gone to other countries and used their expertise for the benefit of those countries. I want to see us progress. I think the potential of this stem cell research offers us a huge opportunity.

Finally, Professor Peter R. Schofield, President of the Australian Society for Medical Research, has said:

I hope that colleagues will join with me in supporting this bill, that it passes and that the Senate will approve our action. I thank the House.