Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 04 Hansard (Thursday, 1 April 2004) . . Page.. 1585 ..

amendment is probably going to be defeated. I have considerable sympathy for what she is trying to achieve. Accordingly, I will be voting in favour of Ms Tucker’s amendment and against the Human Embryo (Research) Bill 2004.

MRS BURKE (9.32): I too am happy to support Ms Tucker’s amendment to the Human Embryo (Research) Bill 2004. This bill takes us all into new and, to a very large extent, uncharted waters. I do not know of anyone in here who is a competent scientist, other than perhaps our learned friend sitting in the gallery, Dr Dugdale. There have been major scientific advances in biotechnology—advances which have changed the world’s attitudes towards how far science can and should go and what is scientifically possible. I have been reading through much of the material on the internet, which is freely available to us all—in particular, a paper written by Sonia Magri from the Faculty of Law of the University of Melbourne. Under the heading “Conclusion” she says, in part:

Around the world, and at home, research continues. Over the past year we have seen reports in the news of the possibility of turning adult cells back into pluripotent cells – which support one argument that in the future, at least in relation to stem cell research, human embryos will not be needed …

Statements like that concern me greatly. As somebody said earlier, what Ms Tucker is proposing is certainly going to put the brakes on for us in the ACT. The pointy end of the stick, which is why we are here tonight, is about what is going to happen in the ACT. We all know and acknowledge that science and technology continue to advance. Such advances often move faster than perhaps the legal world can keep pace with. This brings another dilemma, which Mr Smyth has alluded to—that is, whatever we set in train today in 2004, we are not necessarily going to be in this place to see the legacy we are leaving for legislators in the future.

This debate reaches to the very heart of where life begins. I cannot move away, like Mr Smyth, from the fact that life begins at conception. The ethics of this matter surely points to keeping away from it for that very reason—that society cannot be 100 per cent sure that life does not begin at conception. When somebody tells me that it does not, then I will move away, like Mr Smyth, but I am totally and utterly convinced that it does. For that reason, I again applaud Ms Tucker for moving her amendment tonight and for the sensitive way she has done it.

As I and others have said, there seems to be more and more evidence that using stem cells from embryos is not as positive as it was once thought. I will refer later to comments made by Dr Amin Abboud. Moreover, more and more evidence suggests—I think Mr Corbell alluded to this—that this area is advancing at a very fast pace. We are wanting to lock something into the legislation, but I do not think many of us are totally sure of what we are locking in. As far as I am concerned, there are currently no medical cures using stem cells from human embryos. There have been great advances—advances which can be used to cure some conditions. There is not enough evidence at this stage to suggest that embryonic stem cells are the way to go, which is why we should particularly be doing further research. On the other hand, adult stem cells are possibly providing cures for many human illnesses. I have no problem with the use of stem cells from adults for medical research, no problem with the use of umbilical stem cells and no problem with the extraction of stem cells from adults for medical research as they do not die afterwards.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .