Senator WATSON (5:14 PM) —I rise to make a contribution to the debate on the Research Involving Embryos Bill 2002. During my many years as a senator for the state of Tasmania, I have regularly been the target of lobbying by constituents who have ardently advocated opinions on a very wide range of topics. In recent times the introduction of email services has allowed an even wider and easier access for the expression of views, and to say that recent months has seen this topic cram my emails would not be an exaggeration. It is interesting to note that the vast majority of those emails have been directed at securing my support to vote against research using embryos and that the vast majority of those emails were from people with strongly held religious beliefs and convictions.

It has been an interesting exercise to see the wide range of views held against this research and the basis of the arguments used by those lobbying in this particular way. However, at the end of the day, my decision has been based on what I evaluate to be the view of the majority of my constituents, including the vast majority of those who did not feel strongly enough to contact me about this important vote, and on consideration of the ethical issues. My decision also has to bear the scrutiny of those who will look back on this legislation and its consequence for the good of all Australians in the years to come.

In reaching my decision I was greatly influenced by those who put forward the argument that, to a large degree, we are debating what will become of embryos who have been determined to have no future value and, if not used for scientific research, would be allowed to perish anyway. So the Prime Minister's words when he said that the decision is largely a question of whether the embryo is to be killed by throwing it away or by using it for medical research bring the nub of the matter to a head.

We are debating the treatment of embryos whose future has been decided: they are no longer needed for the purpose for which they were intended and they are, in chillingly basic terms, excess to requirements. Therefore, I have very strong reservations about the risk of embryos being created with a view to research at some future date. I believe that in this area it will be vital that appropriate controls are maintained. On the other hand, I believe there are currently some 70,000 embryos in storage in Australia and that many will not be needed for their original purpose—that is, to assist in the IVF processes needed to help many young Australians have families.

I have also taken into account the material, some of it very emotive and subjective, about the relative need for the use by scientists of embryonic stem cells compared with the need for adult stem cells. I believe this topic is far from conclusive and that, while mankind is ravaged by many diseases for which we have no cure, every possible reasonable option should be kept open for future developments in the treatments for certain cancers, cystic fibrosis, organ failure, stroke, burns, HIV and the many other ailments of the human condition. Keeping researchers from accessing embryonic stem cells and confining them to adult stem cells simply halves or more the opportunities to carry out some good work.

I believe it is therefore important to keep both routes to therapy open. Unlike some in this chamber, I have no innate or unreasoned fear of terrible crimes against humanity waiting for medical scientists to be let off the leash. At the same time, I want to put on the record and make abundantly clear that I am firmly against all forms of cloning. Medical research has produced some marvellous cures over the past century, and in most cases this work was done by people whose motives were positive and ethical. When I read that medical scientists have noted that embryonic stem cells display advantages and flexibilities not always apparent in adult stem cells, I have no particular reason to believe they are lying or that their motives are not directed at applying this technology for the good of humankind.

To say that this technology will not be utilised to return profits to the investors in research would, I believe, be naive. However, I also accept that a great deal of modern medical research is enormously expensive and that much of the work that goes into finding cures must be linked with certain financial returns to the commercial investors who risked their capital in these sorts of ventures. It would be entirely foolish to ignore the connection between these sorts of things but, at the same time, to deny the possibility of positive outcomes would be harmful to future generations yet unborn. We have the ability and the power to legislate to control potential abuses of this technology, and I believe it is essential that we do just that. Therefore, I think perhaps the most important part of this debate will not be during this second reading debate but during the committee stage of the debate, in which I will be involved.

I believe that stifling enterprises that may lead to advances in human medical technology is not the Australian way. To those who draw on their religious beliefs to oppose this work, I offer this comment: this parliament is not here to pick winners and losers among religious views. I, like many others, have a strong personal faith and, like other senators, will be required to vote on this bill in a conscience vote. However, I do not believe that my faith precludes me from acting in what I believe to be an ethical and rational way to try to assist those who are suffering and may benefit from research on embryos that have no future prospects.

I believe that this parliament should pass the bill to enable medical research to proceed without inappropriate restraint on materials, but, at the same time, I also believe it should impose appropriate controls against abuses of this particular right. It is therefore essential that controls are provided against inappropriate use of embryos, inappropriate development of embryonic material and inappropriate research—that is, research that is not linked to proper ethical medical practices. This includes appropriate controls in terms of growing out the embryos beyond the immediate embryonic stage. I therefore have serious misgivings about our ability to ensure controls, for example, if embryonic material were to be sent overseas. I would support an amendment or put up an amendment myself which would prevent materials from being exported from Australia. Within Australia, we can and must have strict scientific and ethical rules for this work, but outside Australia that would be unenforceable. The export of Australian embryos or embryo products should therefore not be permitted.

Given the necessary controls and the proper administration of matters such as the rights of the donor parents to decide on usage of their unwanted embryos, I support the bill. At the same time, I give notice that I will be involved in the committee stage to ensure that there are appropriate safeguards, particularly to prohibit the export of embryos or embryo products; to support measures under the licensing arrangements to control or limit the growing out of the embryos; and to support the other measures deemed necessary to ensure the highest ethical practices are appropriately enforced. I support the bill. (Quorum formed)