Mr NEVILLE (5:48 PM) —This, as many have said, is a seminal debate in that, first, it gives us a conscience vote, it allows us to range across political and religious boundaries and it demonstrates the effectiveness of our parliamentary system when it is used appropriately. There have been some very thoughtful, challenging and deeply expressed contributions in this debate. Second, whether we like it or not, this is a threshold for our nation. Once crossed, whatever the decision, it will mark us indelibly for generations.

There are two aspects to the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002. First, that which seeks approval of the use of the so-called surplus embryos from IVF programs and, second, that which says that there should be a prohibition in all circumstances on human cloning. I believe it is an offence to ask anyone with reservations to vote on these two issues as one. I am therefore one of those who support the separation of the two issues. To do otherwise would be to negate the mantle of conscience which we have promoted during this debate. It would be an affront to the whole concept of conscience not to allow the separation of the two issues. Forced to vote only one way I would oppose the bill, not because I approve in any way of cloning but because I would find the rest so offensive.

The rate of change of human endeavour and science has increased exponentially over the last century. Aviation, with all its wonders of space travel, is not yet 100 years old, radio broadcasting is 80 and nuclear power is 60. We live in an age of almost instant communications where data and information are exchanged at lightning speeds. The most complex storage, computations and transactions can take place in a computer at the touch of a keyboard. Medical science has expanded in the same way. We have seen penicillin, antibiotics and insulin all discovered over recent years. Polio and smallpox have been almost totally eliminated. Implants to restore hearing have been designed and developed in Australia. There is now the possibility of restoration of sight through the use of implants. Wondrous machines probe our inner being as we get involved in unsurpassed diagnostic tools, and then we have nuclear treatment of disease. In fact, more has occurred in the last 20 years than in the previous 200, and in that 200 years probably more has occurred than in the previous 2,000.

Let me take you to the other side of the equation. Given the exponential explosion of knowledge and science, what might we expect over the next two years, coming down from 2,000, to 200, to 20, to two? Or, if you think that is a bit dramatic, say 10 years. Sadly, the mark of human progress in science has not been matched by a corresponding enhancement of ethics, religious rigour or social behaviour. I am by nature an optimist. I am trusting—my family say to my detriment—and I take people as I find them. But this issue challenges me as much as any in my years in parliament and forces me to take a step back and examine the landscape of life experience, behaviour and the ethical downstream effects of what might flow from this decision. It really challenges my basic optimism and I envy those who rest so easily with their god and with their consciences on this weighty matter. I have listened to many of them and they seem to be quite at ease with it.

I have no argument with people who come to these decisions in good conscience, but I think those who have been dazzled by the spin doctoring and the wizardry of science in this debate have sold themselves short. They have been seduced by utilitarianism. Not so in my electorate. Of the contributions I have had to my office, 67 per cent are against embryonic stem cell research, 28 per cent have asked me to vote carefully and five per cent are in favour of embryonic stem cell research. So my experience is quite different from that of some of the others who have spoken of their experiences in their electorates. But it goes beyond statistics. What we are talking about here is the very essence of life. It goes to the core of our human condition. To pretend anything else is an obscenity. This is unquestionably a new threshold in science and in the nature of human life as future generations will know and experience it.

In this debate we have had some very innovative definitions of conception; I did not know there could be so many. Some would now have us believe that the human condition only commences with the implementation of the fertilised egg in the uterus. Again, whether we like it or not, life commences at the point of fertilisation. Our character, our being, our DNA are marked for all times from that moment. Indeed, legislation around the world focuses on the respect for the embryo, yet we suddenly say that an embryo that is under 14 days has a different status. The argument is then advanced that the so-called spare embryos from artificial reproduction techniques should be made available for research. It is then proposed that those embryos not used would be destroyed. So what we are doing is saying that we can experiment on them in the cause of humanity and that, if we do it that way, it is not such a bad thing. But if we accept that argument, we are saying that you can take a scalpel to them, develop your own stem line and, in so doing, kill them. I do not accept that. I am not talking about a scalpel literally, but various invasive laser and chemical treatments are the result. In this day and age we tend to gloss over that, but that is what happens. In fact, one of the techniques is called drilling—drilling this live material with a laser.

Much of the debate is centred around the relative merits of embryonic stem cell and adult stem cell research. If one examines the impact of adult stem cell medical research, it is at the cutting edge of treatment and the results are already impressive. All the examples I will give are based on treatment with adult stem cells. As at June 2001, the American Diabetic Association reported that 15 people with serious type 1 juvenile diabetes had become insulin free, while nine ceased to require insulin injections. In June 2001, the Toronto Globe and Mail described the case of a young woman with paraplegia who gained movement of her legs and toes after injections of her own immune system cells into her severed spinal cord. We have heard about a number of children born without an immune system; we call them bubble children. These children can now be cured with injections of altered bone marrow subjected to adult stem cell treatment. In July last year, the New England Journal of Medicine reported severely blind people being able to see after their corneas were reconstructed using corneal stem cells.

There is also considerable promising research, both on its own and in combination with chemotherapy, in the fields of brain and solid tumours, breast and ovarian cancer, and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. As well, there is other research going on in the fields of multiple sclerosis, lupus and stroke. Chemical trials have already indicated significant potential benefits in using adult stem cells to treat diseases such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's as well as nerve damage, organ and heart valve transplants, diabetes and pancreatic disorders. In short, there is a great deal of cutting edge research well advanced in the field of adult stem cell research. I heard a lot of my colleagues talking about people in wheelchairs and what embryonic stem cells might do for them but, strangely, I never heard them mention any of these cases. In fact, there is one of these cases in Queensland at present, where someone is being treated with adult stem cells for spinal cord damage.

As late as June 2001, the Washington National Academy of Sciences said, when reporting on embryonic stem cells and what they might achieve, that the cells would help no patients—none. They said:

Marcus Grompe of the Oregon Health Sciences University said:

Professor Vogelstein, Professor of Oncology and Pathology at Johns Hopkins University, one of the most distinguished institutions in medical science, said:

He described all claims of therapeutic benefits from embryonic stem cells as `conjectural'. That quote is quite relevant in the context of this debate today because yesterday we had an article by Dennis Shanahan entitled `Stem-cell rat trick angers MPs'. Indeed, it angered me because nowhere in Professor Trounson's briefings of us in this place did he make the distinction that he made in that article. Tapes and films of the rat have been widely distributed. We are now told that the rat was not treated with embryonic stem cells but, rather, with cells from an aborted foetus. It seems to me that all of the talk of embryonic stem cells revolves around the prospective: `it might', `it could', `there is every opportunity', `we cannot deny', `we must explore every scientific avenue,' `What might happen if cures are found overseas?'

There has been in this debate a great deal of moral and intellectual blackmail—I do not mean by my colleagues but from outside. Those who favour the adult stem cells avenue of research are accused of being intellectually elite. We are told that, if we turn a blind eye to embryonic stem cells, we are dooming people in wheelchairs and those with degenerative diseases to a sad and hopeless life. Yet thus far there is no evidence that embryonic stem cell research can produce the results that adult stem cells have already been delivering.

Another form of intellectual blackmail is to say that we are denying Australian scientists the opportunities that are found overseas: `We'll trail behind the rest of the world; we will lose our best and our brightest to overseas laboratories.' I find that strange for a number of reasons. One is that three of the states have already more rigorous rules in place in relation to IVF and material used in IVF—and, if all of those claims are true, why haven't we lost them already?

I also subscribe to the `slippery slope' argument. I take you back to the abortion debate. I am not going to canvass abortion as an issue here tonight, other than to say this: when abortion was first promulgated, it was only to be if the mother's life or mental condition was at great risk. Last year, on a conservative estimate, there were 90,000 abortions in Australia. There is now one abortion for every 2.5 live births. I move on to the euthanasia debate. In the Northern Territory, with the euthanasia debate, we were told that three doctors would have to sign the forms to allow a person to be euthanased. That was to be a GP, a specialist and a person from the field of medical science commensurate with the disease from which the person was suffering. Even before the legislation had been utilised, even before we had rejected that legislation here in the federal parliament, moves were already on in the Northern Territory to reduce that from three doctors to two.

Going now to the embryo, if we go to embryonic stem cell research, would we stop at 14 days, or would the pressure that is already evident for taking that out to 60 days soon become even greater? The signals from the scientific community are quite mixed. As recently—and this tells you how far it could go—as 8 May at Monash University in a debate called `Should we allow embryonic research' the affirmative team, which contained Professor Trounson as a member, argued the case for therapeutic cloning. That was on 8 May this year.

We are told that there are sufficient spare embryos to give us a limitless supply of research material, but then others tell us otherwise. How far are we prepared to go? Are we prepared to allow the harvesting of eggs and sperm? Also, at the psychological level, are we going to allow people to be subjected to pressure? It has been said by a prominent ethicist that, when asked for their frozen and spare embryos for science, some people felt a sense of obligation to the scientists who helped them become pregnant, some felt a general sense of obligation to science itself and some felt a sense of obligation to the community. These are very powerful pressures at a time when people are going through a sensitive process.

I would like to touch briefly on one other aspect, and that is the very emotive language that is used about the spare embryos that are allowed to succumb in the laboratory dish. We hear that they are going to be chucked down the drain or the toilet or thrown in the rubbish bin. An embryo succumbing in a dish is no different from someone who in the latter part of their life is in a vegetative state and dying in a bed. We do not allow experimentation on someone who cannot speak for themselves, someone who has lived a life and who might be in a vegetative state. I suggest to you that, if a life deemed not worth living is approved for termination prenatally, a life deemed not worth living at the other end of the life cycle is at risk.

I would like to finish by talking about one of my favourite people, Thomas More. Thomas Moore was a great English statesman and philosopher. He was under pressure to take an oath in which he did not believe. His whole family was pressuring him, even his favourite daughter, Margaret. He explained to his daughter Margaret that when you take an oath you hold yourself in your hands, no matter what the reason for taking that oath. And Margaret said to him, `Look, Dad, can't you just take this oath verbally but in your heart mean otherwise?' He said, `No, because once you take an oath you hold yourself in your hands and, once let go, you never capture yourself again.' We are not talking about an oath here, but we are talking about a threshold in human development and in science. With this issue, we very much hold ourselves in our hands as we never have before—and I suggest that, if we let this go, we may never hope to capture ourselves again.