Please note: This is an extract from Hansard only. Hansard extracts are reproduced with permission from the Parliament of Tasmania.

HUMAN CLONING AND OTHER PROHIBITED PRACTICES BILL 2003 (No. 57)

Second Reading

Mr LLEWELLYN (Lyons - Minister for Health and Human Services - 2R) - Mr Deputy Speaker, I move -

That the bill be now read the second time.

All States and Territories and the Commonwealth agreed at the 5 April 2002 Council of Australian Governments meeting to introduce and maintain national consistent legislation that would ban human cloning and establish a national regime to regulate scientific research using human embryos. Tasmania, together with other States and Territories, has worked closely with the Commonwealth to develop legislation and administrative arrangements to give effect to that COAG agreement. These measures have already been legislated by the Commonwealth Parliament. The Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002, and the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 took effect on 16 January 2003.

The Victorian, Queensland, South Australian and New South Wales Parliaments have passed nationally consistent legislation to support the COAG scheme. Relevant legislation has been introduced into the Western Australian Parliament and is expected to be introduced into the Northern Territory and ACT Parliaments before the end of this year. The Tasmanian legislation mirrors the provisions of the Commonwealth and interstate laws.

The bills establish an appropriate balance between a need to enable potential life-saving research and the imposition of the oversight and sanctions necessary to ensure ethical research practice. In view of the range of community views about whether research involving human embryos is ethically acceptable, conscience votes have been allowed in both bills in the Commonwealth Parliament and in Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and New South Wales. Western Australia also has foreshadowed a conscience vote when debates take place. The Tasmanian Government has also agreed to a conscience vote on the bills.

By way of background, COAG's decision recognised the major ethical issues involved in human embryo and embryonic stem cell research and the potential scientific and medical benefits from such research, including progress in the treatment and cure of diseases and other degenerative illnesses such as diabetes, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, cystic fibrosis, spinal cord injuries, burns and certain cancers.

The COAG scheme seeks to prohibit unnecessary practices, notably human cloning, and ensure that important medical research is carried out within an appropriate and considered framework of regulation and ethical standards. The COAG decision makes the National Health and Medical Research Council responsible for administering the national regulatory framework. The COAG scheme limits research involving human embryos to embryos which are in excess of the needs of assisted reproductive technology or ART patients and which would otherwise be allowed to succumb with the consent of the parents. The creation of human embryos purely for the purposes of research is prohibited.

COAG determined that research which would destroy an excess ART embryo would be initially limited to embryos which were in existence on 5 April 2002. This restriction will remain in place until 5 April 2005 unless COAG agrees to an earlier time. Under the COAG scheme research on human embryos will only be undertaken with the consent of the two people whose sperm and eggs were used to create the embryo. But the Commonwealth legislation and the NHMRC ethical guidelines specifically address the crucial issue of consent for the use of embryos excess to ART processes.

In accordance with the Commonwealth legislation, research involving embryos is now subject to review and approval by the NHMRC Licensing Committee. The Licensing Committee is chaired by Professor Jock Finlay, a Victorian expert in human reproductive medicine and chair of the World Health Organisation's Advisory Committee on Human Reproduction. Tasmania is represented on the licensing committee by Prof Don Chalmers, Dean of the University of Tasmania's Law Faculty, and Dr Christopher Newell, Lecturer in Medical Ethics at the University of Tasmania.

Regarding the Tasmanian bills, the Commonwealth does not have the power to comprehensively legislate in the areas of human reproductive technology and embryo research. Therefore the national scheme is dependent on complementary legislation in each State and Territory. Cloning of a whole human being is already prohibited in Tasmania by section 159 of the Gene Technology Act 2001, and there is some coverage of trading in human tissue in Tasmania's Human Tissue Act 1985. However, new legislation is required to implement the national scheme to ban human cloning and regulate human embryo research in accordance with the COAG agreement.

The two bills draw very clear lines between what is acceptable scientific practice and what is not. The Human Cloning and Other Prohibited Practices Bill 2003 mirrors the relevant provisions of the Commonwealth Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002. The bill will replace existing prohibition on human cloning contained in the Gene Technology Act 2001. The bill prohibits the creation of a human embryo clone and other ethically unacceptable practices. It bans the creation of implantation in a woman, importation and exportation of certain types of embryos including hybrid embryos or embryos that are created other than by fertilisation of a human egg by a human sperm.

Commercial trading in human reproductive material is also prohibited, as is the creation of a human embryo for a purpose other than achieving pregnancy in a woman. Penalties for offences provide for up to 10 years' imprisonment, the same as those under the Commonwealth legislation.

The Human Embryonic Research Regulation Bill 2003 mirrors the relevant provisions of the Commonwealth Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002. The bill will regulate the use of human embryos created through assisted reproductive technologies for the purpose of achieving pregnancy but no longer required by the persons for whom they were created. These are referred to in the bill as excess ART embryos.

Currently in Tasmania, ART is conducted by two facilities, one in Hobart and the other in Launceston, under a self-regulated framework through the Reproductive Technology Accreditation Committee and the National Health and Medical Research Council's Ethical Guidelines. These facilities may, in the process of assisting couples to have children, generate excess human embryos that, with the consent of the two people whose sperm and eggs were used to create the embryo, could be made available for research purposes.

Under the provisions of the bill any researcher in Tasmania wishing to use excess ART embryos must be licensed by the NHMRC Licensing Committee. The licensing committee is required to ensure that appropriate consent is given for the use of each excess ART embryo and the researcher who seeks such consent cannot be the ART provider who obtained consent for the creation of the embryos at the outset. The purposes used must have the approval of a human research ethics committee and comply with all ethical guidelines issued by the NHMRC. The licensing committee must also consider the likelihood of significant advances in knowledge or improvement in technologies for treatment as a result of the proposed use which could not reasonably be achieved otherwise. The type of research that will be allowed under licence includes derivation of embryonic stem cells and associated research activities, and research designed to increase the possibility of creating a viable pregnancy for an infertile woman.

Under the provisions of the Commonwealth act, the responsibilities of the licensing committee also include monitoring and enforcing compliance with the national legislative regime. Inspectors appointed by the committee will monitor compliance, investigate suspected breaches and refer any suspected offences to the Australian Federal Police or State or Territory police for further investigation. Unlicensed research involving excess ART embryos will be an offence with penalties the same as in the Commonwealth legislation, up to five years' imprisonment.

The licensing committee may also respond to compliance breaches by cancelling or suspending research licences. Consistent with the Commonwealth legislation, the bill also provides that until 5 April 2005, unless COAG agrees to an earlier date, only embryos created prior to 5 April 2002 and deemed excess under the rules in the Commonwealth act will be available for research that would damage or destroy the embryo.

The Commonwealth act contains provisions which require the NHMRC to commission a review of the operation of the Commonwealth legislation as soon as possible after the second anniversary of the acts receiving royal assent, that is, after 19 December 2004. This review must include consultation with the States and Territories, and will take into account developments in reproductive technology and medical research, community standards and the applicability of establishing a national stem cell bank.

The Tasmanian bills include a similar requirement for the minister to review the Tasmanian legislation as soon as possible after a period of two years from the date of assent. As a consequence, the review of Tasmanian legislation should be able to take into account the outcomes of the national review. Additional contextual information that is available: research is at present vigorously pursuing the potential of stem cells derived from mature organisms, that is, adult stem cells, and those from embryos, embryonic stem cells.

While ultimately adult stem cells may prove to have all the potential of embryonic stem cells to facilitate tissue repair and regeneration, this is not known at this time. Embryonic cells have for example the potential to assist in the understanding of the genetic mechanisms of congenital birth defects. It is this level of scientific uncertainty that has led scientists to seek the community's support to keep the door open on access to embryonic stem cells within a rigorous and enforceable statutory framework.

There is at present no research or treatment undertaken in Tasmania that involves the use of human embryonic stem cells. The treatment of leukaemia and certain forms of cancer in Tasmania does involve the use of adult stem cells, usually obtained from the people being treated themselves. These stem cells are returned to the person after intensive chemotherapy. This technique, known as autologous stem cell transplantation is a standard form of treatment throughout the Western World.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.

[2.46 p.m.]

Mrs NAPIER (Bass) - Mr Deputy Speaker, this side of the House has taken the view that each member will be given a conscience vote and they will deal with each of the bills as they see fit. So as the first person to speak from this side of the House - I am not quite sure how many people will be speaking - I can indicate that from my personal point of view I will be supporting both these bills. As has been indicated by the minister in presenting the bills, these two pieces of legislation are consistent with, as I understand, what Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and New South Wales Parliaments have already passed, and have stemmed from legislation that is brought about, and administrative arrangements that are to give effect to the COAG Agreement that was made, as the minister said, on 5 April 2002.

The Commonwealth has already legislated on this, and their legislation took effect in January this year. Until each of the States is able to introduce and pass legislation, as I understand it, the Commonwealth legislation overrides the States until the point at which each of the States has brought in legislation. I am also informed that relevant legislation has been passed in Western Australia, it is expected in Northern Territory and the ACT, and this legislation - not that I have had an opportunity to see the legislation from the other States, Mr Deputy Speaker - I am told mirrors the provision of the Commonwealth and interstate laws.

The guidance that all States would be reliant upon very much is from the National Health and Medical Research Council, which has a role to advise the Commonwealth and the States and Territories on these kinds of issues as they affect health and ageing matters. So I took the opportunity to have a look at the web site and just follow some of the debate and some of the information that has been provided on this matter. Very importantly, one of the NHMRC's roles is to develop guidelines and standards for the ethical conduct of health and medical research, and one of the challenges that governments always face is whether or not legislators can keep pace with the way in which research is developing.

I suppose from the point of view of the human being, even though we have been cloning potatoes, I suppose, for years, I had never actually thought about that. I have grown a few potatoes in my time, or helped grow them as a kid, but I had not thought of the fact that I was participating in a cloning procedure, but I accept that that was so. It was probably not until Dolly was created back in 1997 that the issue really presented all of us with what some might regard as a challenge and others might regard as a threat - that human cloning might indeed be possible. All those science fiction stories or films that we may have read or seen might have the potential to come true. The NHMRC, I think, sets down four statutory obligations on the directions to be taken. I thought it was worth putting these on the record because it is important to remind ourselves that they are there. Their obligations are to raise the standard of individual and public health throughout Australia and in relation to that, I just add the comment that when I have discussed this with a number of people they ask, 'Are you going to support it?' I say, 'Well, I think I have no option but to support it because we have to find ways by which we can improve the human condition within ethical bounds'. I do think it is very quickly becoming something that we ought to turn our attention to as we watch the ageing of our community. As you look at the advances that are being made in medicine, where we are able to sustain life much more than we could before and, for example, many young babes are surviving who would not have survived before. As we increase the use of technology within our health system, the question is where is the mighty dollar going to come from. There are other instances where we do the best job we can to ensure that not only does a person survive but that they also have some reasonable quality of life. Every one of us in this Parliament knows of instances where we are not able to provide the quality of life that we would like to be able to provide because the resources just will not stretch that far.

As parliamentarians, we are making decisions every day, in effect, as to where the cut-off will be, for example, for example, for additional assistance to be provided for category B children in schools. We are deciding as we watch the debate that is occurring about Mr Belbin up on the north-west coast. That is a debate about where the cut-off is going to be as to what financial assistance is going to be provided to enable people with a disability to live within their own homes. Every one of us would like to be able to provide more resources than he is currently getting and I fully support the efforts of Mr Rockliff to try to get a change of policy in that area. But at the same time, you look at the debate about trying to help parents who make the decision that they are going to try to look after their disabled child in their home and you know that it is killing the parent as much as impacting on the lives of other siblings, as you try to support the person with a disability, as well as the family and others trying to support them. They are tough decisions to make. So it is a problem, whether you are trying to deal with the issue of what the future might be for a person suffering from paraplegia, or trying to stem the impact of Parkinson's disease. I went to an Austar launch at lunchtime and there was a bit of a news clip about a new advance that has been made in terms of the medical process applied to the brain that might well be able to give some solutions to Parkinson's. Expensive stuff, but, both in terms of dealing with early birth defects and the genetic imprint from which that might be identified and sourced, we have to look for a way by which we can have some early intervention approaches when a person's genetic susceptibility to diabetes, kidney failure, heart disease or Alzheimer's has been identified. If we can identify what that potential for disease is, we can screen people to influence their lifestyle decisions, that might reduce the potential for them to contract diabetes, leukaemia et cetera. All of this is reliant upon good scientific research. I guess I am going into the embryonic cell debate to some extent but I do not think you can totally separate the two and neither did the minister. But so much for your cognate debate.

Ms Putt - No, that's right. It is really difficult to do it.

Mrs NAPIER - Yes. I think you have to have a cognate debate on the whole issue. Your speech was. You dealt with both at the one time. But I am not going to argue about that. But it seems to me that you are going to find better answers for the human condition and have better health practices, and particularly primary health care practices - let alone the remediation of health care practices - then we need to have good research. Whilst there is a certain amount that can be done with adult stem cells, I did not even realise that people were now being encouraged to store the umbilical cord blood that could then potentially be used in the future should that person themselves develop a blood disorder. I thought that made a lot of sense. I did not do it, but it makes a lot of sense when you look at the kinds of changes that are occurring. I guess when we get onto the second bill, some people would say, 'I just wonder whether all the research that is being done could have been done with adult stem cells'. That is of course the debate, isn't it? That is why I think the bill is quite right to say, 'We will only allow research on embryonic cells that may otherwise succumb or die. We will only allow work to be done with those that already exist. We are not willing to entertain the use of any embryonic cell that might be established in the future'. That is something we need to decide after we have reviewed the processes of this act. We are fooling ourselves if we think that with an ageing community, even in a young society such as Australia, we can afford to continue with our current medical practices. There will not be enough people to pay for it, so we are going to have to get smarter about the way we deal with public health.

Before I forget this particular point, Minister, I think the Pitstop program that you have for men's health is great. I found out about it on Flinders Island and I now hear that it is being done around Tasmania. In men's health, that is one positive program. I have even written to people saying, 'I've heard about the men's health program with Pitstop. I think that's great'. I would like to see a lot more things done for men's health, but I will give you a tick in the box for that particular initiative.

I had a very senior nurse say to me, 'Sue, we ought to have a Pitstop program for every Tasmanian'. I think that would be really good to get all Tasmanians into the habit of pitstops. That is about checking your health indices. I suppose to some extent the GP should do it, but I think this is something that we could look at to complement the work of GPs, linking nurses into GP practices as part of the group of medical professionals who work together to get people to be conscious of what their indices of health are. Even in today's paper where they were talking about research, they have shown - and this is an American study I think - that 80 per cent of instances of heart attack have known indices such as the potential for diabetes, heart disease in the family and smoking. It just seems to me that we could get smarter with that information. It is about primary health care but it is about being smart with that.

The NHMRC has a really important role to recognise that we all have to try to raise the standard of individual and public health. Their role is to foster the development of consistent health standards between the various States and Territories - and there will always be a debate, I suppose, about that, and particularly the role the State and Federal governments play. I agree with you, in fact all shadow ministers agree, that currently we have this system where you get all this buck-passing from one to another. People out there hate it; I hate it, which is why I have made an effort to try to understand, as much as one might with the resources we have, how the system works, where you have primary care and aged care as the responsibility of the Commonwealth and hospital acute care in the middle.

Mr Llewellyn - All the State ministers hate it, too - and that was what the reform agenda was all about.

Mrs NAPIER - Minister, you are one of the worst at irritating Federal ministers; you are an expert at it. But we do not want to get into that in this debate.

The third obligation is the responsibility to foster medical research and training and public health research and training throughout Australia but, most importantly, the fourth obligation that the National Health and Medical Research Council has is to foster the consideration of ethical issues related to health. That is why we are having the debate now. We have forces that are encouraging us to look for better solutions. We have to encourage wise and good research because we know we need to find some better answers, whether it is helping people to walk who now can no longer walk, or to live who might have a limited opportunity to live in terms of quality of life, because I do not see a lot of point in continuing to live unless you have a reasonable quality of life. That of course means different things to different people and I accept that, but we have to do it within the bounds of ethical considerations.

When I was looking at some of the research that was available under the Gene Technology Information Service fact sheet 25 on human cloning, they made the point that technically it would be possible, using the method that was used with Dolly, to clone another human being. The method used to create Dolly is called somatic cell nucleus transfer. Scientists transferred DNA from the nucleus of a cell taken from a sheep's udder into an egg with its own nucleus removed and the egg was stimulated to grow and implanted into the uterus of a female sheep. Dolly, the only lamb born from 277 attempts - which I was interested in - was a clone of the sheep whose udder cell was used.

Modern biotechnology has not only now cloned cultures of yeast, bacteria, plant and animal cells as a twentieth-century development, but we can now clone animals, even though fairly complex procedures are required. Interestingly, of course, when we are looking at clones, we are reminded that the splitting of an embryo during early development can result in the creation of identical twins and whilst the initial embryo was created by sexual reproduction, the splitting of the early embryo is an asexual process. I was reminded that even though they might have the same genetic inheritance, clones do not always look the same because organisms are shaped by the environment as well as by their genes.

I also read that another cloning technique is embryo splitting. You can do it using micro-surgery and you can do it while the embryo consists of only a few cells. The other method apparently is parthenogenesis, the development of an organism from an unfertilised egg, and I thought back to school science when we studied the reproduction of ants and bees and that was basically the method is used. Sometimes, apparently, but rarely, it happens in some more complex animals such as fish and birds, but apparently it does happen with birds that eggs contain only half the normal amount of genetic material and the other half comes from the sperm in normal sexual reproduction and mammalian eggs are presently unable to develop into a viable organism if stimulated without fertilisation. Interesting stuff, but it just shows how far science has moved.

What I am saying is that this is a very appropriate debate that we are having today and an important decision that we are making. I certainly have a view that, ethically, I cannot support the concept of cloning. I note that there is a bit of a debate in science where they talk about therapeutic cloning. Initially, it was all talked about as reproductive cloning, but once the scientists started talking about it as being therapeutic cloning it seemed to give it that aura of respectability, that there might be some real good to come out of cloning in the future and of course there has been quite a debate on that. I note that the NHMRC's Australian Health Ethics Committee has rejected the term 'therapeutic cloning' since it disguises the fact that a human embryo may be created and destroyed in the process. Their current position, as established in 1996, is that to develop embryos for purposes other than for their use in an approved in-vitro fertilisation treatment program is ethically unacceptable and should be prohibited.

Since that decision back in 1996 we have seen Dolly created in 1997. Taking into account the move by some scientists to talk about the therapeutic benefits that might come from cloning, I would think that this legislation - and I am guided by the NHMRC's decision - should, in effect, reject not only the term 'therapeutic cloning' but also say that it is inappropriate to allow the research community or, come to that, the whole community, to head in this direction.

I am going to make a couple of comments now about the next bill regarding embryonic stem cell research - not that I might not say something further on that issue later on. There is I think sufficient basis to argue that, whilst we are unsure of whether adult stem cell research is able to provide us with all the answers that we need, we should look at what the potential for embryonic stem cell research might provide, particularly in terms of the genetic map and genetic intervention work that might potentially be able to be used to enable people who are going to end up in this world to have a better chance, or at least to enable us to map what their risk potential might be.

I know there is an insurance issue involved in this - will your insurance company want to know what your genetic map is and then decide whether they might charge you a different fee from others? As far as I am concerned, it is not acceptable to move in that direction, but it seems to me that you can use that information very positively, as I talked about earlier, in terms of preventative health cultures. We might develop better screening, better life information, better monitoring services to not only reduce the health bill but also to give people more control over their own lives by being better informed.

I went along recently to a course for asthmatics to find out a little bit about it - I think I might have briefly mentioned this yesterday - the Buteyko method or something like that. I notice MBF does not have it as a claimable item so I have not yet done it - it would have cost me $600. But one thing I did find interesting was that they would recommend the use, for example, of proper sea salt, not the salt that we tend to have on most dining tables. I actually do not use salt at home - except on tomatoes, I have to be honest, I do use it then. But what I had not realised is that we use aluminium as a way of preparing the white salt that you get on your table. When you hear about the links that might exist between aluminium and Alzheimer's disease - I have to tell you, I am not touching white salt one little bit until I find out exactly what the answer to that is.

Ms Putt - Do you know that fluoridation is a result of using an aluminium by-product?

Mrs NAPIER - Yes, that is right.

Mr Hidding - Is aluminium used in salt or can't you remember?

Members laughing.

Mr Sturges - That was actually funny. Every now and then you get one.

Mrs NAPIER - I am having enough trouble with that as it is. But it seems to me that we do need to better understand those kinds of issues and make informed decisions. Talking about informed decisions, I had always used Ventolin first thing in the morning and at night, just to keep the lungs moving I suppose, even though I am not totally reliant on it, but I suddenly stopped doing that when I was told that apparently in 1996 it was established that the use of Ventolin and other similar relievers can actually worsen your asthma with long-term use. I had never been told that, so it just seems to me that there ought to be better information about personal health management made available. The doctors have known about this since 1996 and I am fascinated that there is not much work that I can see being done about that, in a sense. I have now also learned that if you change your breathing pattern you retain the required level of carbon dioxide in the lungs, which needs to be in the vicinity of 6.5 per cent, and that the reason why -

Mrs Jackson - You learn something here, don't you?

Mr Hidding - Dr Napier.

Mrs NAPIER - No, no. I did not know this until the other day.

Mrs Jackson - Now we know why she can talk so long - it's all that Ventolin!

Mrs NAPIER - If you maintain between 3 per cent and 6.5 per cent of carbon dioxide in your lungs, it is important because carbon dioxide is a smooth muscle relaxant. So you can actually teach yourself how to do what you had previously done with Ventolin. I did not know that, and I am now telling everyone else who is an asthmatic that there is a hell of a lot you can learn about the control of your condition that I did not know about, and a lot of other people I know who suffer from asthma did not know about either.

Back to gene technology. That was about genetic mapping, it is about knowing what your predisposition is and then being able to influence that, so we can keep people out of our emergency rooms and we can keep them out of the acute hospitals, and so on.

Mr Llewellyn - I have not observed you not breathing out.

Members laughing .

Mrs NAPIER - But I am supposed to learn to breathe through my nose, not my mouth when talking.

Mrs Jackson - That's why you can talk so much!

Mr Sturges - You can talk and breathe at the same time; you'd make a good didgeridoo player.

Mrs NAPIER - There are some people over there who might equally be accused. Anyway, I guess what I am saying is one of the areas that people are interested in is the potential for organ regeneration, and we have known for a long time that the brain is highly 'plastic' and with some training one area of the brain can take over the function of another area of the brain that is damaged, and so on. But if we got to the point where you could regenerate a lung, a hand, or a liver or whatever it might be, that would be a huge contribution to medical science and the human condition. If you could regenerate the nerves within the spinal cord to help people walk again -

Mr Hidding - You'd never die, you'd just keep living.

Mrs NAPIER - That is a debate to be had, yes, but can I say I will not have that debate with a paraplegic and I will not have that debate with a quad, because the chance that that might happen is, I suppose, the very hope that they continue to live with.

I guess at that stage if we think that most of the body's specialised cells and tissues cannot be replaced by natural processes if they are seriously damaged or diseased, we might be able to do that through transplanting entirely healthy organs. That has some interesting implications. Apparently there is some good work being done on skin cells for patients with severe burns, so I think if we can find some answers, that is very welcome.

I will be supporting the banning of human cloning and a number of other prohibited practices that are basically listed, whether it is a human embryo that contains genetic material provided from more than two persons; a human embryo that has been maintained outside the body of a woman for a period of more than 14 days, excluding any period when development is suspended; a human embryo removed from the body of a woman by a person intending to collect a viable human embryo; and so on. I think they are listed in the legislation so it is not necessary to go through them. I think it is important that we are having this debate and I think it is important that it is a conscience decision and I am certainly very happy to indicate that I will be supporting this first bill.

[3.14 p.m.]

Ms PUTT (Denison - Leader of the Greens) - Mr Speaker, I should make sure that the House is aware that the Greens are of course also having a conscience vote on this matter. Indeed, we generally have a conscience vote on every matter but I think it is particularly important to outline it at this time. I might say that in the Federal Parliament when this was debated, the two Greens senators actually ended up voting different ways, although I think on the basis of much the same arguments, which is again a bit of an interesting outcome.

My position is that I would prefer to see the regulation come into place on both the issues of the cloning of humans and research on human embryos than not to have a legislative regulatory environment. Because of that, I would therefore be in a position where I would need to support the legislation rather than vote no, meaning we should not have additional regulation. However, I am not satisfied that in all respects this is good legislation and there are a number of amendments that I would like to introduce. I will call for a cooperative effort from any other members of the Parliament who want to try to get together some amendments in the same areas that I flag because I have not had the opportunity, in the short period since we became aware we would be debating this legislation this week, to yet compose those amendments myself. So if anybody else is interested, then perhaps we could profit from putting our heads together on those matters.

I am going to address the matters that are covered in both of these bills because the provisions are very much interlocking and it is hard to try to address the bills singly. Clearly we need to have a ban on human cloning. I do not suppose that there is anybody in this House who thinks that human cloning would be a good idea, nor that it would be a good idea to be able to create embryos that were hybrids between humans and other species or for that matter, to undertake genetic engineering to incorporate elements of animal physiology into humans. I would expect that position I hold and that obtains through this legislation would be held by everybody in the House. I am very pleased to see that there is a ban on the creation of human embryos purely for the purposes of research. That is again very important, that we are only talking about excess to requirement human embryos that were created in terms of assisted reproductive technology for the purposes of enabling a couple to have children.

I have some issues with the way that the legislation has been sold, not just here but more particularly around Australia, when we have had some very high profile debates in other parliaments on this matter. The range of research turns out to be somewhat different to that which has been publicly espoused. I think it is very important that we all understand that we are not just talking about limiting research to the highly publicised areas of Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's and diabetes, those illnesses which clearly tug on the sympathy nerve of the general population and are designed to make people feel that this sort of research is all right.

It is quite clear that the range of embryo research that will be permitted includes using human embryos to examine the effectiveness of new culture media used in assisted reproductive technology practice; to assist in understanding embryonic development and fertilisation; for training clinicians in micro-surgical assisted reproductive technology techniques; to experiment in the transport, observation and storage of embryos; for micro-manipulation, lasering, cutting and dissecting; studies in genetic makeup and expression; quality assurance testing to ensure that pre-implantation diagnostic tests give accurate results; and drug testing, including toxicology studies on human embryos, as well as the destructive extraction of embryonic stems cells. So I think we all need to clear that this is what we are talking about. Even so, I can accept that, given that the embryos were created for the purpose of assisting with the creation of a living child and turn out to be excess to those requirements, that research be conducted, although I have to say I am a little concerned about some of those aspects of it.

I am very pleased that we have a provision that the consent of the two people whose sperm and eggs were used to create the embryos is sought. That is an absolute fundamental. Were that not to occur, there would be no way I could support this legislation. However I am concerned about the lack of further involvement of those two people with respect to the potential future use of knowledge and material that is derived from what they have donated and their total lack of any involvement in the future processes that go forward to commercialisation. Indeed, I have a lot of concerns about the commercialisation aspects, which are not even addressed in these two bills but really need to be thoroughly addressed.

The limit to the utilisation of human embryos that were existence on 5 April 2002 that has been determined by COAG - and that restriction of course relates to the time when COAG made their agreement - is an important one, because it at least at the outset obviates the possibility of creating embryos for the purposes of research. I am certain we will find that of course people do not want to have human embryos created purely for the purposes of research. But I am very concerned about the further provision that this restriction is to be lifted in 2005, so that we will no longer be limited to those embryos that were existence on 5 April 2002. Furthermore, I am particularly concerned and cannot accept that COAG can determine an earlier time and that there is no public consultation process for that. There is consultation but it is limited; it is not full public consultation and neither would that change come before any of the parliaments of Australia. I cannot accept that.

That gives the say-so to COAG and I know from where I sit that we often disagree with the decisions that are made by COAG. I feel sure that in such a touchy area there is a need for there to be two things: a public consultation process and for the parliaments to approve any such lifting of the restriction on which human embryos can be used for such experimentation. Those are the areas in which I would like to move amendments and if anybody wants to work together with me on that I would be very pleased to have that assistance. So I foreshadow that I do want to try to strengthen the legislation in that area.

The other matters that I started to flag are the important issues of the privatising of knowledge and corporate profit therefrom that arises from experimentation on human embryos. Biotechnology is a big industry. It holds out the possibility of large profits for some investors and I know that Australian companies involved in embryonic stem cell research have said that Australian investment and research in this field will be forced to go offshore if they are denied access to embryonic stem cell research. In other words, we see the strong arm here trying to push bodies such as COAG into opening up further the access to human embryos for research using the justification that otherwise they will leave and take their lucrative businesses offshore. There really is an element of strong-arm tactics and bullying in this and I do not want to see us subject to that. So, again, that is one of the reasons why I think we need to strengthen up these provisions about opening up further access than that which is initially determined in this bill in relation to experimentation on human embryos.

The other thing that we need to do then is to examine the fact that these bills do not address the question of international property rights arising from stem cell research. In June of last year, I believe it was, protesters blockaded the European Patent Office in Munich, furious about what they saw as a deliberate attempt to allow the patenting of human beings. The source of their wrath was the so-called 'Edinburgh Patent' which protected the stem cell technology that gave the world Dolly the sheep. It was granted in 1999 to scientists at Edinburgh University and the Australian biotech Stem Cell Sciences. The controversy related to a clause in the fine print that suggested the patent could extend to human embryonic stem cells. The protest was successful and the European Patent Office agreed to amend the patent so it did not include human embryonic stem cells.

This incident illustrates the strict controls on European stem cell research compared to Australia, where laws are much more vague, according to the patent law expert, Dr Matthew Rimmer, from the Australian National University. It also highlights the need to revisit the issue of patents and intellectual property when we debate stem cell legislation, which some people believe could open the floodgates for the barcoding and commodification of human embryos. Senator Bob Brown indeed has been at the forefront in the Australian Parliament in pushing for the creation of a national stem cell bank which would effectively ban patents on stem cell research in Australia.

So while the patent law in the US and Europe is quite clear, Australian legislation is not so clear and indeed is quite strange. The key provision of the Patent Act relating to stem cell science was drafted by Senator Brian Harradine in 1990 and, whilst his intentions were probably in the direction that I would seek, it was ambiguous. Dr Rimmer of the ANU said:

'It says human beings and biological processes for their generation are not patentable [but] the Patent Office in Australia believes that stem cells don't fall within that definition, and that it's a kind of a grey area.'

So we potentially have a difficulty there. It seems that parliamentary inquiries into stem cell research - and we know that the Senate went into this in some detail - were to an extent overburdened by submissions about research regulation, and that the issue of patents was somewhat lost. One report has suggested that it should fall to the Australian Law Reform Commission and the Health Advisory Committee to make recommendations relating to stem cell patents, but certainly there is an issue there.

In the absence of any provisions to the contrary it would appear that the companies that develop stem cell lines and therapies arising from this type of research will be able to patent the knowledge, potentially earning a great deal of money. This could lead to market restrictions on access to the benefits of research through high prices, or public subsidies to reduce the cost and expand access, for example through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Public funds have been used to enable assisted reproductive technology and the creation of excess embryos, but private corporations are proposing that individuals may elect to donate their excess embryos for research, the benefits of which will flow to private corporations in the form of profits. We have to ask ourselves whether any private company should be permitted to patent the knowledge for curing serious diseases like cancer and profit from it.

If stem cell research continues to gather pace there will be the need to establish banks to hold the stem cell lines. Where will these banks be established, who will regulate them and who will determine access to the stem cell lines they hold? How will a trade in stem cells be regulated and by whom? What, if any, role should governments play in the registration of patents from research undertaken in Australia? These bills are silent on these important public policy issues. Some of these issues probably need to be taken up at the international level, the others potentially at the national level, but because that has not occurred we are having to think about them here in the Tasmanian Parliament. They at least need to be raised while we are considering these bills because the research that these bills are designed to assist is not occurring in a vacuum.

I want to go on to some of the points that were made by the Greens during debate in the Senate in relation to these matters. I think it is important to say that we do not oppose research and development because we know it holds promise for alleviating human suffering, for developing techniques to reduce our environmental impacts and to improve the quality of life for all individuals. What I am saying instead is that we are concerned about transparency, about public accountability, about good decision making and about equitable access to medical treatments and therapies.

We have seen elsewhere, as I have said, the application and granting of patents for human stem cell lines which has generated concern that scientists, including publicly-funded ones, will be hampered in their research efforts in this field. These patents and the conditions attached to any use of the stem cells they cover have been used in an argument to support legislation such as that we are considering today, because there is a need for Australian-based researchers to have access to human embryos to derive their own stem cell lines. The Australian Medical Research Council told the senate committee of inquiry into this that the fastest rate of growth in Australian patenting is in biotechnology, and that this rate of growth is significantly faster than the world average.

Clearly, Australian companies want to protect their discoveries with intellectual property patents, but where we go once we start doing this means we have to consider whether we will become guilty of doing to others what we have complained of having done to us with regard to intellectual property rights and patents. If all citizens are to benefit from the output of stem cell research involving human embryos, then government needs to moderate market forces and no-one should be permitted to patent stem cell lines.

The Greens in the Senate, therefore, proposed that the Commonwealth Government establish a national stem cell bank, and I agree that this is what we need as a repository for stem cell lines from human embryos and adult stem cells. The United Kingdom is going to have such a bank established by the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control, and be overseen by the Medical Research Council. The British House of Lords select committee on stem cell research last year endorsed such a proposal.

The holder of a licence issued under this legislation would be required to deposit stem cell lines into the national bank and then any researcher approved for conducting research using human tissue would be permitted to use stem cell lines from the bank. At the very least a national stem cell bank would ensure that all research institutions, in particular publicly-funded institutions, would have access to the basic materials for developing applications from the stem cell lines. It seems to me that this is the best mechanism within the constraints that are already being applied to safeguard the public interest.

Clearly we would need separate legislation to actually establish a stem cell bank, and it should be national legislation, but presumably we should be having mirror legislation here to support that. I know the Greens tried to bring forward an amendment to achieve this during the debate in the national Parliament, and it was defeated. That was the reason why Dr Bob Brown then would not support the legislation on the third reading, because he felt that commercialisation and private profit had overcome the greater public good in an area that he had found difficult to support in the first instance because of that other issue that adult stem cells seem to be the more prospective cells to be using at any rate, and that whether or not the use of embryonic stem cells is necessary is somewhat questionable. If you decide for yourself, as Dr Brown did, that despite that, you are willing to give it the go-ahead as long as the public good is put first, then it is very difficult to confront a situation in which there is then a refusal to deal with some of these issues around commercialisation and patenting of the antecedence and the minutiae of human life. I think there is a very strong need to act in this area.

The other point that I wanted to make about this is the need to examine intellectual property rights in this area. We need to examine intellectual property rights for human stem cell lines designed from embryos made available under the legislation we are considering today. It should include all existing stem cells lines that are not subject to a patent and ways to safeguard the public interest and guarantee equitable access to therapeutic applications and drugs developed from stem cell lines. I think that is very important. It would be appalling if we allowed this to go ahead and then discovered that there was not equitable access to the results of the research, which we are being told is to help all of humanity to overcome very debilitating diseases. It seems to me that it is the other half of what we need to do. It has not come before us with this bill and we know it has been ignored in Canberra. It presents us with a very difficult situation.

I know also that Dr Brown brought up in Parliament, together with Kerry Nettle, the Greens senator from New South Wales, another issue that I think is of interest to Australians generally in this regard, and that is the need to ensure the labelling of products which are developed through embryonic testing. Surely we agree that the public deserve in all conscience to know whether drugs, cosmetics or any other material that comes about from embryonic testing is in the product they are seeking to buy. In other words, if they want to buy something, they need to know whether it has come from embryonic testing or not, surely, because it is such a touchy issue for people. It is very emotional; it is a difficult one. There will be people who do not support the testing on human embryos at all and they need at least to be able to make an informed choice when they buy product as to whether or not they are buying product that has been derived from that research. Again, as I understand it, that has also been defeated in the Australian Parliament and we are not having any proposal brought forward through COAG or anywhere else that that labelling occur. Surely that is important.

They were the main points I wanted to make. I have a feeling there is something else that I meant to raise that I have left out, but no doubt I can find a way to do that when we get onto the next bill. I would like to reiterate that I think we need to improve this issue about opening up further classes of embryos for research without it coming back to the Parliament and without full public consultation. If anybody wants to work with me on amendments to that effect, I would be very pleased to work with them.

[3.39 p.m.]

Mr HIDDING (Lyons - Leader of the Opposition) - Mr Speaker, I intend to speak on both bills so I will limit by contribution at this point on the first bill. As the Minister for Health and Human Services rightly points out in his press release of 15 August, this legislation does in fact deal with complex moral questions. As a result, Liberal members have been granted a conscience vote on these bills, as have Labor members and other members of State and Territory governments around the nation and the Commonwealth. This indicates the gravity placed on this issue and the strength of feeling of issues that touch on the reverence for human life at its beginnings.

At the outset I would also like to place on the record my concern and disappointment that so little time has been allowed to members of parliament and to Tasmanians generally in the community to absorb these bills and to consider them before making a contribution. This lack of consultation is of real concern to ordinary Tasmanians and it has sadly become the trademark of this Government, most notably on the recent relationship bills. At the same time, I would record my respect for the way in which the Prime Minister has sought a nationally consistent legislation for this debate and for encouraging a conscience vote on a matter of profound importance, thus ensuring the will of the people is reflected in the decisions we make on this issue. Mr Speaker, human cloning is abhorrent to everyone I know and I believe it is a grave offence against humanity, against the order of nature and the will of God. This bill is necessary because cloning is possible and man's capacity for evil, sadly, knows no bounds.

Basically, cloning can mean several things. My research shows that it could, for instance, create children who are genetic twins of their parents. It could create children for the even more repugnant practice of destroying them for parts, called therapeutic cloning; creating a child that is an entity that is part-human, part-animal, termed a 'hybrid'; or creating a child that contains the genetic material of more than two persons. Or it could be creating a child asexually - that is, without the involvement of the fertilisation of a human egg by human sperm. It could also be altering the genome of a human cell, the DNA. Thankfully, it is proposed under this legislation that all these cloning practices will be prohibited, as is commercial trading in human reproductive material - embryos, eggs and sperm.

Mr Speaker, when you think of cloning, Dolly the sheep is the first example that springs to mind. It is interesting that, while this debate is going on around Australia, Ian Willmot, the creator of Dolly, has published findings that every cloned animal in the world is genetically and physically defective. But, animals aside, human cloning opens up a whole new can of worms. It is frightening to see what human cloning might deliver to this world if it was allowed to go unchecked. There are, for instance, designer babies - resistant to disease and with built-in instruction manuals because they are carbon copies of their parents. There is the immortality argument - taking a human being's DNA and reversing its age back to zero - with global ramifications for this planet. It is like something out of Jurassic Park on a human scale - frightening and repugnant to the majority of people in the world.

It is not just the fear factor of the unknown in all this. It is not just the ethical considerations. It is also the ambiguities of the result in human cloning. It is a bit like that old song: 'That girl is your sister but your mama don't know'. Remember that one? Is a clone an offspring or a sibling? And who is legally responsible for the clone? Does a clone have one biological parent or two or more? Or any? Imagine the difficulties in tracing one's genealogical line. Imagine the problems for lawyers in estate matters with biological ties becoming so blurred and confounded. There is, as I said, the problem of 'designer' kids. A new under-class of people could be created who are not able to keep up with the genetically-fortified Joneses. It is hard enough already for disadvantaged children to compete with their more affluent counterparts in terms of opportunity, but imagine how that would be compounded if genetic manipulation came into the picture. As I said, Mr Speaker, human cloning opens up a Pandora's box with frightening implications for what we know today.

Mr Speaker, in humanistic terms, Australia is a forward-thinking nation but a nation that is pretty fair in weighing the pros and cons of weighty arguments like this one. Human cloning, I am thankful to say, is one scientific field where our ethical considerations as a nation have overridden biotechnological advances. No Australian, I believe, could countenance going down the road to allowing human cloning - and rightly so, Mr Speaker. I therefore have great pleasure in supporting this bill to prohibit this activity in Tasmania and the rest of Australia.

Mr Booth - Point of order, Mr Speaker. Would you have the indulgence to tell our Mr McKim to come in and speak on the bill? Would you allow the indulgence for me to get him? He asked me to call him in, expecting there would be more speakers.

Mr Llewellyn - I think it needs a quorum.

Quorum formed.

[3.45 p.m.]

Mr McKIM (Franklin) - Mr Speaker, I am honoured that the bells rang specifically to attract me. I thought that a number of members would have wanted to speak on this bill and in fact if all members do not speak, I must confess I would be somewhat surprised, given that every member of this House has a conscience vote. I thought every member would have wanted to put their views on the record but, having said that, maybe some members have reasons not to want to put their views on the record.

Mr Michael Hodgman - I wanted to hear your views before I made my position known.

Mr McKIM - If I could just say, Mr Speaker, that it is my intention to support the bill which is presently before the House and in fact, like other members, I will address my remarks here to both the bills but, specifically to start with, I clearly think that regulation is necessary in relation to both the matters before the House which, broadly speaking, are to ban human cloning and to regulate the methodology leading up to research on human embryos.

Can I say, just at the outset, that I am supportive of the ban on human cloning and I do not intend to speak at length about that. I suspect that most other members of this House will be voting in similar fashion in relation to that bill.

In relation to what I think is a little bit more of a vexed issue, which is the issue of research on human embryos, I do intend to support this bill in the second reading but could I say that I do have a couple of concerns that I would be seeking to raise in the committee stage of this bill. I have a concern relating to the review of the bill that I believe will be undertaken two years after the legislation is enacted and it is my very firm position that there should be a public consultation process as well as the other processes which are flagged in the legislation. To be clear, I think there should be a process by which submissions are requested from the public so that every day people and citizens of the State and of the country can participate in a review and can make their feelings known about how they believe the bill is progressing. Of course, Mr Speaker, this industry and this area of research is a very fast moving area and it is one that does create a lot of discussion and some division within the community and I think it is important, whatever the outcomes of the review, that at least people are able to feed in their own personal views during the review process.

I am very firmly of the belief that citizens should be entitled to participate and I believe that has been flagged by the member for Denison, Ms Putt, and I would certainly like to put on the record that I will be discussing with her what form an amendment might take to give effect to that sentiment. As I think Ms Putt did, I would be more than happy to discuss that matter with any other members of the House who might think that is an appropriate thing to amend in the bill.

There is also, as I understand it, the issue, again flagged by Ms Putt, in relation to COAG and their role in the review and in the decisions which come out of the review and if I could just indicate also that I am interested in exploring that, although I am not quite sure if I am prepared to put a position on the record at the moment in relation to that. May I say, as an overview, that I do not think members were given enough time to examine this very complex issue. I thank the Minister for Health for the extra information that he gave over and beyond what the Government normally gives in relation to legislation and may I acknowledge those members of the public service who kindly came and gave the four Green MHAs a briefing in relation to this - they were certainly very knowledgeable and very able. However, I do think that for us to be standing here, only two or three days after we first saw the legislation and really first applied our minds to it, is just a little bit quick and I would like to have spent a week or two on this matter, because, as I said, it is complex, especially the Human Embryonic Research Regulation Bill 2003. There are a number of moral issues, in my opinion, that it throws up and I think that all elected representatives would have appreciated a little bit more time to apply their minds to the issue.

I am glad that the Human Embryonic Research Regulation Bill 2003 bans specifically creating embryos for the purposes of research. I strongly believe that that would not be appropriate. I am aware that, should the bill pass, it will allow the use of only those embryos which have been created for the purposes of reproduction and are left over after the treatment is completed. The number of embryos created for the purpose of the treatment would be set by an industry standard and would be overseen by the committee to which the legislation refers. I also think it is important that the people whose genetic material is used to create the embryos need to give their permission in order for the embryos to be used for research and I strongly support that and, if that were not the case, I do not think I would standing here supporting the bill today. I am slightly concerned that once that permission has been given by the people whose genetic material has been used to create the embryos, that is the end of their involvement, although I recognise, of course, that what happens to those embryos will then still form a part of what the committee oversees in its functions.

Mr Speaker, I do not think that I necessarily need to speak more about these bills now. To be clear, I will be either moving or supporting at least one amendment in committee, so I would look forward to the chance to go into committee on this bill. Broadly speaking, I believe I will be supporting the ban on human cloning and I will be supporting, with some minor administrative amendments, the other bill before us, which is the Human Embryonic Research Regulation Bill 2003.

[3.55 p.m.]

Mr BOOTH (Bass) - Mr Speaker, I will be supporting this bill. Unfortunately due to the short time frame, as alluded to by other members of the House, it has been very difficult to come to terms with this. It is an extraordinarily complex issue and I certainly have not had time to properly investigate other points of view. Also because of the short time frame for this bill that has matured in the House, I have had little representation on the matter from other people in the community, which I think it is a bit of a shame. I am not quite sure, Minister, why there was such urgency to have it debated so quickly.

Mr Llewellyn - It is being introduced in the normal way. It is a conscience vote from everyone's point of view and if people have issues, particularly in regard to researching amendments or whatever, I believe we ought to provide time for those sorts of situations to occur. I am not going to inhibit the debate in any way. The first bill is fairly straightforward and I think everyone supports the first bill. It is the next bill that raises moral and ethical values that exercise people's minds.

Mr BOOTH - Thank you, I appreciate that. It is just that it would have been nice to let it season a little longer and get it out there in the electorate, from my point of view. I do not impugn any sinister motive there; I understand it is the process. It has made it a bit difficult to get a broader view on it, that is all, and I will certainly be listening to the debate from all members. I am very interested to hear what other people have to say about it. I can say, however, that I am opposed to the cloning of human beings. I think it is completely inappropriate to clone a human being. We are all here on earth as part of a normal evolutionary process. We have been evolving over the millennia and I think it is quite arrogant of humanity to think that we have reached some penultimate point where an individual's current form ought to be continued to become some sort of a human form of Dolly the sheep. I think nature is the best moderator of evolution and I really do not believe that we should be considering in any circumstances whatsoever the cloning of any human being.

I share perhaps some of the issues that Ms Putt has alluded to in regard to COAG here and I will be listening to the amendments and arguments in regard to that, and possibly supporting those. As I said, I think the egocentricity of extremely rich and powerful individuals who may come into this in terms of wanting to clone their sprog or whatever and remain as some sort of a likeness in the future is completely unacceptable. Although, there are of course some outstanding individuals whom one would like to see continue - not anyone in this Chamber, I might add; I am thinking of outstanding individuals -

Mr Michael Hodgman - Oh, you told me before you were going to recommend me. You said, 'You're an icon, Michael. We need to clone you'.

Mr Ken Bacon - No, he was talking about John Gay!

Mr BOOTH - No, I am certainly not talking about John Gay; he would have fallen into the form of individual that I think would be better not to clone. I was thinking of outstanding individuals like Einstein.

Mr Will Hodgman - Gary Ablett.

Mr BOOTH - No, Gary Ablett would not fall into my list of suitable clients either.

Members laughing .

Mr Michael Hodgman - You told me I was an icon, and you said, 'We will clone you'.

Mr BOOTH - Well, Michael, I think that all men and women are born equal, and I think that is where we ought to stay in history. I think we need to just keep on through the evolutionary chain, see what the future brings and let nature -

Mr Michael Hodgman - I have explained to you before, some are more equal than others.

Mr BOOTH - You reckon that Michael is an example of evolution in action? Well, we will not go down that track. I think it is a very serious issue, and I would also like to thank the minister for his indulgence there in terms of offering an extended time, and thank you to the advisers who briefed us. It was very informative and we have information there that has enabled us to make some sort of decision. I think that is all I have to say at this stage, Mr Speaker. Thank you for your indulgence.

[4.01 p.m.]

Ms HAY (Bass) - Mr Speaker, it is not my intention to talk for very long either, but I just wanted to speak in support of this bill because I, too, do not want to live in a world where we can just create other human beings to replicate what we already have here. I like the fact that we are all unique, we all have different things to bring to this world, and that is the sort of place that I want my world to be and for future generations. In the reading that I have done throughout the week I came across on Lateline on 16 August 2001 an ethical debate on stem cell research. I just bring this to the Chamber today because I thought it was very interesting. It was between Margaret Somerville, the founding director of the Centre for Medicine, Ethics and the Law at McGill University, and also Peter Singer, the decamp Professor of the Centre for Human Values at Princeton University. Peter Singer said here on the issue of cloning - and this is something I had not thought of before and I have had a big think about it since then and I thought it might be of interest to the Chamber - and this is for parents who had lost a child early in their life:

'While that child was brain dead in hospital, but still alive, they (the parents of the child) were interested in taking cells to reproduce exactly that child so that the child who had tragically been taken from them at a very early age would be replicated.

If such a child were to be born, that child wouldn't be following in the path of anyone else who had lived because that child as soon as it was aware it was a clone would be older than the child from whom it was cloned.'

I cannot agree with him, because the parents would have to compare. They would have to be trying to create the child that they lost, and I just do not think it is fair for that family to go through that or for the child to be put in that situation. There would be comparison, and they would also be trying to, I guess, erase old memories with a new child the replica of the one they had lost, and I really think that human beings have so much more to offer this world with their personality and, as I said, their uniqueness, and the discovery that they go through every day of their lives, and I just would not want anything like that to ever happen. So that is just slightly different from all the debates that I have heard this afternoon, and I do really appreciate the words of others. It is a complex issue, but I think we share the feeling that we like the world as it is. We do want changes to occur that bring benefits to other people, but the whole ethos of life that I enjoy is that we do not all think the same and we are very much individuals and we all have something special to bring to this earth. So I am speaking in support of this bill.

[4.04 p.m.]

Mr STURGES (Denison) - Mr Speaker, this is quite a significant occasion in this House, so therefore I consider that I should take a small amount of time to at least place on record my position on this matter and just give a couple of reasons why I have arrived at the decision that I have. Quite clearly I would like to place on record that I certainly oppose any form of human cloning, whether it is the particular gentleman you referred to or not.

Mr Booth - That was as a result of interjection, actually.

Mr STURGES - So on that basis I will certainly be supporting the bill which precludes human cloning.

Just moving on to the Human Embryonic Research Regulation Bill, I have to say that when I first started contemplating this, whilst I recognise the benefits that may well be derived in the field of medical research, I struggled initially. But having attended a briefing and read a bit of information about this now, I am satisfied that the bill establishes an appropriate balance between the need to enable potentially life-saving research to go ahead and the imposition of and the oversight of sanctions that are necessary to ensure that there is ethical research practice; in other words what I am saying is that I have now satisfied myself that there is an appropriate regulatory framework established to ensure that ethical standards are maintained, that those standards are monitored and that there is an appropriate process in place to enforce any potential - and I am not suggesting that there will be - breaches of this regulatory framework.

I do not intend to go through that which other speakers have touched upon because I cannot see the point in that, but I thought it was important for me, as an elected member, to at least stand up here today and let this House know and have it recorded into Hansard what my personal position was. I thank you for the opportunity, Mr Speaker.

[4.06 p.m.]

Mr WILL HODGMAN (Franklin - Deputy Leader of the Opposition) - Mr Speaker, I just want to make some brief comments in relation to this particular bill and I will make more substantive comments in relation to the second bill that concerns this issue before the House. I really do so only on the basis of a comment by my colleague from Franklin, Mr McKim, from the Greens, who said he would expect every member in this House would in fact speak on this particular bill and I just want to state, from my perspective, that I suppose I assumed it would be not surprising that no-one would vote against this particular bill because the thought of cloning human beings is obviously clearly repugnant and an unconscionable concept. It was by my silence, I suppose, and my ultimate vote that I would express my views in relation to it so it is for no other reason that I rise at this point in time.

I will also note that I would have benefited from some little time in being able to digest the information and the issues that are presented by this legislation. I do appreciate the support that has been given by the Government and, indeed, members of the public sector who have assisted us but I was enlightened by some of what Ms Putt said in relation to this issue and the extent to which we can go. I am sure there will be further debate, perhaps at committee stage, certainly in relation to the second bill before the House that will enable us collectively to further address these issues. I would have thought that while some members may have had a week or so to contemplate the issues before the House, unfortunately, in our case, we have been limited to only two days, I believe. In any event, I do at this point place on record my support for this particular bill and I commend it to the House.

[4.08 p.m.]

Mr MORRIS (Lyons) - Mr Speaker, I, too, just briefly wish to place on record my position in relation to the Human Cloning and Other Prohibited Practices Bill 2003.

Firstly, it is a little disappointing perhaps that we did not have more time to consider that, although it would not have changed my position, but it perhaps would have allowed more people in the community to express their position. Indeed, I have received only one representation on the matter and, strangely enough, it was urging me to vote against the bill but my feeling was - and this is on the second bill, I think, although they were not clear - it was because they actually wanted to have a complete ban on research of embryonic stem cells, so it was a bit of a strange idea that voting against the bill and leaving an open-slather situation would actually be an advance over what is being proposed here.

I, too, am totally opposed to the cloning of human beings, and hopefully this bill will indeed give strong effect to that. Of course we know from our briefing that it is the Commonwealth legislation in particular that is the real strength in this situation, and that what we are doing here is making sure there are no gaps left for people to be able to move through to try that cloning within Australia. Unfortunately of course there are other countries which do not have such legislation or perhaps take different positions, and no doubt we will see the cloning of humans beings actually happen; it just will not be done within our country.

The other provision within this first bill that is of course extremely important is creating an offence in the commercial trading of human eggs, human sperm and human embryos. That is a very good and a very important part of this bill that we now have clarity on exactly what is prohibited, and I guess by reference from that, what is still to be allowed to be traded, and so forth. So thank you, Minister, for bringing on this legislation. It probably should have come before us some months ago, although there may not have been any rush because the Commonwealth legislation, as we have been told, is in place and this is just to make sure there are no holes left in the system.

I will also refer briefly to the second bill which we will be discussing next, rather than stand again. I think I would prefer a ban on research on embryonic stem cells, but will indeed support the legislation without amendment because there is a review to be held. I would assume that there will be further reviews if this one that will be held at the end of 2004 does not change the situation, but hopefully we can indeed move to a situation where embryos are not needed for stem cell research, and that research in the meantime will actually establish that stem cells from adults, not from embryos, will suffice to cover all areas of research that are needed, because whilst the areas they are getting into are a little overwhelming, there are potentially some significant areas of disease, in particular degenerative disease, the understanding and treatment of which may well be enhanced through stem cell research.

Of course if, as this bill says, the Government feels it is necessary to keep the door open for research on embryos and embryonic stem cells, then we have to trust that that the mechanisms that are outlined here will indeed be foolproof. I guess this is probably the best way, and researchers will abide by the regulations that are in place and the regulatory regime. One question I have for the minister is on the reporting. I am given to understand that there will be a report to Parliament. Is it just the Commonwealth Parliament that will receiving a report from the -

Mr Llewellyn - No, this is our act.

Mr MORRIS - This is our act. We will also be receiving the report on a six-monthly basis, that is what I think we were told.

Mr Llewellyn - Twelve months.

Mr MORRIS - A 12-monthly basis. I was just wondering whether it was only the Commonwealth that was going to report or whether we were going to have reports as well. I would appreciate if you could just clarify that point and I will conclude my remarks there.

[4.15 p.m.]

Mr GREEN (Braddon - Minister for Primary Industries, Water and Environment) - Mr Speaker, it is a little difficult to debate a bill when basically everybody is in agreement with the same position, but it pays to get up when you are given a conscience vote, particularly on an issue such as this, to put on the record that, of course, I will be supporting the legislation, for very good reasons, particularly in regard to cloning. I think it goes without saying that in a country like Australia - even though some other parts of the world seem to be thinking differently about the issue - we would think about supporting a position like this. I will be supporting the minister and supporting COAG with regard to the decision that they have made on a national level. In respect to the second part, I absolutely agree. I think that when you have degenerative diseases and instances where people through injury have lost the use of their arms and legs and just about everything else that, with the brilliance of the human mind, if we can in some way help people in those circumstances in an ethical way then we should take that opportunity. I would not be a person who would stand in the way of somebody being able to feel their toes or get over Parkinson's disease or any similar diseases. The philosophical point of view has been put forward in the House by some members in relation to when human life starts, but with the consent of the people involved in creating those embryos, I think that in the circumstances, they should be used. That is why, under the tight regimes that are put in place, I will be supporting the legislation.

I heard Ms Putt but I was not quite sure what she meant about that being relaxed into the future with the creation of embryos specifically for that purpose. Is that what you were concerned about?

Ms Putt - At the moment we are informed that the only human embryos that can have this experimentation done on them are those that were created prior to 5 April 2002 -

Mr GREEN - That's right.

Ms Putt - but by 5 April 2005 that will lapse and embryos that have been created since then could be experimented upon, and indeed, COAG may determine to relax that provision earlier than 2005 and that does not come before this Parliament. So I wanted to see it publicly consulted and come before the Parliament before that relaxation occurred. I was not saying it should not necessarily occur but I would like us to have a look at it to see what has happened in the meanwhile.

Mr GREEN - There is a date, April, and personally I do not see that if this legislation stacks up in every sense that a date really means too much at all. I would not want to limit the opportunity just based on a date agreed to in Parliament. I do not think I would want to change that. This is why you would not want to have somebody cloned - look, he is pulling the carpet up -

Members laughing .

Mr Llewellyn - There are a couple of pieces of string there.

Mr GREEN - while a man is trying to speak seriously about a very important piece of legislation.

With those few words, Mr Speaker, I hope I have put on the record my feelings on this matter. I do appreciate the fact that we are having a conscience vote. It is, as the member for Denison, Mr Sturges, pointed out, pretty historic legislation even though we are at the end of the process I suppose, just closing all the loopholes at a State level. It is obvious the Federal legislation exists but it is always a good opportunity to get up and reinforce these matters.

[4.19 p.m.]

Ms GIDDINGS (Franklin) - Mr Speaker, I too want to join with some of my colleagues in saying that the fact that this is a conscience vote means it is important to state your position on the record, so I just clearly want to state that I am against the cloning of any human beings, as such. I do not think that is appropriate at all and in fact it raises a whole lot of issues in itself, and I can think of many science fiction movies that have been based on this as to what can happen when we interfere too much in this science and try to build the perfect human being.

But in terms of the other bill that we are also looking at, the embryos bill - and members have been talking about both bills in their speeches - I did follow the debate at the time the legislation was going through our Federal Parliament where they also had a conscience vote. I know it raised a lot of anguish for members there and the debate was very interesting. In fact, I think there was a lot of wider community debate at that time as well and there were doctors and scientists who were dragged into the Federal Parliament to give evidence about what this stem cell research would do for people with these degenerative diseases that other members have spoken about.

I too think that if we can find ways of improving the lives of peoples who currently may be stuck in a wheelchair with no hope of ever walking again or for others who may have some form of disease which could be assisted through this sort of research, then I think that there is an ethical argument to have some form of research carried out on these excess embryos that otherwise would probably in the longer term just be terminated anyway. If they can come to some good in the scientific and medical field then I think we should use them. Certainly I appreciate the fact that people do have concerns about when life begins and that is why it is so important that this legislation is putting processes in place which will make sure that these issues are not treated lightly and that all the ethical considerations are taken into account.

I do not have a problem so much with what Ms Putt was raising earlier. I am pleased to see that COAG has this opportunity to review the embryos that are available to research. I can understand Ms Putt's point of view that it would be interesting to see how far research has progressed by the time that COAG looks at this again and no doubt there will be a lot of scientific opinion put forward at that time to justify whether or not further embryos should be released for further research.

As I said, I think these issues have been debated in depth, crossing every 't' and dotting every 'i', particularly in the Commonwealth debate, and then what was agreed to by the COAG as well. I think that while we all may have some problems with the legislation, it is legislation that is a good compromise position that was able to draw a lot of diverse views together, and for that reason should be supported as well. Also for that reason I will of course look at any amendments that come forward, but at this stage, I am unlikely to be supporting any amendments. I think the legislation we have is appropriate and it is also appropriate that we have legislation that is as consistent as possible around the whole of Australia. I understand that other States have already implemented this legislation.

[4.24 p.m.]

Mr LLEWELLYN (Lyons - Minister for Health and Human Services) - Mr Speaker, I thank members for their contributions on this particular matter. By and large, I think the Human Cloning and Other Prohibited Practices Bill certainly is not as controversial as the second bill. I think members probably would have noted that I read into Hansard as part of the second reading speech for this particular bill what is in the package that you were given - the information paper. It extended the argument from what was encapsulated in about two pages surrounding human cloning and prohibited practices into information in Hansard of some six or eight pages. It opened the possibility of debate on the second bill in a larger way.

I have heard what members have said and also what members from the Green opposition have indicated in regard to some possible amendments in the legislation. I intended to say a little more myself when we came to the second reading on that bill - this is, research involving human embryos and prohibition. I am sure that debate will be the more substantive part of the debate.

One of the issues that Ms Putt raised in regard to her view of the matter was that she thought that it was more appropriate, rather than the process that is involved in the legislation as it stands, that some community discussion occur in regard to the review that is guaranteed in the bills. That particular provision, as far as I can see, is actually provided for in the Human Cloning and Other Prohibited Practices Bill under Part 3, Miscellaneous. So if an amendment that was needed or if someone had the desire to place an amendment in the legislation to require some sort of public consultation prior to a review of the bill in the House of Parliament, then I think it would be appropriate to place it in legislation at that point. So for that reason, when we go into committee on this bill we can deal with the provisions of the bill as it stands, but, when we get to Part 3, I intend to report progress and seek to adjourn the remaining part of that bill until members have had an opportunity to address that amendment or whatever amendment might be necessary. Having done that, we could then move on to the second bill and have the second reading speech on that. There are also some foreshadowed amendments that might be necessary in the second bill. When we get to the point whe re that debate goes into the committee stage then it might also be appropriate to adjourn that bill at that time in order for people to have an opportunity to prepare those amendments.

Since this is a conscience vote and everyone has an equal opportunity, as they do in Parliament I know but it is a special situation, I think it is appropriate that we give some time in regard to that. If we get to that point prior to the six o'clock adjournment, normal time, I will simply seek an adjournment of the House at that stage and that will enable members to get their thoughts together over the weekend. I certainly appreciate the comments from all members.

Bill read the second time.