I support the Human Cloning and Other Prohibited Practices Amendment Bill 2007, a decision I made a year ago subject to seeing the bill, which I will explain later. This is not an easy decision for anyone to make. Members will agonise about their decision and I have no idea how many members will vote for it or how many will vote against it. However, I say to everyone listening to this debate that this is one of the few debates in this Parliament on which members have great difficulty in making their decision. I made my decision a year ago after working with an individual who perhaps would have benefited from this research had it been done years ago. I will explain that later also.

I support the Human Cloning and Other Prohibited Practices Amendment Bill 2007, a decision I made a year ago subject to seeing the bill.
 
This is not an easy decision for anyone to make. Members will agonise about their decision and I have no idea how many members will vote for it or how many will vote against it. However, I say to everyone listening to this debate that this is one of the few debates in this Parliament on which members have great difficulty in making their decision. I made my decision a year ago after working with an individual who perhaps would have benefited from this research had it been done years ago.

Most people in New South Wales or Australia will never see the bill. The general community would probably support this research, but if people saw the bill they might have second thoughts. It is worth running through that comment because this is a very complex bill. It is not easy to read, it is repetitious and I believe it is misnamed.
 
The bill is in the standard format. The overview of the bill states: The object of this Bill is to amend the Human Cloning and Other Prohibited Practices Act 2003 to mirror amendments made to corresponding Commonwealth legislation. similar amendments have been enacted in Victoria. The Commonwealth amending Act, the Victorian amending Act and this Bill are in line with recommendations made in December 2005 by the Legislation Review Committee (also known as the Lockhart Committee).

In particular, this Bill:

(a) retains the existing prohibitions on (among other practices):

(i) human reproductive cloning, and
(ii) developing a human embryo outside the body of a woman for more than 14 days,
(iii) collecting a viable human embryo from the body of a woman, and
(iv) creating or developing a human embryo by fertilisation of a human egg by a human sperm outside the body of a woman for any purpose other than the assisted reproductive technology treatment of a particular woman, and
(v) placing in the body of a woman any embryo other than a human embryo created by the fertilisation of a human egg by a human sperm, and
(vi) commercial trading in human eggs, human sperm or human embryos, and—

then it gets to the subject of the bill—

(b) enables somatic cell nuclear transfer (also known as therapeutic cloning) and other practices involving the creation of human embryos other than by the fertilisation of human eggs by human sperm, but only under licence for research purposes and not for reproductive purposes.

The bill makes a number of amendments to another Act. The bill is to take effect on 12 June 2007, next week, to coincide with the date on which the Commonwealth amending Act commences.
 
I point out that this is a very complex bill and one has only to go through it to realise that it pushes the boundaries not only for people who have faith but also of research, parliamentary drafting, for any lawyer trying to read it and of commonsense.
 
I object to the name of the bill. Members introducing this type of legislation should have the courage of their convictions and name their bill appropriately: this bill should be named either "therapeutic cloning or "somatic cell nuclear transfer". No-one can hide from the decision they will make tomorrow when they vote on the bill. I believe the name of the bill attempts to hide its subject, and that is unfortunate. That process is seen more and more in every Parliament; it is an attempt by whoever introduces a bill to sneak it through. It is about time that we had some truth in legislating. Obviously the name of this bill should have included the words "therapeutic cloning". Yesterday my colleague the Member for Pittwater made that point. I congratulate him on that. He is a new member of Parliament and I hope he continues to push that view and make sure that commonsense is applied to the name of future bills. Members of the public looking through Hansard would have no hope of easily finding this bill.
 
Another point I make is that the bill is subject to review in a few years time. That review is likely to coincide with review of the Commonwealth Act. A report on the outcome of the review is to be tabled in each House of Parliament within 12 months after the end of the period of three years. Clearly, that is very worthwhile.

In considering my comments on this bill, I read through what had been said, what submissions had been made to the Senate standing committee and what relevant articles were available, as would every other member of Parliament. I was struck by a couple of articles, including one on 25 October 2006 by Sir Gustav Nossal, which summed up this issue more elegantly than any of us could. Referring to embryonic stem cell research he wrote:

"THE Federal Parliament will shortly debate the recommendations of the Lockhart Review. .... Such a procedure could overcome one of the biggest hurdles, namely immune rejection of the ES cell transplant."

Referring to adult stem cells he wrote:

"I am all for research on adult stem cells. These are already in use in bone marrow transplantation, and doubtless will be useful in other cases. But only time will tell which disease indications is best dealt with by them, and which by the ES cells. The two lines of research should progress together. .... A week ago, James Sherley wrote in these pages of "false hope in embryo research". He argued that ES cells could not do much and that new cures from this area constituted a myth. I cannot foretell which diseases will be cured, much less when, but it is deeply mischievous to close the door on a field that has shown so much progress in so short a time. AUSTRALIA'S stem-cell scientists have repeatedly voiced opposition to reproductive cloning and their strong support of a stringent regulatory and licensing framework to enforce ethical behaviour."

I believe Sir Gustav sums up the argument fairly well.
 
Currently a lot of material is available on this topic. Another submission to the Senate standing committee was by Dr Paul Brock. It caught my eye for a number of reasons, one of which related to the decision I made a year ago. Dr Brock suffers from motor neurone disease. His submission stated:

"I have Motor Neurone Disease—an incurable, inevitably fatal condition. Dr Dominic Rowe, distinguished Australian neurologist, clinician and chair of the Motor Neurone Disease Research Institute of Australia, declared in 2004 that: "If you were to design the worst possible disease that you could imagine, it would be Motor Neurone disease. It's a disease that slowly robs you of mobility and function but keeps your other senses, sensation and intellect intact.

MND progressively paralyses one's arms, legs, swallowing and speaking muscles and eventually, if you live that long, you end up with a mind and consciousness inside a body capable only of eye-blinking—before the breathing muscles give way, and you die."

He continues:

"But let me conclude on a more emotional level. Never - and I repeat, never - has anybody in the scientific research world ever come up with an answer to the question "what is the cause of Motor Neurone Disease?" So, for a minute or two could I ask you to imagine looking fairly and squarely into the eyes of my 90 year old mother. My 43 year old wife. Our two daughters, Sophie (15) and Millie (11). And if you would not mind, imagine looking into the eyes of the author of the submission who 10 years ago had nothing wrong with him except a slightly weak forearm but who now is completely paralysed - except for two fingers, some neck muscles, and those muscles enabling him still to speak and swallow. Can you really imagine telling us that for you to support a Bill such as this would be wrong."

Yes, I would have difficulty doing that. A year ago the Shadow Minister for Health and I discussed the need for more resources to go into medical research and preventative medicine and we put huge resources into acute care. But, as with everything else, it is time for us to refocus and ensure that we balance that with resources provided for the front end of research.

A year ago a woman I knew for a short time, Helen Hall, died of motor neurone disease. My wife had been working with Helen in palliative care and I met Helen, I think, in late 2005. I met her because she was in St Vincent's Hospice and some bureaucratic rule meant that she was about to be evicted from the hospice because she was not dying quickly enough. We managed to stop that and Helen stayed in the hospice where she died mid last year. When you look at somebody who is dealing with a disease such as motor neurone disease with such courage and dignity, you cannot help but think, "What else can I do?" Here is something we can do. Helen was exactly what Dr Paul Brock was talking about: a bright spirit in a collapsing body.At the time the Shadow Minister for Health and I were looking at policy development and moving resources into research. This issue has been discussed for at least a year since then and I had pretty well made up my mind, subject to seeing the bill.

Since then we have had I do not know how many emails, letters, telephone calls and public pronouncements from people giving their points of view, and usually very strong views. I say to all those people outside Parliament: thank you for all those messages; thank you for having such a strong point of view, whether you were for or against. To the members of Parliament who are struggling with the complexity and the detail of this bill, I say good luck to you, because I find it very difficult.

Dr Andrew Ford of the Anglican Church Diocese states in his letter:

"The major impetus for these changes to the existing legislation comes from a good desire for cures to many serious diseases. This desire has been ignited into hope, with the declaration of many proponents that embryonic stem cells will provide these cures."

I am not sure the word "will" is correct in that statement; I believe it should be "may". Dr Ford is correct in saying that this desire has been ignited into hope—that is true, and there is nothing wrong with that. For that reason I believe many people will vote for this bill, but there is no guarantee that it will produce cures—it may produce cures.
 
The letter goes on to say: "We realise that as member of our state Parliament you are often asked to make significant decisions, like this one, for the good of NSW and its people." That is true, but very few of the decisions we are asked to make are as difficult as this. In addition to thanking all the people who have sent us letters, emails, et cetera, I also thank our community leaders and religious leaders who are expressing their views on what we should do with this bill. But I say again, as I think one or two other members have said, nobody has a monopoly on morality. It is as simple as that. This is not about religion. In relation to the apparent current debate between some religious leaders and some members of Parliament, I suggest both sides step away because inflammatory rhetoric is not going to help anybody.

One only has to read the bill to understand that this issue is complex and is not an elegant way forward in research. It is pushing boundaries in relation to religion and ethics and it is pushing boundaries in relation to commonsense because we are talking about life-and-death decisions and how far that commonsense can be pushed. As a number of members have noted, there are some arbitrary boundaries in this bill. What is going to happen in a few years? Are those arbitrary boundaries going to be pushed a little more? I have no doubt the pressure is going to be on then. I believe we should all try to use our intellect and creativity to reduce suffering and work our way through this bill.

One point I have made in this House many times is that members are never going to meet all their constituents. We can all try to present ourselves at as many shopping centre stalls and meet-and-greets as we like, but we will never meet 80 per cent to 90 per cent of our constituents. Our constituents vote us into this place and hope we make the right decisions.  

[ Extension of time agreed to.]

In this House 93 people will make 93 decisions for a whole range of reasons and in the end the result will suit the community. I say to people in the community that if they have difficulties with this bill - for or against - I suggest they read it, because it is not easy.
 
As I said, my view on this issue has developed over some time. In relation to the religious side of this issue, yes, I am a Christian, and I have no difficulty supporting this bill and maintaining my faith. As I indicated before, I believe community support is definitely in favour of the research that we are talking about, but some of that support may be shifted away if people read the bill. But I have no doubt that this bill is the vehicle by which we can pursue this research and I think the Parliament should very carefully review the legislation when it comes up for review in three years. Regrettably, there is a provision in the bill that says the review is to be done within three years and then tabled within 12 months. That is too long. The review should be carried out publicly and with considerable transparency, and it should be tabled as quickly as possible because, as I said, the drafting of this bill has been incredibly difficult and I am sure there will be a few things that will need to be changed.
 
With those comments, I support the bill.