Page 998 - Week 03 - Thursday, 3 April 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
laboratories—and we were talking about laboratories around the world—working in embryonic stem cell research have shown that pluripotent four-stem IPS cells can be induced from adult mice and human cells. These findings were verified in late 2007.
These IPS cells have been shown to have all the properties previously attributed to embryonic stem cells and thus provide means for preparing individually tailored pluripotent cells without the ethical problems involved in therapeutic cloning. To this must be added the fact that IPS cells can readily be prepared, whereas human therapeutic cloning is an inefficient and costly process that has only been reported once, in the peer review literature of 2008, and is likely to require unacceptably large numbers of egg donations by women, with all the attendant risks of that procedure.
I support what Mr Smyth is trying to do here. But one thing has struck me in all of this debate. It is interesting that the government seem to be the only ones allowed in this place to change their minds or act on new information and be able to think outside the square and be ready and able to act. They seem to be the ones that can do it. We on this side of the house are not allowed to, somehow. I think it is very sad that the minister would say this is a delaying tactic. That is nonsense. Surely it is better to get this right.
Ms Gallagher: We are never going to agree on that.
MRS BURKE: It is not a matter of agreeing, minister. I hear you say that, and I respect your views. Respect, therefore, what we on this side of the house are trying to propose now. You say we have had a briefing. I agree with that. But it does not mean to say that things cannot change.
This debate today has been difficult for all of us, including the government members who have stood up, including Ms MacDonald’s very touching and moving account and Mr Hargreaves’s. It is difficult for us. But I think it is equally difficult if we allow this to go ahead, without a reprise, to really take stock of what we are doing in this place.
As Mr Hargreaves said, we have a responsibility. We have a responsibility to the people of Canberra. Why the great, hectic rush to push this through anyway? We are here as a legislature to debate and deliberate on matters. This is serious. It is a serious issue. I agree with the amendment put forward by Mr Smyth that the debate be adjourned and that the minister refer the Human Cloning and Embryonic Research Amendment Bill 2007 to the commonwealth minister for health with the request that the scientific techniques proposed in the bill still represent the best practice in science. What is wrong with that?
Why is this rush so necessary today, to close the debate and let us do that, tick it off the list, because it was on the program? I find that quite heartless. I find that ruthless. I find that uncaring. I think that is the least we can do for all those people that have stood up in this place to say stem cells will assist, when we know that there are good and better alternatives, when we know that science is advancing at rates faster than we can keep up with; yet we decide—of the 17 of us in this place, 10 people, with one of the crossbench members, for it—that we are going to be judge, jury and executioner, and that is it; no more debate.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .