Mr KING (8:20 PM) —The issues before the House arising—

Mr Danby —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Dissent from the chair in any public meeting has to be dealt with before any other matter can be dealt with. You cannot resume discussions of other matters that are substantive matters that were before the House. The House clearly decided that, if there were any disagreement, it would focus on matters substantive to the stem cell legislation. The House did not intend that you would overrule 700 years of procedural debate in any democratic assembly—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—The member for Melbourne Ports is now debating the issue. The member for Melbourne Ports will resume his seat; he is debating the issue. I remind the member for Melbourne Ports that this is not a public meeting; it is the Main Committee. We are bound by the standing orders—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The member for Melbourne Ports will resume his seat until I am finished. We are abiding by the standing orders of the Main Committee. I have spelt out the standing orders of the Main Committee. They are what we are abiding by: the standing orders of the Main Committee.

Mr Lloyd —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. This bill, which we are hoping to debate, is a very important bill—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The member for Robertson is debating. What is the point of order?

Mr Lloyd —The point of order is that the opposition are clearly restricting debate. We have passed a motion in the House—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —That is not a point of order. The member for Robertson will resume his seat.

Mr Lloyd —The point of order is the fact that we have passed a motion in the House which clearly states that the Main Committee continue debate on the bill regardless of any unresolved question.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I have ruled that way.

Mr Lloyd —And I support that ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mrs Crosio —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I do not want to have to keep raising the question, but the fact of the matter is that the worst unresolved question here tonight is that of dissent from the chair. How can you possibly conduct this meeting when a motion of dissent has been moved?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The member for Prospect is now debating—

Mrs Crosio —I am just asking for a clear direction.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I have ruled—

Mrs Crosio —But you have not ruled. You have only referred me to item (4) on the agenda.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —You can resolve this issue in the House, because that is where it will be resolved. If you want to debate the issue in the House, you can debate the issue in the House. I have ruled that these are unresolved questions and will be resolved in the House.

Mr Danby —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Under what standing order of the Main Committee do you say that a matter of dissent from the chair cannot be dealt with by this democratic assembly of people? You said that this is not a public meeting, but the same democratic procedure is inherent in the standing orders of the Main Committee that is inherent in any democratic public meeting. You simply cannot say that you will not deal with the dissent thing and that you will refer it to the parliament.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The member for Melbourne Ports is now debating the issue.

Mr Danby —What is the standing order?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —My reply to that is that the House of Representatives has passed a motion and referred it to the committee. This motion says very clearly in clause (4):

I rely on that. I also rely on the standing orders of this committee, which say that an unresolved question must be referred to the House.

Mr Byrne —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. In terms of these sorts of things the matter must be resolved immediately rather than waiting for some time for the debate to continue. There has been a dissent motion; it should be addressed. It has to go back to the House immediately; we should not continue the debate. That is my understanding of the standing orders.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —That is debating the question, too. You were not here when I said earlier that point (4) of the motion passed by the House of Representatives—the Parliament of Australia—says that no questions unresolved in this House can obstruct the debate in this committee. They will be referred to the House for resolution.

Mr Baldwin —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. What we are clearly seeing here is a delaying tactic—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —That is not a point of order.

Mr Baldwin —The point of order is that they are continuing to discount your ruling. You have read out the standing order—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —That is not a point of order. I call the honourable member for Wentworth.

Mr KING —The issues before this House are complex and of long-term significance—

Mrs Irwin —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order.

Mrs Gash —Stop interrupting his speech!

Mrs Irwin —I am after clarification here. The member for Perth dissented from your ruling. You stated that you were going to refer that matter to the House. That is unresolved; that is showing no confidence in your decision. Yet you are still in the chair. I cannot understand why the matter has not been sent to the House of Representatives.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The member for Fowler is now debating the issue. I have ruled on that issue.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I have ruled on that issue. I call the honourable member for Wentworth.

Mr KING —On the one hand—

Mr Price —Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I appreciate that you have accepted a lot of points of order that may have been on the same point. Whilst I agree with you that the motion passed by the House is quite unambiguous, my understanding with a dissent is that, firstly, we have to follow the correct form and it thus needs to be handed in in writing and, secondly, it is not a question unresolved about the bill; it is a procedural issue. If I may say, Mr Deputy Speaker, with great respect, I am not sure that I have heard a dissent motion moved in this—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —This is debating the issue. What is the point of order?

Mr Price —I am not sure that a dissent motion has previously been moved in the main chamber and I guess from that point of view I cannot point to precedent about how it might be handled.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —That is debating the issue. What is the point of order?

Mr Price —Personally, given that we have never had it before, I believe—

Honourable members interjecting—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! What is the point of order?

Mr Price —I believe it is a procedural issue; it is not an unresolved question associated with the bill.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —There are two clear issues that I have already ruled on, and I have said it over and over again, although it does not seem to be entering any heads at the present time. First of all, the standing orders of this committee are very clear that a motion cannot be resolved in this committee. It must be referred to the House. The second issue is that the motion moved and carried by the House, the Australian Parliament, clearly says at (4):

That is very clear.

Mr Quick —Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Could you inform me who authorised the clock to stop at 19.54? I do not wish to deprive the honourable member of his time but the normal procedure is that once the clock is started no-one interferes with that clock, and it is still on 19.54.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I cannot answer the question. It is probably in disgust.

Mr KING —I should say at the outset—

Mr Stephen Smith —Mr Deputy Speaker, my point of order is this: one of the unresolved questions is an unresolved question of the want of confidence that the Main Committee has in you. The House cannot allow—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —You are making a statement, not a point of order.

Mr Stephen Smith —I am not making a statement; I am making a point of order. There are two aspects to the point of order. The first is that the House cannot allow such a resolution to continue ad infinitum—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The House can under the standing orders.

Mr Stephen Smith —It must deal with the question of want of confidence in the chair immediately. That is the first point. The second point is that in any event—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Can the member for Perth show me the standing order that says that?

Mr Stephen Smith —Any time a want of confidence motion is moved in the chair it is considered by the House immediately. You cannot allow a question of want of confidence to be unresolved for a period of time. That must be dealt with immediately. The second point is that, in any event, that most serious of any serious procedural motion—just like the other procedural motions which have been the subject of unresolved questions tonight—is not caught by the motion of the House, which is expressly limited to questions regarding the bill. The most serious of the procedural motions goes to a want of confidence in you, and you are saying to the Main Committee that you are happy—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —This is not a point of order; you are now debating the issue.

Mr Stephen Smith —You are happy to have that indefinitely as an unresolved question. You cannot allow the House—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —You are now debating the issue. The member for Perth will resume his seat. I have heard the point of order.

Mr Stephen Smith —I have not reached my point of order.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —You are debating it. You are not continuing. I have heard the point of order, which is dissent from my ruling.

Mr Stephen Smith —The point of order is on the way and manner in which the House needs to deal with an unresolved question about want of confidence in your chairing of this Main Committee. My first point is—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The member for Perth is debating the issue.

Mr Stephen Smith —No, I am not.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —You are not raising a point of order; you are debating.

Mr Stephen Smith —The first aspect of the point of order is that you cannot allow the House not to deal with that immediately. The second aspect is that, in any event, the unresolved question is not covered by the resolution passed by the House earlier this evening. That resolution is expressly—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The member for Perth will resume his seat. You are debating the issue. You are not raising a point of order. You will resume your seat.

Mr Stephen Smith —I am making a point of order.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I will rule on the point of order.

Mr Stephen Smith —What is your ruling?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —When you sit down, I will rule. I refer you to standing order 276:

I have ruled that these questions that have been put to the committee are unresolved. I have referred them to the House.

Mr Stephen Smith —I have a point of order under standing order 280, which says:

If a motion of want of confidence was moved against the Speaker or a Deputy Speaker in the House, it is incredulous to argue that that would not be considered by the House immediately. There is an unresolved question as to the want of confidence that the Main Committee has in you. That must be resolved immediately.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I have ruled, and it will be referred to the House. You can debate the issue in the House. I call the honourable member for Wentworth.

Mr KING —The issues before this House are complex and of long-term significance, and they do not admit of the option to do nothing. On the one hand, if the bill succeeds—

Mrs Crosio —Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I clearly appreciate and understand standing order 276, which you have read out. I again would appeal to the people here in the Main Committee that standing order 280 is very specific. If a dissent in the chair has been moved, it must be acted on. The chair has provided, through that dissent ruling, no confidence to any speech being given in the House tonight. You have no confidence then, because the dissent has not been qualified. A vote has not been taken on it. The ruling is there, pending. It has nothing to do with the motion we voted on—I repeat it, Mr Deputy Speaker. Again, standing order 276 is specific. Standing order 280 says this committee must run in the same way as the parliament. You must refer the dissent motion against you to the parliament to be acted on now.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—I have on several occasions explained to members opposite what the rulings are. I believe that they are probably looking to suspend the committee and are disruptive. I warn members that I will name the lot of them.

Mr KING —The issues before this House are complex and of long-term significance but do not admit of the option to do nothing. If the bill succeeds, it will clearly establish unequivocally that, in Australia, cloning of human cells for the purposes of reproductive or therapeutic purposes will be absolutely prohibited, upon pain of criminal punishment.

Mrs Crosio —Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order. The honourable member is on his feet. Could you please explain to me and the Main Committee—I alone have been up here 22 minutes—how he still has 13 minutes remaining on the clock for his speech on this debate. You had called him before I came into the Main Committee and, as I said, I have been here 22 minutes.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —That was a problem that was resolved as soon as it was pointed out to the committee that the clock was not continuing. It is a bit difficult to say how much time was spent in disruption. I call the honourable member for Wentworth.

Opposition members interjecting—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I am going to be a little bit harsh here in a minute.

Debate interrupted; adjournment proposed and negatived.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —As the question is unresolved, I will refer it to the House.

Mr KING —On the other hand, if the bill fails, then the position in existence before the COAG agreement in April of this year will prevail; that is, that there will be no legislation on a national basis banning cloning in the states of New South Wales, Queensland and Tasmania and varying regimes in the other states and territories. It is generally accepted by both the supporters and opponents of the bill before the House that that position is undesirable. Thus, it is accepted by all sides of the debate that some form of legislation is necessary. Hence, to do nothing is no option at all.

In my contribution, I wish to address several issues: the first is the consultation that I have had with my constituents in the federal seat of Wentworth; the second is the issues raised by the difficult question of cloning and its scientific nature; the third is embryo stem cell research itself and the benefits that may arise from it; the fourth is adult stem cell research; and finally, the fifth is the difficult theological and philosophical question which is at the heart of the debate—namely, when does human life begin? I will then discuss the protections in the bill and will finally draw some conclusions which I hope will advance the debate.

Mrs Irwin —Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is quite obvious that the member opposite is completely out of time. He rose at 8.20 p.m..

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I have ruled on that issue. I said that the clock was a problem to start with. We cannot resolve it at this particular time. I think we need to apologise for that, but I have called the member for Wentworth.

Mr KING —The first thing that I did in relation to my constituency was hold a public forum at the Woollahra Seniors Centre in Woollahra in my electorate. I invited Professor Jansen of the Sydney IVF institute, who is one of the leading scientists in this area, to put the yes case and I invited Ms Mary Byrne from the John Plunkett Centre for Ethics—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The member for Wentworth will resume his seat.

Mr Murphy —Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I only arrived here a few minutes ago and I need to ask you about the reference to naming all of us—I presume you mean all of us on this side of the committee—in terms of the points of order that have been called here in the Main Committee tonight.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I advise the member for Lowe to read the standing orders.

Mr Murphy —I have just arrived and I am wondering why I would be subjected to that, because I have not participated in the debate.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I have the point of order—

Mr Murphy —I am seeking clarification why all of us could potentially be named if we interject or call a further point of order. I want clarification from the chair, because I have taken it as a threat that I cannot say anything for fear of being named. I would just like clarification.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I understand your point of order. The standing orders of the Main Committee clearly state that, if there is a disruption, a member can be referred to the House. I have had disruption. There is no debate on that.

Mr Murphy —Mr Deputy Speaker, I have a further point of order. I only arrived in this chamber a few minutes ago and I am not sure what took place before I arrived.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —You are now on your feet on a point of order disrupting the chamber. The member for Wentworth has the call.

Mr KING —I letterbox dropped the suburbs immediately in the area of the Woollahra Seniors Centre and I ensured that there were two advertisements in the principal newspapers that circulate in my electorate. The public meeting which I called was well attended, and the debate was very thorough and effective. The points of view that were put—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The member for Wentworth will resume his seat.

Mr Swan —I am trying to resolve these difficult questions. I move:

Question unresolved.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —As the question is unresolved, I will refer it to the House.

Mr KING —The points of view that were put at that meeting were very instructive to me as the local member. This might be asked: on a question of conscience, why are the views of the constituency relevant in the formation of the opinion of the member as and when he or she votes in the House of Representatives? There are two answers to that, in my respectful opinion. The first is that I take the view that, strictly speaking, I am not a delegate of the electorate but rather a representative and that at the same time, in adopting the representative role, it is important to take into account the views of the constituency. Therefore, I did consider it important to hold a public meeting so that the issues could be aired and so that I would have the capacity and opportunity to draw upon the views of people in my electorate—views, of course, which I respect greatly. Second, at that meeting there were several speeches both for and against, and many questions were put to the experts who presented the case on both sides. The purpose of it was not to obtain a resolution but rather to inform and assist the public debate, which has been a very important one and is going on even to this day in this chamber before you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

There were two speeches, however, which were instructive and had a great effect on those who were present. One was by a lady named Skye Banning, who in fact works in my office. She has diabetes and went blind some five years ago from that terrible disease; it is said to be incurable. She spoke very warmly of the importance of the hope that the stem cell research held out for someone like her. The other one was by a man named Adam Johnson, who did not live in my electorate but did drive a long way to be there because he had heard of this public debate. He has motor neurone disease. He was a delegate to the republic convention in Old Parliament House a couple of years ago. He is a very articulate person, and he too spoke very warmly of the hope that was open to him as a result of the possibilities of stem cell research.

But it was not my purpose to achieve at that public meeting any resolution or indeed any definition in my own mind of my own views. As a Christian, I earnestly sought the views of local church leaders including rabbis, some of whom live in my area. They include Rabbi Alman, who sits on the World Rabbinical Council. I also visited Archbishop Jensen, who is a constituent who has strong views against embryo stem cell research which are well known. In this way I was able to consult not only the views of the community but also the views of leading churchmen and others who had a contribution to make on the issue.

Finally, on the process of consultation in my electorate, I doorknocked in two suburbs, Randwick and Waverley, and I think it is important to put on the record the impression that I had as a result of that doorknocking. Most women, particularly younger women, were in favour of embryo stem cell research but with strict limitations to ensure that there was no commerciality—no sale or transfer in an open market—of embryos, and I believe that it is a very important qualification that they made. The male constituents were not so clear in their views one way or the other on this legislation. Nonetheless, in my assessment there was a firm majority in favour. Then I had the great instructive benefit of reading the report that was prepared by the Andrews committee of this House last year. That was the process that I undertook in consultation with my constituency and the broader electorate in seeking to form my views on the important issue of conscience which is before this parliament.

Let me now speak about the second matter I mentioned—namely, the issue of cloning. I know there are some in the scientific community who believe, particularly in relation to the issue of therapeutic cloning, that this is an important scientific advance which should be sustained. However, I do not accept that view, because I take the view that therapeutic cloning is so close to reproductive cloning as to be dangerous and does not admit any true distinction that would permit a proper program of research of the type that is proposed in this bill. Therefore, somatic cell nuclear transfer, which is in effect what is meant by cloning in this context, is properly banned by this legislation, and I strongly support it for that reason.

The next issue I mentioned was embryo stem cell research itself. The formation of the embryo for the purposes outlined in the bill does not involve any system of therapeutic cloning by somatic cell nuclear transfer or by any other means other than the process, in the IVF laboratory, of the fertilisation of the female egg by the spermatozoa. The embryo is formed from the two gametes: the spermatozoa and the oocytes. The question, therefore, is whether or not this form of research gives rise to any benefit or any limitation which ought to be objected to. The principal benefit is the evolution, via the extraction through pipettes, of the stem cell itself. Not a lot has been said about stem cells as such. Stem cells were first discovered in rodents as far back as 1970, and since then stem cell research has developed quite extensively. It was not until recent years that the extraordinary ability of stem cells to take on the physical form of cells surrounding a host body, called pluropotentiality, was appreciated. Whether it is a liver or whether it is brain cells—even blood and bone marrow—stem cells grow to ensure the purification, in a sense, of that particular organ or human part.

It is quite clear that the extraction of stem cells from embryos by that form of research and the potentiality that this holds out for the broader community, as well as the scientific community, is extraordinary. It has been described by some as the most important development in medical science since the development in the 1920s of penicillin that marked significant advances in medical science. The real question is: are there any alternatives to the extraction of stem cells from embryos? One proposal which has had a lot of publicity recently is adult stem cell research. I do not wish to go through the details set out in the Andrews report of the scientific aspects of the extraction of adult stem cells by the process of cell compatibility. In summary, there are two perceived advantages in the scientific community of embryo stem cells, which do not adhere in adult stem cells. The first is that, generally speaking, the adult stem cell has a shorter shelf life than the embryo stem cell. That can be significant in some scientific research, which is referred to in the Andrews report and in other articles. The second is that the adult stem cell is less flexible.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mossfield)—Order! The honourable member's time has expired.

Mrs GASH (Gilmore) (8.48 p.m.)—I move:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I am advised that that is not possible.

Dr Southcott —On a point of order, Mr Speaker: the resolution from the House does say, in point (2), `each member speaking for a period not exceeding 20 minutes'. I sat through the member for Wentworth's speech. He would have spoken, I am sure, for less than 10 minutes, so in view of that I support the motion for the extension of time because I believe he should have the opportunity to speak for a period of 20 minutes, as was outlined in the resolution by the House.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I am advised that the time for the member's speech has expired.