Mr ABBOTT (Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) (9:55 PM) —I do not wish to detain the House for long on these amendments, but I do wish to support them very strongly, to congratulate the member for Mitchell for his work on this and to thank all members who have participated in this debate so far, particularly the member for Lowe, who I think has shown considerable courage ever since this debate about stem cells began. The importance of the member for Mitchell's amendments is that they are designed to ensure the integrity of this bill, such as it is, by ensuring that embryonic stem cells are used only for the purpose contemplated by this legislation and are not misused by scientists in their eagerness to prove a point, to pursue a commercial venture or to exploit other opportunities for things that are quite outside the contemplation of this parliament.

One of the amazing things about the debate as it has unfolded in this place over the last few weeks is that we who are professional sceptics—we who are, by nature, sceptical and doubtful of everyone and everything—have suddenly shown ourselves to be extraordinarily and touchingly faithful.

Mr Pyne —Trusting.

Mr ABBOTT —We have touching faith and trust in scientists—in no-one else but scientists. In science we place our trust; in science we trust. That seems to be the motto of so many of the contributors to this debate. I have a lot of time for Australian science. I think that some of our finest citizens over the years have been scientists. But I do not believe that we should give to them the full responsibility for regulating science, just as we do not give to lawyers or doctors the full responsibility for regulating the law or medicine.

The point has been made in the course of this committee debate that, if these amendments are passed, there could be some threat to the IVF program. As far as the supporters of these amendments are concerned, there is a complete difference between the IVF program and what is proposed by this bill. The distinction is that the IVF program is a good end pursued by good means, yet what is contemplated by this bill is a worthy end pursued by wrong and unworthy means. That is the fundamental point that the supporters of these amendments would seek to make.

We all know that there are many commercial interests out there. There are many who have a very strong commercial motive for wanting to use human material for purposes far beyond those ever contemplated by this parliament and far beyond those contemplated by the proponents of this bill. Can we be sure that, without these amendments, the bill that this parliament has already supported will not be held to justify using human material for experiments in toxicology? How can we be sure, without these amendments, that corporations and scientists will not use human material—will not use embryos—for the kind of experimentation which has traditionally been reserved for animals? As much as I trust the scientists of this country, I do not believe that we should give them that opportunity; I do not believe that we should allow them to be tempted in this way, and that is precisely what will happen if these amendments are not passed.

I heard it said earlier in this debate that the Prime Minister thought that these amendments should be opposed. I very much respect the views of the Prime Minister, but I think that our responsibility in this debate is not to follow the premiers and not even to follow the Prime Minister; it is to follow our own consciences. It is our consciences that should be sovereign in this debate—the consciences of members of parliament. This debate is far from over, and it is by far the most important debate taking place in this country right now.